[Bug 865371] Review Request: scid - A collection of numerical routines using Blas/Lapack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865371 --- Comment #17 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich kr...@land.ru --- Fri Jul 18 13:38:29 UTC 2014? *Sigh* Anyway, right, waiting for respond. -- 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 1123771] Review Request: mingw-rest - library to access RESTful web services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123771 David King amigad...@amigadave.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||amigad...@amigadave.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|amigad...@amigadave.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 1123771] Review Request: mingw-rest - library to access RESTful web services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123771 David King amigad...@amigadave.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- Package Review == All fine, although it would be nice to: * use a download.gnome.org source URL * use a better URL: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/Librest * Use INSTALL=install -p during make install, to preserve timestamps on some files Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7 /rest-extras/flickr-proxy-call.h mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest-extras/flickr-proxy.h mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest-extras/lastfm- proxy-call.h mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest-extras/lastfm-proxy.h mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest-extras/youtube- proxy.h mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/oauth-proxy-call.h mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/oauth-proxy.h mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/oauth2-proxy-call.h mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/oauth2-proxy.h mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest /rest-enum-types.h mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/rest-param.h mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/rest-params.h mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest /rest-proxy-auth.h mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/rest-proxy-call.h mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/rest-proxy.h mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest /rest-xml-node.h mingw32-rest : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/rest-xml-parser.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest-extras/flickr- proxy-call.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest-extras/flickr-proxy.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest-extras/lastfm- proxy-call.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest-extras/lastfm-proxy.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest-extras/youtube- proxy.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/oauth-proxy-call.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/oauth-proxy.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/oauth2-proxy-call.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/oauth2-proxy.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest /rest-enum-types.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/rest-param.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/rest-params.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest /rest-proxy-auth.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/rest-proxy-call.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/rest-proxy.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest /rest-xml-node.h mingw64-rest : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/rest-0.7/rest/rest-xml-parser.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: mingw32-rest, mingw64-rest. Illegal package name: mingw32-rest, mingw64-rest. Does not provide -static: mingw32-rest, mingw64-rest. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries Both fine for MinGW packages. = 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated, *No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later). 68 files have unknown license. Detailed
[Bug 1123654] Review Request: smemstat - Shared memory usage monitoring tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123654 Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7235294 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines, so i approve it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1124111] Review Request: python-spec - Specification-style output for python2-nose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124111
Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||juj...@jujens.eu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juj...@jujens.eu
--- Comment #1 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /run/media/jenselme/Data/1124111-python-
spec/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
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).
[X]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-spec
[X]: Package functions as described.
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[X]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations
[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 1124111] Review Request: python-spec - Specification-style output for python2-nose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124111
--- Comment #2 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu ---
I would also replace %package -n python3-spec by %package -n
python3-%{pypi_name} to stay coherent with the python2 section
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1123010] Review Request: python-texttable - Python module to generate a formatted text table, using ASCII characters.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123010
Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||juj...@jujens.eu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juj...@jujens.eu
--- Comment #1 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
= 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]: 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: LGPL (v2.1 or later). Detailed output
of licensecheck in /run/media/jenselme/Data/1123010-python-
texttable/licensecheck.txt
[X]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[X]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[X]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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
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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[X]: Package functions as described.
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[X]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[Bug 1123654] Review Request: smemstat - Shared memory usage monitoring tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123654 --- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Why? # This package runs as root %global _hardened_build 1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1123010] Review Request: python-texttable - Python module to generate a formatted text table, using ASCII characters.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123010
--- Comment #2 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu ---
Please be more specific when adding the files:
%{python_sitelib}/* - %{python2_sitelib}/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 1103420] Review Request: autowrap - Generates Python Extension modules from [Cython] PXD files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103420 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Thank you Jerry. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: autowrap Short Description: Generates Python Extension modules from [Cython] PXD files Upstream URL: https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap Owners: sagitter Branches: f19 f20 f21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #8 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #7) Why? As I mentioned: (In reply to Florian der-flo Lehner from comment #4) [ ] Please add '%global _hardened_build 1'. This is for security reasons because most people I think will run this tool as root. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=PackagingHints#PIE And according to the manpage: Running with root privilege will report all user space processes, otherwise running without will just report the current user's processes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1123011] Review Request: python-dockerpty - Python library to use the pseudo-tty of a docker container
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123011
Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||juj...@jujens.eu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juj...@jujens.eu
--- Comment #1 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu ---
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:
Apache (v2.0). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/run/media/jenselme/Data/1123011-python-dockerpty/licensecheck.txt
[X] : License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[*]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[X]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 10 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:
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-dockerpty
[X]: Package functions as described.
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files
[Bug 1123654] Review Request: smemstat - Shared memory usage monitoring tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123654 --- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- And, where is the changelog? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #10 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #9) And, where is the changelog? in the spec-File: * Sun Aug 03 2014 Eduardo Mayorga Téllez mayo...@fedoraproject.org - 0.01.10-2 - Adding PIE compiler flags -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- I mean the software changelog. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #12 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net --- As an experienced user, you can read it from the changelog. 0.01.03-1 0.01.10-1 0.01.10-2 It was not explicitly listed. But I'm ok with it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1123654] Review Request: smemstat - Shared memory usage monitoring tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123654 --- Comment #13 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- It's better to include the changelog in debian/ from git as I'm talking with you based on the package in my local repo, I didn't submit it to the review because this Ubuntu guy has written many freaks of XXXstat and none of these really do something new. This is not a blocker as I'm not the reviewer, and please understand the difference between software changelog and package changelog. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #14 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #13) It's better to include the changelog in debian/ from git There is only one thing, the license text, that must be included in %doc. And directly copied from the spec-file: %doc COPYING Everything else should be but mustn't be included. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation [...] I didn't submit it to the review because this Ubuntu guy has written many freaks of XXXstat and none of these really do something new. It's about diversity. There is a lot of software doing the exact same thing. But they all do/present it in a different way and that's the important point. This is not a blocker as I'm not the reviewer, and please understand the difference between software changelog and package changelog. Where did you mentioned the software changelog in the comments above? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 507534] Review Request: pycolumnize - Python module to align in columns a simple list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507534 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- Package Change Request == Package Name: pycolumnize New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: fab -- 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 1124994] Review Request: dl - Download Ticket Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||psab...@redhat.com --- Comment #56 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- 31. All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 seems to be unexceptional and fine PASS Please, if possible, consider putting all the checks in one comment to lower the volume of bugzilla generated mails next time. Thank you :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 965835] Review Request: mingw-protobuf - Protocol Buffers - Google's data interchange format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965835 Pavol Rusnak st...@gk2.sk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||st...@gk2.sk --- Comment #2 from Pavol Rusnak st...@gk2.sk --- I updated the package to follow the latest protobuf (2.5.0): Spec URL: http://cargo.gk2.sk/mingw-protobuf/mingw-protobuf.spec SRPM URL: http://cargo.gk2.sk/mingw-protobuf/mingw-protobuf-2.5.0-9.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7236229 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060519] Review Request: qm-dsp - Library for DSP and Music Informatics purposes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060519 --- Comment #3 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/qm-dsp-1.7-1b/qm-dsp.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/qm-dsp-1.7-1b/qm-dsp-1.7-1.fc22.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7236317 The libtoolize patch to make shared library was probably too much. This new version is nearer to upstream: it builds and provides only the static library. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1124994] Review Request: dl - Download Ticket Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i...@cicku.me Flags||needinfo?(herrold@owlriver. ||com) --- Comment #57 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- CAN YOU PUT ALL YOUR WORDS IN ONE COMMENT? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821284] Review Request: dbunit - DbUnit Framework - extension for JUnit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821284
Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|e...@mayorgalinux.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com ---
May I suggest you to use %global enable_tests 0? This would make this
consistent with other packages and easier to read.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Spec file as given by url differs from SRPM's one.
- Incorrect FSF address found in license file and headers in source code.
Upstream should be informed about this.
= 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:
LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or
generated. 56 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/makerpm/821284-dbunit/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-metadata
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-metadata
[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 30720 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]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files
[Bug 821284] Review Request: dbunit - DbUnit Framework - extension for JUnit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821284 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #4) Issues: === - Spec file as given by url differs from SRPM's one. should fixed - Incorrect FSF address found in license file and headers in source code. Upstream should be informed about this. Open https://sourceforge.net/p/dbunit/bugs/357/ Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/dbunit.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/dbunit-2.5.0-2.fc19.src.rpm - fix some review issues -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1117112] Review Request: biblesync - A Cross-platform library for sharing Bible navigation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117112 --- Comment #12 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- Thanks, guys. I'm going to be starting the package numbering at -4, as -1 through -3 are already floating around the links above. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1117112] Review Request: biblesync - A Cross-platform library for sharing Bible navigation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117112 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: biblesync Short Description: A Cross-platform library for sharing Bible navigation Upstream URL: http://www.xiphos.org Owners: greghellings Branches: f19 f20 f21 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 1117112] Review Request: biblesync - A Cross-platform library for sharing Bible navigation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117112 --- Comment #14 from Robert Lightfoot boblf...@gmail.com --- Can we consider branching this into EPEL for Centos7 as well. I've always like using xiphos but run Centos not 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
