[Bug 1121924] Review Request: perl-Term-ANSIColor - Color screen output using ANSI escape sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121924 David Dick dd...@cpan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1123583 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123583 [Bug 1123583] Review Request: perl-Data-Printer - Pretty printer for Perl data structures -- 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 1123583] Review Request: perl-Data-Printer - Pretty printer for Perl data structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123583 David Dick dd...@cpan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1121924 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121924 [Bug 1121924] Review Request: perl-Term-ANSIColor - Color screen output using ANSI escape sequences -- 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 1123268] Review Request: perl-Database-DumpTruck - Relaxing interface to SQLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123268 --- Comment #8 from David Dick dd...@cpan.org --- (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #6) Petr, Do we still have any updated guidelines for having all the BuildRequires specified in perl module specs? I see some of you are recommending to have all such buildtime requirement added to the spec file. As I see its still not in the Perl packaging guidelines, there should not be any issue to approve such packages. Hi Parag, FWIW, at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl?rd=Packaging/Perl#Perl_Requires_and_Provides the following quotation can be obtained; quote It is recommended to buildrequire core modules explicitly, because they can move between sub-packages or disappear from core perl. /quote From looking at the history page, it looks like this page hasn't been modified since 2010. -- 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 1123268] Review Request: perl-Database-DumpTruck - Relaxing interface to SQLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123268 --- Comment #9 from David Dick dd...@cpan.org --- So according to the guidelines i should have approved the review, given that the wording is recommended not mandatory. -- 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
František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||val...@civ.zcu.cz
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|val...@civ.zcu.cz
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz ---
Taking the review...
1) License: the license is rather LGPLv2; but there is one (only) GPL-ed file -
/usr/share/codec2/scripts/menu.sh
Maybe it is not needed to instal it, or alternativelly you can use GPLv2
license for the -example subpackage? In eihter way, you can ask upstream about
licensing: they are intended to use LPGL for codec2 project and maybe they
would rather relicense the menu.sh file under the same licesne?
2) Comment in the source section:
* It seems SourceForge changed repository URLs, in this case to
https://svn.code.sf.net/p/freetel/code/
* Is the step of taking the codec2-dev proper? There are some differences
from the tarball in .src.rpm and codec2-dev (missing codec2/voicing, addidional
dependency on speex, no pre-built binaries in win32)
3) Pre-built binaries in win32 should be removed in %prep
[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries]
4) The checkout information in release version should have the form of
YYYDDMMsvnREV
[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages]
For example (release field): 1.20140616svn1657
5) pkgconfig is not needed in Requires, it is generated automatically in both
Fedora and EPEL 6 (as /usr/bin/pkg-config)
6) Is the build inside build_linux needed? (I guess you use it because it is
mentioned in READMEs?)
There is no formal or technical problem with that, only the build steps could
be slightly simpler without it. :-)
7) It is recommended to track major version of the libraries in %files, like:
%{_libdir}/libcodec2.so.0
%{_libdir}/libcodec2.so.0.*
8) ChangeLog, NEW, AUTHORS are empty files, they're not needed to install
9) README.cmake is only about build instrutions and it is not needed
10) codec2-examples should have dependency on %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}, not the -devel. Was there any reason for that?
11) rpmlint: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/codec2/script/*.sh
12) rpmlint: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 20, tab: line 7)
13) Description should end with dot. :-)
Enhancements:
14) Is possible to use something in %check?
There is a testsuite, but if I understand corretly, it is not intended for
automatic testing. (it is more for codec developers?) It could be commented in
the .spec file that the testsuite exists, but it can't be used.
And maybe it could be used something like this instead?:
src/c2enc 3200 raw/mmt1.raw test.c2
src/c2dec 3200 test.c2 test.raw
test -s test.c2 -a -s test.raw
It is not real codec testing, it will just check it doesn't crash (on the all
platforms).
15) man-pages: there is recommended (but not required) man-page for each binary
in /usr/bin [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Man_pages]
--
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 1123583] Review Request: perl-Data-Printer - Pretty printer for Perl data structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123583 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||i...@cicku.me Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i...@cicku.me -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Thaaanxx! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libpsl Short Description: C library for the Publix Suffix List Upstream URL: https://rockdaboot.github.io/libpsl Owners: cicku Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: wget-ow...@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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1123616 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123616 [Bug 1123616] Build wget with libpsl -- 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 1087855] Review Request: scite - SCIntilla based GTK2 text editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087855 --- Comment #16 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Updated; Swap with bug 1122332. -- 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 994474] Review Request: python-qrencode - Python wrapper for the qrencode library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994474 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mh+fed...@scrit.ch Flags||needinfo?(mh+fedora@scrit.c ||h) --- Comment #27 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Hi, Have you found a sponsor yet? Are you willing to work on this still? -- 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 1003996] Review Request: praat - Phonetics program for analyse, synthesize and manipulate speeches
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003996 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CANTFIX Last Closed||2014-07-27 06:25:06 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Hi all, After thoroughly checking of the code, I think this package should go to RPMFusion(libmad). I will submit this to there later. Do you have accounts there? If so I will notify you. To be honest, this package needs ceaseless updates... -- 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 1121580] Review Request: miniupnpd - UPnP IGD(Internet Gateway Device) daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121580 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- (In reply to Robin Lee from comment #1) URLs response 404 If you want to review something, find something valid. -- 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 1122332] Review Request: ntch - 2ch terminal browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122332 Johan Swensson k...@kupo.se changed: What|Removed |Added CC||k...@kupo.se Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|k...@kupo.se 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 1122332] Review Request: ntch - 2ch terminal browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122332
--- Comment #1 from Johan Swensson k...@kupo.se ---
Some initial comments, package does not build on all archs in rawhide[0] and
%{?_smp_mflags} macro is not used.
[0]: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7200287
--
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
Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to František Dvořák from comment #2)
1) License: the license is rather LGPLv2; but there is one (only) GPL-ed
file - /usr/share/codec2/scripts/menu.sh
That file isn't required so it could be removed.
Maybe it is not needed to instal it, or alternativelly you can use GPLv2
license for the -example subpackage? In eihter way, you can ask upstream
about licensing: they are intended to use LPGL for codec2 project and maybe
they would rather relicense the menu.sh file under the same licesne?
I'll ask but I may just change it. While I am not specifically a programmer, I
am a contributor and have commit access to upstream as I wrote and now maintain
their cmake build system.
2) Comment in the source section:
* It seems SourceForge changed repository URLs, in this case to
https://svn.code.sf.net/p/freetel/code/
Yes, forgot that happened after I submitted the package.
* Is the step of taking the codec2-dev proper? There are some differences
from the tarball in .src.rpm and codec2-dev (missing codec2/voicing,
addidional dependency on speex, no pre-built binaries in win32)
The orginal codec2 branch was stagnant and codec2-dev was the working branch.
It's a very small upstream team and not terribly disciplined :) I have since
moved a known good copy of codec2 while codec2-dev continues to be developed. I
just need to update the spec file.
3) Pre-built binaries in win32 should be removed in %prep
[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-
built_binaries_or_libraries]
Will do.
4) The checkout information in release version should have the form of
YYYDDMMsvnREV
[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages]
For example (release field): 1.20140616svn1657
The is more or less 0.3 official (as it gets) we don't yet do formal release
archives. The irony of the guidelines is that svn1657 tells you exactly what
svn revision it is, but it's not required, but the date of the checkout is
required. I disagree with the guidelines here but the rules are the rules so
I'll fix it.
5) pkgconfig is not needed in Requires, it is generated automatically in
both Fedora and EPEL 6 (as /usr/bin/pkg-config)
Ahh. Didn't know that.
6) Is the build inside build_linux needed? (I guess you use it because it is
mentioned in READMEs?)
Both cmake and I prefer out of source builds. It's in the readme because I
wrote it. :)
7) It is recommended to track major version of the libraries in %files, like:
%{_libdir}/libcodec2.so.0
%{_libdir}/libcodec2.so.0.*
I can change it if you feel strongly about it but I actually manage the
soversion so I'm not too worried.
8) ChangeLog, NEW, AUTHORS are empty files, they're not needed to install
I usually include them even if they are empty because they may not always be
empty and who actually checks for that during the update process?
9) README.cmake is only about build instrutions and it is not needed
I should have caught that since I wrote it :)
10) codec2-examples should have dependency on %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}, not the -devel. Was there any reason for that?
Maybe I should rename the package to codec2-devel-examples? It's not needed for
the main package at all.
11) rpmlint: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/codec2/script/*.sh
I'll fix these in svn rather than work around it in the package.
12) rpmlint: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 20, tab: line 7)
How did that sneak in there? I always use rpmdev-newspec to generate specfile
templates...
13) Description should end with dot. :-)
Will fix.
Enhancements:
14) Is possible to use something in %check?
There is a testsuite, but if I understand corretly, it is not intended for
automatic testing. (it is more for codec developers?) It could be commented
in the .spec file that the testsuite exists, but it can't be used.
It's not designed to be automated yet. My plan is to add automatic testing via
ctest but the current developer is more interested in codec2-dev than codec2 so
I'm not sure if it will happen anytime soon.
In fact, I'm moving the binaries to the devel package as they are not terribly
useful except for development (and testing) purposes.
15) man-pages: there is recommended (but not required) man-page for each
binary in /usr/bin
I would like them to have one as well but I doubt I can get upstream to write
them.
I'll try to get a new SRPM and SPEC posted today if I have time.
--
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
[Bug 1122332] Review Request: ntch - 2ch terminal browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122332 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- I just read the ARM log, it contains nothing useful. I will dig into it later. 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 693137] Review Request: python-ffc - A compiler for finite element variational forms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693137 --- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- My initial thpought was to bring the whole FENiCS into Fedora Sci. I will see what I can do in a few days. And, I need to talk with the submitter first in fact... Thanks! -- 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 1110386] Review Request: codec2 - Next-Generation Digital Voice for Two-Way Radio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110386
--- Comment #4 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #3)
Maybe it is not needed to instal it, or alternativelly you can use GPLv2
license for the -example subpackage? In eihter way, you can ask upstream
about licensing: they are intended to use LPGL for codec2 project and maybe
they would rather relicense the menu.sh file under the same licesne?
I'll ask but I may just change it. While I am not specifically a programmer,
I am a contributor and have commit access to upstream as I wrote and now
maintain their cmake build system.
OK. Maybe there can be needed the original author to confirm? But it is only a
small script anyway contribued to LGPL project...
For example (release field): 1.20140616svn1657
The is more or less 0.3 official (as it gets) we don't yet do formal release
archives. The irony of the guidelines is that svn1657 tells you exactly what
svn revision it is, but it's not required, but the date of the checkout is
required. I disagree with the guidelines here but the rules are the rules so
I'll fix it.
OK, thanks.
6) Is the build inside build_linux needed? (I guess you use it because it is
mentioned in READMEs?)
Both cmake and I prefer out of source builds. It's in the readme because I
wrote it. :)
OK, I understand. :-) Plus cmake is not able to do distclean, right?
7) It is recommended to track major version of the libraries in %files,
like:
%{_libdir}/libcodec2.so.0
%{_libdir}/libcodec2.so.0.*
I can change it if you feel strongly about it but I actually manage the
soversion so I'm not too worried.
OK. You know about it already, it's up to you what to prefer. :-)
8) ChangeLog, NEW, AUTHORS are empty files, they're not needed to install
I usually include them even if they are empty because they may not always be
empty and who actually checks for that during the update process?
Rpmlint cries loudly about it. But if you have it in other packages too, I'm
not for breaking uniformity.
9) README.cmake is only about build instrutions and it is not needed
I should have caught that since I wrote it :)
:-)
10) codec2-examples should have dependency on %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}, not the -devel. Was there any reason for that?
Maybe I should rename the package to codec2-devel-examples? It's not needed
for the main package at all.
It's not needed IMHO. I think users will understand codec2-examples is not
needed for functionality of the codec.
It is only the Require, I think there should be %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} instead of %{name}-devel = %{version}-%{release}...
Enhancements:
14) Is possible to use something in %check?
There is a testsuite, but if I understand corretly, it is not intended for
automatic testing. (it is more for codec developers?) It could be commented
in the .spec file that the testsuite exists, but it can't be used.
It's not designed to be automated yet. My plan is to add automatic testing
via ctest but the current developer is more interested in codec2-dev than
codec2 so I'm not sure if it will happen anytime soon.
In fact, I'm moving the binaries to the devel package as they are not
terribly useful except for development (and testing) purposes.
Maybe examples could be better place? codec2-devel subpackage could be for
developers using the codec2, or BR for other packages.
15) man-pages: there is recommended (but not required) man-page for each
binary in /usr/bin
I would like them to have one as well but I doubt I can get upstream to
write them.
That's not so strong excuse since you're upstream co-maintainer. ;-) But it's
OK. :-)
I'll try to get a new SRPM and SPEC posted today if I have time.
--
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 1123645] New: Review Request: mingw-libgee - GObject collection library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123645 Bug ID: 1123645 Summary: Review Request: mingw-libgee - GObject collection library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: marcandre.lur...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/mingw-libgee.spec SRPM URL: http://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/mingw-libgee-0.15.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: GObject collection library Fedora Account System Username: elmarco -- 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 1123645] Review Request: mingw-libgee - GObject collection library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123645 Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lur...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||mingw-libgee -- 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 #5 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to František Dvořák from comment #4)
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #3)
Maybe it is not needed to instal it, or alternativelly you can use GPLv2
license for the -example subpackage? In eihter way, you can ask upstream
about licensing: they are intended to use LPGL for codec2 project and
maybe
they would rather relicense the menu.sh file under the same licesne?
I'll ask but I may just change it. While I am not specifically a programmer,
I am a contributor and have commit access to upstream as I wrote and now
maintain their cmake build system.
OK. Maybe there can be needed the original author to confirm? But it is only
a small script anyway contribued to LGPL project...
I can change the license of the subpackage, might be the path of least
resistance for now.
6) Is the build inside build_linux needed? (I guess you use it because it
is
mentioned in READMEs?)
Both cmake and I prefer out of source builds. It's in the readme because I
wrote it. :)
OK, I understand. :-) Plus cmake is not able to do distclean, right?
It can handle in source builds but it's not preferred. Also, if a package has
both autotool and cmake then when cmake is executed it will overwrite some
makefiles, doing an out of source build solves this issue.
10) codec2-examples should have dependency on %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}, not the -devel. Was there any reason for that?
Maybe I should rename the package to codec2-devel-examples? It's not needed
for the main package at all.
It's not needed IMHO. I think users will understand codec2-examples is not
needed for functionality of the codec.
It is only the Require, I think there should be %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} instead of %{name}-devel = %{version}-%{release}...
The examples also include files useful to the binaries I moved into -devel.
This way if you install the example package, it pulls in the -devel package,
which pulls in the library. I don't think the example package without the
-devel package would be very useful.
Enhancements:
14) Is possible to use something in %check?
There is a testsuite, but if I understand corretly, it is not intended for
automatic testing. (it is more for codec developers?) It could be
commented
in the .spec file that the testsuite exists, but it can't be used.
It's not designed to be automated yet. My plan is to add automatic testing
via ctest but the current developer is more interested in codec2-dev than
codec2 so I'm not sure if it will happen anytime soon.
In fact, I'm moving the binaries to the devel package as they are not
terribly useful except for development (and testing) purposes.
Maybe examples could be better place? codec2-devel subpackage could be for
developers using the codec2, or BR for other packages.
I renamed the example package to codec2-devel-examples, I think this best
conveys it's use.
SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/codec2.spec
SRPM:
https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/codec2-0.3-2.20140727svn1771.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 951496] Review Request: gimp-lensfun - gimp plugin to correct lens distortion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951496 Bug 951496 depends on bug 1048570, which changed state. Bug 1048570 Summary: lensfun-0.2.8 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048570 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- 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 1088645] Review Request: thc-ipv6 - An toolkit for attacking the IPv6 protocol suite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088645 Athmane Madjoudj athma...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Athmane Madjoudj athma...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: thc-ipv6 Short Description: An toolkit for attacking the IPv6 protocol suite Upstream URL: https://www.thc.org/thc-ipv6/ Owners: athmane Branches: f20 f21 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 1121580] Review Request: miniupnpd - UPnP IGD(Internet Gateway Device) daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121580 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||rc040...@freenet.de Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENT_DATA Last Closed||2014-07-27 12:14:31 --- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2) (In reply to Robin Lee from comment #1) URLs response 404 If you want to review something, find something valid. Your site is inaccessible, and you are joking about it - What shall we think about this? Closing - Feel free to reopen this BZ or to re-submit this package, when your site is up again. -- 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 1086406] Review Request: python-nose-testconfig - Test configuration plugin for nosetests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086406 --- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Hi David. There is not any License file packaged. -- 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 1076976] Review Request: rubygem-settingslogic - Simple settings solution for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076976
--- Comment #3 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz ---
Spec URL:
http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-settingslogic-2.0.9-2b/rubygem-settingslogic.spec
SRPM URL:
http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-settingslogic-2.0.9-2b/rubygem-settingslogic-2.0.9-2.fc22.src.rpm
koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7200456
* Sun Jul 27 2014 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz - 2.0.9-2
- Update BR/R for EPEL and Fedora = 20
- Remove development files before build
- Run tests inside %%{gem_instdir}
--
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 1123511] Review Request: nanomsg - A fast, scalable, and easy to use socket library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123511 --- Comment #3 from Japheth Cleaver cleaver-red...@terabithia.org --- Thanks for the comments. Some responses: - I'd like to keep the EL builds a possibility, definitely. - config line updated to use that macro pattern, thanks - turns out the --enable-debug did more than simply not strip the binaries. I've removed that and bypassed stripping another way. I believe the options should be correct now. - doc files updated The pkgconfig Version is coming from the ABI version in https://github.com/nanomsg/nanomsg/blob/master/src/nn.h, ultimately. As for the SONAME itself, that's... interesting. I'm not sure on the history there. I'll look into it further. I've updated the versions at: http://terabithia.org/rpms/misc/f20/nanomsg-0.4-0.3.beta.fc20.src.rpm http://terabithia.org/rpms/misc/f20/nanomsg.spec Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7200652 -- 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 1123654] New: Review Request: smemstat - shared memory usage monitoring tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123654 Bug ID: 1123654 Summary: Review Request: smemstat - shared memory usage monitoring tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: e...@mayorgalinux.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/smemstat.spec SRPM URL: https://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/smemstat-0.01.03-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Smemstat reports the physical memory usage taking into consideration shared memory. The tool can either report a current snapshot of memory usage or periodically dump out any changes in memory. Fedora Account System Username: mayorga -- 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 1121085] Review Request: rubygem-pundit - Object oriented authorization for Rails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121085 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||val...@civ.zcu.cz Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|val...@civ.zcu.cz Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- Hello, I'm still a newbie in ruby packaging, but I'll try the review... I've noticed the development files (Rakefile, Gemfile, ...) are in -doc subpackage. I guess this is up to packager, what to do with the files? Or is there any recommendation? Alternative ways are: - %exclude them - remove and patched them out in %prep I guess nothing needs to be changed here. (In my package #1076976 I used the patching.) Issues/notices: 1) the spec file is different from .src.rpm 2) W: macro-in-comment %check (line 58) -- But it is already fixed in the separate .spec file. 3) extra spaces at end of lines 13 and 25 :-) 4) * E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/gems/gems/pundit-0.2.3/lib/generators/pundit/policy/templates/policy.rb I guess this file should not be executable? Could you review swap for #1076976 rubygem-settingslogic? -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #6 from Dave Love d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #1) If your potential sponsor won't be available for awhile, I can fill in. Could you do that? 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127
--- Comment #7 from Dave Love d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #5)
I notice that the RPM tries to use the user dlove.
It would be similar with your own src.rpm packages, because it's entirely
normal for the included files to be owned by the user that builds the
src.rpm, e.g. mockbuild or your ordinary user account.
Yes, and presumably the version that's eventually distributed will be
different anyhow. The tarball will have arbitrary file ownerships too.
%doc
An empty %doc line makes no sense, since it's a no-op.
Thanks. It wasn't meant to be empty.
%{_mandir}/man1/procenv.1.gz
Not a big issue, but prefer
%{_mandir}/man1/procenv.1*
to allow for disabled/changed/customized compression of manual pages.
Yes, that's what I do these days. Now I've got space there, I've uploaded new
versions to:
https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/procenv-0.35-3.el6.src.rpm
https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/procenv.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 1113328] Review Request: python-ioflo - Flow Based Programming Automated Reasoning Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328 Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sergio.pa...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1113328] Review Request: python-ioflo - Flow Based Programming Automated Reasoning Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328 Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Docs Contact|sergio.pa...@gmail.com | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1113328] Review Request: python-ioflo - Flow Based Programming Automated Reasoning Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328 --- Comment #5 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com --- There is a problem with the ioflo script in /usr/bin. Both python3-ioflo and python-ioflo install ioflo in /usr/bin, but is the python2 version what appears in both packages. That means that python3-ioflo installs python2, what is wrong. More about this problem here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python?rd=Packaging/Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin Apart from this, * there is a typo in the Summary, programing should be programming * the files ioflo/app/test/example.py and ioflo/app/test/testStart.py have a /usr/bin/env in the first line. This is generally useless in library code. I usually remove it with sed -i -e '1d' $file in %pre, and then file a bug upstream * the tarball in pypi has a lot less files than in the github repository. License and docs are there but not in the tarball. This is probably a problem of packaging, files are missing in MANIFEST.in. I suggest you fill a bug about this, so that the future tarballs of ioflo come with its license -- 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 1107800] Review Request: dl_poly - General purpose classical molecular dynamics (MD) simulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107800
--- Comment #3 from Dave Love d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk ---
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #2)
The spec in the url is different from the src.rpm. Please sync up.
Sorry, I'd forgotten to update this after I got fedorapeople space.
I've put new versions at
https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dl_poly-1.9.20140324-2.el6.src.rpm
https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dl_poly.spec
Take a look at the java guidelines, you're missing some stuff there
(requries jpackage-utils,
I studied them, but I thought that got added automatically; clearly it
doesn't, at least in RH6. I've added it.
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB)
or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 3143680 bytes in 7 files.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
I thought the pdfs were a lot smaller than that -- I wonder why. Anyway,
I added a doc package (common to the gui and other packages).
- drop %defattr()
- Are you targeting EL5?
Yes. (That's what most of our users are still running it on.)
If not, you can also drop %clean and the rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install
- I would consistently use the %{} form of macros for file paths.
I've changed them, but it's more painful to type, and doesn't seem to be
required by any guidelines I can see. Do you need to do the same with
shell variables?
--
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 1123680] New: Review Request: python-keystonemiddleware - Middleware for OpenStack Identity
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123680 Bug ID: 1123680 Summary: Review Request: python-keystonemiddleware - Middleware for OpenStack Identity Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ape...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://apevec.fedorapeople.org/python-keystonemiddleware.spec SRPM URL: https://apevec.fedorapeople.org/python-keystonemiddleware-1.0.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: This package contains middleware modules designed to provide authentication and authorization features to web services other than OpenStack Keystone. The most prominent module is keystonemiddleware.auth_token. This package does not expose any CLI or Python API features. Fedora Account System Username: apevec -- 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 1116238] Review Request: openstack-tempest-icehouse - set of integration tests to be run against a live OpenStack cluster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116238 --- Comment #14 from Alan Pevec ape...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Steve Linabery from comment #13) New review request for openstack-tempest package using subpackage approach: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122996 Could've just reopen original bug 1103875 but nm now :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1103875] Review Request: openstack-tempest - set of integration tests to be run against a live OpenStack cluster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103875 Alan Pevec ape...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ape...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Alan Pevec ape...@redhat.com --- For posterity: new review request is bug 1122996 after detour in bug 1116238 -- 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 1123689] New: Review Request: yadifa - Lightweight authoritative Name Server with DNSSEC capabilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123689 Bug ID: 1123689 Summary: Review Request: yadifa - Lightweight authoritative Name Server with DNSSEC capabilities Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: de...@fateyev.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora20/testing/yadifa.spec SRPM URL: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora20/testing/SRPMS/yadifa-1.0.3-1.fc20.denf.src.rpm Description: YADIFA is a name server implementation developed from scratch by .eu. It is portable across multiple operating systems and supports DNSSEC, TSIG, DNS notify, DNS update, IPv6. Fedora Account System Username: dfateyev Koji scratch builds: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7201130 (Rawhide) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7201134 (EPEL 6) -- 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 1123689] Review Request: yadifa - Lightweight authoritative Name Server with DNSSEC capabilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123689
--- Comment #1 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com ---
Note: rpmlint reports an error E: missing-call-to-setgroups /usr/sbin/yadifad
caused by missing `initgroups` or `setgroups` call in function in
`sbin/yadifad/main.c` file:
static void
change_identity(config_data *config)
{
uid_t uid = getuid();
gid_t gid = getgid();
log_info(changing identity to %d:%d (current: %d:%d), config-uid,
config-gid, uid, gid);
if(gid != config-gid)
{
Setgid(config-gid);
}
if(uid != config-uid)
{
Setuid(config-uid);
}
}
I think it's not critical since the proper setuid() / setgid() calling order is
used here.
--
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 1123690] New: Review Request: httraqt - HTTrack Qt GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123690 Bug ID: 1123690 Summary: Review Request: httraqt - HTTrack Qt GUI Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i...@cicku.me QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/httraqt.spec SRPM URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/httraqt-1.4.4-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: HTTraQt is the clone from WinHTTrack, software for downloading of internet sites or/and content of their: multimedia files, documents, images, etc. Features: * Possible to easy switch the language of GUI, * Easy to add the language files without to change the program code. * Selection of browser little bit changed: possible to select browser and system of User Agent. * Extended the selectiing of file extensions under Rulez settings. Fedora Account System Username: cicku -- 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 1123690] Review Request: httraqt - HTTrack Qt GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123690 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||928937 (qt-reviews) Whiteboard||Ready Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928937 [Bug 928937] Qt-related package review tracker -- 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 1123689] Review Request: yadifa - Lightweight authoritative Name Server with DNSSEC capabilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123689 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||i...@cicku.me Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i...@cicku.me --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Swap with bug 1116552 if it hasn't been 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 1121580] Review Request: miniupnpd - UPnP IGD(Internet Gateway Device) daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121580 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|INSUFFICIENT_DATA |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Nope. My site is always up but this one needs a tweak. Anyway don't close it unless I'm nonresponsive. -- 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 1116552] Review Request: ustl - A size-optimized STL implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116552 Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com 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 1116552] Review Request: ustl - A size-optimized STL implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116552 Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1123654] Review Request: smemstat - shared memory usage monitoring tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123654 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i...@cicku.me --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- CFLAGS not set. LDFLAGS not set. Dude packaging C program is not as easy as packing python modules. And why don't you package the LATEST version? -- 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 1113328] Review Request: python-ioflo - Flow Based Programming Automated Reasoning Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328 --- Comment #6 from Erik Johnson e...@saltstack.com --- The link you posted is unclear. What is the resolution for this? -- 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] Review Request: python-shadowsocks - A fast tunnel proxy that help you get through firewalls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114187 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-shadowsocks-2.0.11-1 ||.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-07-27 23:25:42 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-shadowsocks-2.0.11-1.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 1116487] Review Request: perl-App-DuckDuckGo - Application to query DuckDuckGo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116487 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-App-DuckDuckGo-0.008-1 ||.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-07-27 23:26:38 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-App-DuckDuckGo-0.008-1.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 1119243] Review Request: perl-Test-LoadAllModules - Do use_ok for modules in search path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119243 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Test-LoadAllModules-0. ||022-1.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-07-27 23:26:47 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Test-LoadAllModules-0.022-1.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 1120791] Review Request: freesteam - Calculate the properties of water and steam
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120791 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- freesteam-2.1-3.20140724svn753.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 977646] Review Request: mylvmbackup - Utility for creating MySQL backups via LVM snapshots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977646 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|mylvmbackup-0.15-2.fc20 |mylvmbackup-0.15-2.fc19 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mylvmbackup-0.15-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1120447] Review Request: tiptop - Performance monitoring tool based on hardware counters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120447 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|tiptop-2.2-1.fc20 |tiptop-2.2-1.fc19 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- tiptop-2.2-1.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 1113328] Review Request: python-ioflo - Flow Based Programming Automated Reasoning Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328 --- Comment #7 from Erik Johnson e...@saltstack.com --- Also, those files with /usr/bin/env at the top are test scripts designed to be run from the command line, I believe. -- 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 1036755] Review Request: python-httpretty - HTTP client mock for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036755 Jamie Lennox jlen...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(dridi.boukelmoune ||@gmail.com) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036755] Review Request: python-httpretty - HTTP client mock for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036755 --- Comment #26 from Jamie Lennox jlen...@redhat.com --- I'm sorry that this bug has sat idle so long, particularly as it's starting to acquire blocks. I've decided to submit this for review without checks. There are simply too many problems i've found in the test cases upstream that cause transient failures. For the sake of a few: * A lot of interdependent state between tests, different test runners and versions can therefore fail. * Certain tests only work on the version upstream is pinning there testing to. * Time based tests that fail if the test started and finished over a second boundary. * Some further undiscovered interactions that would make tests fail about 1 in 4 I've tried putting some of this upstream in the past. For example I had fixes up to unpin all the requirements to get the latest dependencies testing and so it wasn't shipping version specific dependencies in PyPi. This was accepted after debate, only to have been quiety repinned later. Ideally i'd like for this to mean we don't package it at all, however there are now a number of dependencies and the library works in practice. SPEC: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jamielennox/python-httpretty.spec SRPM: https://people.fedoraproject.org/~jamielennox/python-httpretty-0.8.3-1.fc20.src.rpm Hopefully i've sufficiently justified my position and we can get this packaged. -- 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 1036755] Review Request: python-httpretty - HTTP client mock for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036755 Jamie Lennox jlen...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mhron...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(mhroncok@redhat.c ||om) -- 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 1121580] Review Request: miniupnpd - UPnP IGD(Internet Gateway Device) daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121580 --- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #4) Nope. My site is always up but this one needs a tweak. Then fix it ASAP, better RSN! ATM your site is still inaccessible (404) Anyway don't close it unless I'm nonresponsive. Well, to me you appear to be cheating. Should these files not be accessible within 24 hours, I'll close this bug as SPAM and consider to request banning you from 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 1079733] Review Request: perl-Catalyst-Plugin-Redirect - Redirect for Catalyst used easily is offered
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079733 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- Everything's OK, now. 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 1079745] Review Request: perl-Excel-Template - Create Excel files from templates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079745 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #11 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Sven Nierlein from comment #10) Test::More is only used for tests below t/. Would we still add Test::More as runtime requirement because the Makefile.PL says so? Probably no. This looks like an upstream bug to me. Any update on this 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 1121580] Review Request: miniupnpd - UPnP IGD(Internet Gateway Device) daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121580 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #5) (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #4) Nope. My site is always up but this one needs a tweak. Then fix it ASAP, better RSN! ATM your site is still inaccessible (404) It will be available today or tomorrow in my plan, actually. Because I don't want to post something in bugzilla and wait nearly a year to get a review, I put this in another cron job to let it only appear only someone would like to do a review swap. And I've found people on Saturday. I'm busy on Monday with dayjob. Anyway don't close it unless I'm nonresponsive. Well, to me you appear to be cheating. This is not cheating. If someone posted something uncompleted, that's exactly cheating. You should count in those using unstable network or on holiday. Should these files not be accessible within 24 hours, I'll close this bug as SPAM and consider to request banning you from Fedora. If you do that, I will do the same. I have no interests wasting time with you. I'm not a child. -- 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
