[Bug 1135168] Review Request: perl-MIME-Lite-TT-HTML - Create html mail with MIME::Lite and TT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135168
--- Comment #3 from David Dick ---
Okay. Your spec file has a lot of lines in it that are only useful for EPEL5.
Specifically,
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
You can either remove these lines and not build for EPEL5 (but can still build
for EPEL6 and EPEL7) or you have to get a SRPM that builds successfully in
EPEL5.
An example build is shown below
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7493527
This build was triggered by me executing
$ koji build --scratch el5-candidate
~/perl-MIME-Lite-TT-HTML-0.04-1.fc20.src.rpm
which is a really good way of checking that your build works as expected.
It looks like the EPEL5 build failed due to EPEL5 not being able to cope with
modern digests.
I've never wanted to do a EPEL5 build, so i can't help you with how to get this
to work.
If you decide not to do a EPEL5 build, i'm happy to review the package.
Otherwise, you can wait for someone else who is more experienced with EPEL5 to
help you prepare the package for EPEL5.
--
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 442342] Review Request: pnp4nagios - Nagios performance data analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442342 Jan ONDREJ changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Jan ONDREJ --- Package Change Request == Package Name: pnp4nagios New Branches: epel7 Owners: ondrejj -- 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 1135700] Review Request: antlr4 - parser generator tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135700 --- Comment #3 from Cooper Clauson --- (In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #1) > cclauson FAS username does not exist. Is this your first package? In that > case, follow the steps listed in here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers > > Please user your real name in Bugzilla. Thanks/sorry. This is corrected now. Yes, this is my first 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 1135168] Review Request: perl-MIME-Lite-TT-HTML - Create html mail with MIME::Lite and TT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135168 --- Comment #2 from kc8...@gmail.com --- I hadn't planned on it, but I reckon I could. -- 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 1117223] Review Request: kronometer - A simple KDE stopwatch application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117223 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng --- Hi, It should be a copy paste mistake since this package was built successfully on my laptop. I'm afraid I can't upload a new version for now, can you review based on your BR-corrected version and leave a note at the end of the review? I will fix that ASAP when I can upload again. 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 1135700] Review Request: antlr4 - parser generator tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135700 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i...@cicku.me --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng --- You should contact current antlr3 owner to see if this package is needed. antlr package in Fedora is maintained by people from Red Hat and they know what kind of version they want. A4 has changed a lot and as far as I know no software depends on it so far. Basically I think you can't go further without help from them. -- 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 1055366] Review Request: snapraid - Disk array backup for many large rarely-changed files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055366 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- snapraid-6.3-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/snapraid-6.3-2.el7 -- 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 840162] Review Request: gkermit - A utility for transferring files using the Kermit protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840162 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- gkermit-1.00-16.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gkermit-1.00-16.el7 -- 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 683150] Review Request: yad - Display graphical dialogs from shell scripts or command line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683150 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- yad-0.27.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/yad-0.27.0-1.el6 -- 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 683150] Review Request: yad - Display graphical dialogs from shell scripts or command line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683150 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System --- yad-0.27.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/yad-0.27.0-1.el7 -- 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 818964] Review Request: staxmate - Light-weight Java framework for streaming XML processing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818964 --- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/staxmate.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/staxmate-2.2.0-2.fc19.src.rpm - fix build failure on rawhide Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7490774 -- 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 1127173] Review Request: liborigin2 - Library for reading OriginLab OPJ project files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127173 --- Comment #5 from Christian Dersch --- Thank you for your notes! Fixed it. Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/packages/liborigin2.spec SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/packages/liborigin2-2.0.0-4.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 818964] Review Request: staxmate - Light-weight Java framework for streaming XML processing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818964 Pranav Kant changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pranav...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Pranav Kant --- Fails for me. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7490440 -- 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 1113310] Review Request: python-libnacl - Python ctypes wrapper for libsodium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113310 --- Comment #21 from Erik Johnson --- OK, I must have put the wrong file up there, because when I dowloaded the one from that link I can reproduce the failure. However, right now, with a proper SRPM, the current python-libnacl release still will not build due to a soname bump in the newest version of libsodium (which was added to Rawhide this past week). I've contacted the libnacl developer and a new libnacl will be released this weekend. I'll make a new SRPM and update this issue at that 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 1135700] Review Request: antlr4 - parser generator tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135700 Eduardo Mayorga changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135700] Review Request: antlr4 - parser generator tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135700 Eduardo Mayorga changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com --- Comment #1 from Eduardo Mayorga --- cclauson FAS username does not exist. Is this your first package? In that case, follow the steps listed in here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers Please user your real name in Bugzilla. -- 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 1051738] Review Request: mkbrutus - Password bruteforcer for MikroTik devices or boxes running RouterOS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051738 Eduardo Mayorga changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com --- Comment #9 from Eduardo Mayorga --- The latest upstream release is now 1.0.2. The URLs you posted are broken. And please, paste the full URL, including the protocol identifier (http://). -- 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 1135700] New: Review Request: antlr4 - parser generator tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135700 Bug ID: 1135700 Summary: Review Request: antlr4 - parser generator tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ceclau...@hotmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ceclauson.no-ip.org/misc/antlr4.spec SRPM URL: http://ceclauson.no-ip.org/misc/antlr4-4.4-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This is a package for ANTLR 4, the 4th version of the well-known parser generator. There are a few things that made this complicated: 1) The ANTLR 4.4 build depends on ANTLR 4.3, the last minor version, i.e., the tool essentially requires itself to build from source 2) ANTLR 4 also requires ANTLR 3 to build, but the ANTLR 3 version currently in the Fedora repositories is too old (3.5.2 is current, 3.4 in repository) This package represents a "kludge" solution, I just put the two jars discussed above in the source folder. I'm open to feedback on alternative ways of approaching the above problem. However, given that the RPM can provide a functional ANTLR 4 package to Fedora users, it seems maybe justifiable to do it this way for at least version one? Fedora Account System Username: cclauson -- 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 746754] Review request: pdfcrack - A Password Recovery Tool for PDF-files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746754 --- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System --- pdfcrack-0.13-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.13-1.el7 -- 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 746754] Review request: pdfcrack - A Password Recovery Tool for PDF-files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746754 --- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System --- pdfcrack-0.13-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.13-1.el6 -- 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 746754] Review request: pdfcrack - A Password Recovery Tool for PDF-files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746754 --- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System --- pdfcrack-0.13-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.13-1.fc19 -- 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 746754] Review request: pdfcrack - A Password Recovery Tool for PDF-files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746754 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 746754] Review request: pdfcrack - A Password Recovery Tool for PDF-files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746754 --- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System --- pdfcrack-0.13-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.13-1.fc20 -- 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 1048493] Review Request: icecat - GNU version of Firefox browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493 --- Comment #51 from Fedora Update System --- icecat-24.0-14.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/icecat-24.0-14.fc19 -- 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 1048493] Review Request: icecat - GNU version of Firefox browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493 --- Comment #50 from Fedora Update System --- icecat-24.0-14.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/icecat-24.0-14.fc20 -- 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 1048493] Review Request: icecat - GNU version of Firefox browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 1117223] Review Request: kronometer - A simple KDE stopwatch application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117223 --- Comment #1 from Fl@sh --- In spec: -BuildRequires: qt4-devel +BuildRequires: gettext-devel See for: (fail): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7489556 (succes): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7489727 (qt4-vevel included in kdelibs-devel, gettext-devel need for FindMsgfmt); openssl-devel really need for this package (i have not watched into code yet)? -- 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 1039315] Review Request: nuvolaplayer - Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315 --- Comment #58 from MartinKG --- Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/nuvolaplayer.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/nuvolaplayer-2.4.2-3.fc20.src.rpm %changelog * Sat Aug 30 2014 Martin Gansser - 2.4.2-3 - dropped BR unique - Fixed build error on fc21 with --no-lastfm flag -- 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 1135386] Review Request: koschei - Continuous integration for Fedora packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135386
--- Comment #1 from Florian "der-flo" Lehner ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[ ] Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
For more see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
[ ] In %changelog
Replace 0.0.1-1 with 0.1-1
[ ] Please add some words why you use %config(noreplace)
[ ] Please replase koschei with %{name}, except of course in "Name: koschei"
[ ] In %pre you create a systemaccount using "-s /bin/sh". Please add some
words
why this is necessary.
[ ] Does it not work with python3, too?
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated".
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
---> Replace 0.0.1-1 with 0.1-1
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/httpd/conf.d/koschei.conf
---> Please add some words
[-]: 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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
---> Please replase koschei with %{name}
[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.
---> Missing BR
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: 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.
[!]: 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]: 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
---> BR is missing
[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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should c
[Bug 1113310] Review Request: python-libnacl - Python ctypes wrapper for libsodium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113310
--- Comment #20 from Sergio Pascual ---
I'm sorry, but it is still broken for me.
I'm doing
$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 python-libnacl-1.3.2-1.el6.src.rpm
And the build log says:
Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.fFTP2g
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ rm -rf libnacl-1.3.2
+ /usr/bin/gzip -dc /builddir/build/SOURCES/libnacl-1.3.2.tar.gz
+ /usr/bin/tar -xf -
+ STATUS=0
+ '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
+ cd libnacl-1.3.2
+ /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w .
+ rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILD/python3-python-libnacl-1.3.2-1.fc22
+ cp -a . /builddir/build/BUILD/python3-python-libnacl-1.3.2-1.fc22
+ exit 0
Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.EkCgN0
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
RPM build errors:
+ cd libnacl-1.3.2
+ '%{__python2}' setup.py build
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.EkCgN0: line 31: fg: no job control
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.EkCgN0 (%build)
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.EkCgN0 (%build)
Could you check that the same command works for 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 1135386] Review Request: koschei - Continuous integration for Fedora packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135386 Florian "der-flo" Lehner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||d...@der-flo.net Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@der-flo.net 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 1039315] Review Request: nuvolaplayer - Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315 --- Comment #57 from MartinKG --- bug reported upstream https://bugs.launchpad.net/nuvola-player/+bug/1363381 -- 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 1135168] Review Request: perl-MIME-Lite-TT-HTML - Create html mail with MIME::Lite and TT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135168 David Dick changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dd...@cpan.org --- Comment #1 from David Dick --- Hi Charles, are you planning to build for EPEL5? -- 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 1135528] Review Request: kwrited - KDE Write Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135528
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck:
GPL (v2 or later)
-
kwrited-5.0.1/kwrited.cpp
kwrited-5.0.1/kwrited.h
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/knotifications5
A bug of filesystem package?
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/knotifications5
[?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
O3 found. Like another review, is it expected?
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/xdg/autostart/kwrited-
autostart.desktop
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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
= 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be i
[Bug 1117223] Review Request: kronometer - A simple KDE stopwatch application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117223 Fl@sh changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kaperan...@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 1135503] Review Request: khelpcenter - Application to show KDE Application's documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135503
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||i...@cicku.me
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i...@cicku.me
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng ---
1.
Checking: khelpcenter-5.0.1-1.fc22.i686.rpm
khelpcenter-5.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm
khelpcenter.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libkdeinit5_khelpcenter.so
libkdeinit5_khelpcenter.so
khelpcenter.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/khelpcenter/plugins/Scrollkeeper/.directory
khelpcenter.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/khelpcenter/plugins/Manpages/.directory
khelpcenter.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/khelpcenter/plugins/Applications/.directory
khelpcenter.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary khelpcenter
khelpcenter.src: W: strange-permission khelpcenter-5.0.1.tar.xz 0640L
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
i. Are these . files useful?
ii. What about the soname? Is it expected?
2. Just a hint:
%{_datadir}/doc -> %{_docdir}
3. Pick one line:
[ 97%] Building CXX object
CMakeFiles/kdeinit_khelpcenter.dir/searchhandler.cpp.o
/usr/bin/c++ -DKCOREADDONS_LIB -DKGUIADDONS_LIB -DQT_CORE_LIB -DQT_DBUS_LIB
-DQT_DISABLE_DEPRECATED_BEFORE=0 -DQT_GUI_LIB -DQT_NETWORK_LIB -DQT_NO_DEBUG
-DQT_PRINTSUPPORT_LIB -DQT_WIDGETS_LIB -DQT_XML_LIB -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
-D_GNU_SOURCE -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500
-Dkdeinit_khelpcenter_EXPORTS -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -std=c++0x -fno-exceptions -Wall -Wextra
-Wcast-align -Wchar-subscripts -Wformat-security -Wno-long-long -Wpointer-arith
-Wundef -Wnon-virtual-dtor -Woverloaded-virtual -Werror=return-type -O3
-DNDEBUG -fPIC -fvisibility=hidden -fvisibility-inlines-hidden
-I/builddir/build/BUILD/khelpcenter-5.0.1/i686-redhat-linux-gnu
-I/builddir/build/BUILD/khelpcenter-5.0.1 -isystem /usr/include/KF5/KHtml
-isystem /usr/include/KF5 -isystem /usr/include/qt5 -isystem
/usr/include/qt5/QtGui -isystem /usr/include/qt5/QtCore -isystem
/usr/lib/qt5/mkspecs/linux-g++ -isystem /usr/include/KF5/KIOCore -isystem
/usr/include/KF5/KCoreAddons -isystem /usr/include/KF5/KService -isystem
/usr/include/KF5/KConfigCore -isystem /usr/include/KF5/KI18n -isystem
/usr/include/KF5/KParts -I/usr/include/KF5/KIOWidgets
-I/usr/include/KF5/KJobWidgets -isystem /usr/include/qt5/QtWidgets
-I/usr/include/qt5/QtNetwork -isystem /usr/include/KF5/KCompletion -isystem
/usr/include/KF5/KWidgetsAddons -I/usr/include/KF5/KXmlGui -isystem
/usr/include/qt5/QtDBus -isystem /usr/include/qt5/QtXml -isystem
/usr/include/KF5/KConfigWidgets -I/usr/include/KF5/KCodecs
-I/usr/include/KF5/KConfigGui -I/usr/include/KF5/KAuth -isystem
/usr/include/KF5/KTextWidgets -I/usr/include/KF5/SonnetUi -isystem
/usr/include/KF5/KCMUtils -isystem /usr/include/KF5/KDBusAddons -isystem
/usr/include/KF5/KDELibs4Support -isystem /usr/include/KF5/KDELibs4Support/KDE
-isystem /usr/include/qt5/QtPrintSupport -isystem /usr/include/KF5/KCrash
-isystem /usr/include/KF5/KIOFileWidgets -I/usr/include/KF5/KBookmarks
-I/usr/include/KF5/KItemViews -I/usr/include/KF5/Solid -isystem
/usr/include/KF5/KNotifications -isystem /usr/include/KF5/KIconThemes -isystem
/usr/include/KF5/KWindowSystem -isystem /usr/include/KF5/KGuiAddons -isystem
/usr/include/KF5/KUnitConversion-o
CMakeFiles/kdeinit_khelpcenter.dir/searchhandler.cpp.o -c
/builddir/build/BUILD/khelpcenter-5.0.1/searchhandler.cpp
Looks like O3 is being used and overriding optflags, does Fedora allow O3 to be
used in KDE?
Others are fine.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 759712] Review Request: dragonegg - GCC plugin to use LLVM optimizers and code generators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759712 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- dragonegg-3.4-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dragonegg-3.4-2.el7 -- 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
