[Bug 1135906] New: Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906 Bug ID: 1135906 Summary: Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-http-date.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Fast parser and formatter for HTTP Date. -- 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 1135906] Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||haskell-devel@lists.fedorap ||roject.org Blocks||976980 Whiteboard||ready --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7497810 Needs for recent warp. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976980 [Bug 976980] ghc-warp-3.0.1.1 is available -- 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 1122940] Review Request: rubygem-capybara_minitest_spec - Capybara + MiniTest::Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122940 --- Comment #2 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- - the new version were released in the meantime (with the fixed issue 11 :-)) - rpmlint: rubygem-capybara_minitest_spec-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/gems/gems/capybara_minitest_spec-1.0.2/HISTORY.md You can consider excluding 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 1134361] Review Request: perl-MooX-Cmd - Giving an easy Moo style way to make command organized CLI apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134361 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135933] New: Review Request: ghc-monads-tf - Monad classes using type families
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135933 Bug ID: 1135933 Summary: Review Request: ghc-monads-tf - Monad classes using type families Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-monads-tf.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-monads-tf-0.1.0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Monad classes using type families, with instances for various monad transformers, inspired by the paper Functional Programming with Overloading and Higher-Order Polymorphism, by Mark P Jones, in Advanced School of Functional Programming, 1995 (http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mpj/pubs/springschool.html). -- 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 1135933] Review Request: ghc-monads-tf - Monad classes using type families
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135933 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7498117 -- 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 1123402] Review Request: awscli - AWS Command Line Interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123402 --- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- (In reply to Haïkel Guémar from comment #2) spec attached is different from the one provided in the srpm. Good catch; fixed. I suggest moving the python3 BR below the python3 subpackage (not a blocker). I'd prefer not to (I find it cleaner for no good reason). -- 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 1135933] Review Request: ghc-monads-tf - Monad classes using type families
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135933 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||haskell-devel@lists.fedorap ||roject.org Blocks||1033034 Whiteboard||ready --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- http://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse/monads-tf Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033034 [Bug 1033034] ghc-MonadCatchIO-transformers-0.3.1.2 is available -- 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 #2 from Michael Simacek msima...@redhat.com ---
Issues:
===
[ ] Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
For more see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
Replaced python-devel with python2-devel
[ ] In %changelog
Replace 0.0.1-1 with 0.1-1
Done
[ ] Please add some words why you use %config(noreplace)
It should be noreplace, I added that
[ ] Please replase koschei with %{name}, except of course in Name: koschei
Done
[ ] In %pre you create a systemaccount using -s /bin/sh. Please add some
words
why this is necessary.
Added.
[ ] Does it not work with python3, too?
No, it requires koji, which doesn't work with python3 yet
Spec URL: https://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/koschei.spec
SRPM URL: https://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/koschei-0.1-2.fc20.src.rpm
Koji scratch-build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7497901
--
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 #14 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
= MUST items =
Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[X]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[X]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[-]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[X]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[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.
[X]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[X]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: Buildroot is not present
[-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[!]: 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.
[?]: 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.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
[Bug 1125033] Review Request: openstack-manila - OpenStack Shared Filesystem Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125033 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||karlthe...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.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 1125033] Review Request: openstack-manila - OpenStack Shared Filesystem Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125033 --- Comment #2 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- Few remarks: * provided spec should not be suffixed, it doesn't play well with semi-automated reviewing tool :) * changelog entries are not properly formatted, version-revision should be appended at the first line of the related entry. * jquery has been granted a temporary bundling exception but the bundled version should be cleaned up from windows EOL characters. * systemd units should installed using macroized scriptlets for F18+ and EL7 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Macroized_scriptlets_.28Fedora_18.2B.29 * about the sudoers configuration, I understand your POV, but I assume that some sysadmins may want to override either the user or add other commands. -- 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 459535] Review Request: backup-manager - A command line backup tool for GNU/Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459535 Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #49 from Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: backup-manager New Branches: EL-7 Owners: llaumgui -- 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 755275] Review Request: csslint - Detecting potential problems in CSS code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755275 Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #27 from Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: csslint New Branches: EL-7 Owners: llaumgui -- 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 616768] Review Request: gnome-gmail - Make Gmail an option for the default Gnome mail handler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616768 Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: gnome-gmail New Branches: EL-7 Owners: llaumgui -- 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 575956] Review Request: indefero - Simple code and project management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=575956 Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #25 from Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: indefero New Branches: EL-7 Owners: llaumgui -- 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 575940] Review Request: php-pluf - Pluf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=575940 Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #22 from Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: php-plug New Branches: EL-7 Owners: llaumgui -- 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 716615] Review Request: php-zipstream - zipstream-php
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=716615 Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: php-zipstream New Branches: EL-7 Owners: llaumgui -- 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 815001] Review Request: opennebula - Cloud computing tool to manage a distributed virtual data center to build private, public and hybrid IaaS clouds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815001 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||val...@civ.zcu.cz --- Comment #17 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- How about the ruby part? 1) It looks like there are bundled ruby libraries: for example opennebula gem, http://rubygems.org/gems/opennebula. It's from the same project, but other packages may also depend on opennebula rubygem. 2) According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby packaging for non-Gem use is no longer needed. In our project we would need to package rubygem-opennebula. It looks like there is not a conflict with this packaging (files are at different locations), but maybe it needs to be cleaned up here or have some coordination? It may be easier to have separated package rubygem-opennebula, but I'm not sure about compatibility of the whole opennebula with different versions of opennebula gem. -- 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 1133844] Review Request: python-sqlalchemy-utils - Various utility functions for SQLAlchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133844 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||karlthe...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.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 1133844] Review Request: python-sqlalchemy-utils - Various utility functions for SQLAlchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133844 --- Comment #3 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- packaging is ok and works fine. I'll wait until you update the spec for python3 support. :) -- 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 1133869] Review Request: python-schema - Simple data validation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133869 --- Comment #3 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr --- The basic answer is that because the python3 subpackage has a problem and just doesn't compile: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7500650 -- 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 1133869] Review Request: python-schema - Simple data validation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133869 --- Comment #4 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr --- Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/python-schema.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/python-schema-0.3.1-2.fc20.src.rpm These new files have the changes for the python3 subpackage, but it's disabled as it just doesn't compile atm. -- 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 1133844] Review Request: python-sqlalchemy-utils - Various utility functions for SQLAlchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133844 --- Comment #4 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr --- Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/python-sqlalchemy-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/python-sqlalchemy-utils-0.26.13-2.fc20.src.rpm Python3 subpackage added Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7501020 -- 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 --- Comment #2 from Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com --- The .directory files are being installed explictly in CMakeLists.txt, so they are intentional. libkdeinit_* are KDE init plugins, they don't have soname. Can't find anything in khelpcenter or it's deps that would be changing CXX_FLAGS. Could it somehow got in from your environment? -- 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 #3 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
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.
[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.
[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.
[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]: %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
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.
[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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
--- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7500887
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]:
[Bug 1135386] Review Request: koschei - Continuous integration for Fedora packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135386 Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |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 1133844] Review Request: python-sqlalchemy-utils - Various utility functions for SQLAlchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133844
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
It's ok, but the spec in the srpm is incorrect, it has an additionnal line:
#%{_bindir}/easy_install-3.1
Though it has no effect, please either use the provided spec or fix the srpm
before importing.
Since this package complies with Fedora general and python specific guidelines,
I hereby approve it into Fedora Packages Collection. Please submit a scm
request.
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:
Unknown or generated. 256 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/haikel/1133844-python-sqlalchemy-
utils/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/lib/python3.4, /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.4
[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.
[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 20480 bytes in 4 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 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:
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if
[Bug 1099166] Review Request: screenfetch - Display system information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099166 --- Comment #9 from Martín Buenahora martinbuenah...@openmailbox.org --- Uhm, sorry, I've been busy these lasts months, so I couldn't talk much. Anyone still around 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 1133869] Review Request: python-schema - Simple data validation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133869
Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
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.
[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.
[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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
--- It's ok for this time. Further packages should use a -doc subpackage
[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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
--- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7501059
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[Bug 1135386] Review Request: koschei - Continuous integration for Fedora packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135386 Michael Simacek msima...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Michael Simacek msima...@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: koschei Short Description: Continuous integration for Fedora packages Upstream URL: https://github.com/msimacek/koschei Owners: msimacek mizdebsk Branches: f20 f21 InitialCC: bkabrda -- 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 1134361] Review Request: perl-MooX-Cmd - Giving an easy Moo style way to make command organized CLI apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134361 --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- Missing BRs: Test::Builder::Module - lib/MooX/Cmd/Tester.pm:14 strict - everywhere Useless BRs: List::MoreUtils - it's only used in POD Missing runtime dep (likely): IO::TieCombine - lib/MooX/Cmd/Tester.pm:68 No other 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 1117223] Review Request: kronometer - A simple KDE stopwatch application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117223 --- Comment #4 from Fl@sh kaperan...@gmail.com --- Deficiencies found: Spec: -BuildRequires: kdelibs-devel -BuildRequires: openssl-devel -BuildRequires: qt4-devel +BuildRequires: kdelibs4-devel +BuildRequires: gettext-devel (kdelibs4-devel more correctly package name for Qt4/KDE4 building, we expect soon Qt5/KF5 packages; openssl-devel qt4-devel included into this package) Rpmlint: kronometer.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/kronometer/COPYING (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address; may be file formatted not correctly, because rpmlint did not identify him). That's all ;) Checking build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7501490 -- 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 #42 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- pdfcrack-0.13-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.13-2.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1133844] Review Request: python-sqlalchemy-utils - Various utility functions for SQLAlchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133844
--- Comment #6 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr ---
(In reply to Haïkel Guémar from comment #5)
It's ok, but the spec in the srpm is incorrect, it has an additionnal line:
#%{_bindir}/easy_install-3.1
Though it has no effect, please either use the provided spec or fix the srpm
before importing.
Sorry about that, I clean the spec off this comment before uploading it but
forgot to regenerate the srpm.
I'll clean it up in git.
Thanks for the review!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1133844] Review Request: python-sqlalchemy-utils - Various utility functions for SQLAlchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133844 --- Comment #7 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-sqlalchemy-utils Short Description: Various utility functions for SQLAlchemy Upstream URL: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/SQLAlchemy-Utils Owners: pingou Branches: 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 1133844] Review Request: python-sqlalchemy-utils - Various utility functions for SQLAlchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133844 Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- 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 1133869] Review Request: python-schema - Simple data validation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133869 Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-schema Short Description: Simple data validation library Upstream URL: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/schema Owners: pingou Branches: 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 1106415] Review Request: sayonara - A lightweight Qt Audio player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1106415 --- Comment #4 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de --- Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/sayonara.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/sayonara-0.4.1-1.4.svn878.fc20.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Sep 01 2014 Martin Gansser marti...@fedoraproject.org - 0.4.1-1.4.svn878 - enabled debugging informations - rebuild for new svn release - set correct file permisson rpmlint sayonara-0.4.1-1.4.svn878.fc20.x86_64.rpm sayonara.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sayonara 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint sayonara-debuginfo-0.4.1-1.4.svn878.fc20.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1081026] Review Request: sslh - Applicative protocol(SSL/SSH) multiplexer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081026 James Hogarth james.hoga...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||james.hoga...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from James Hogarth james.hoga...@gmail.com --- Hi Christopher are you still interested in this? The spec/srpm files you provided are currently inaccessible. -- 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 1134361] Review Request: perl-MooX-Cmd - Giving an easy Moo style way to make command organized CLI apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134361 --- Comment #2 from David Dick dd...@cpan.org --- Fixed and ready for 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 746754] Review request: pdfcrack - A Password Recovery Tool for PDF-files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746754 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package pdfcrack-0.13-1.el7: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing pdfcrack-0.13-1.el7' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2014-2334/pdfcrack-0.13-1.el7 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- 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 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- (In reply to Dan Vrátil from comment #2) Can't find anything in khelpcenter or it's deps that would be changing CXX_FLAGS. Could it somehow got in from your environment? No...I think ;) I will post a unprejudiced koji link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7504814 -- 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 1099166] Review Request: screenfetch - Display system information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099166 --- Comment #10 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com --- SRPM URL is broken. Please paste link to *plain* spec file rather than a cgit tree view. This allows the reviewer to automate a bit the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096052] Review Request: nodejs-i18n - Lightweight translation module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096052 Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: - |Review Request: nodejs-i18n |nodejs-i18n - lightweight |- Lightweight translation |translation module |module -- 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 1121330] Review Request: perl-File-FindLib - Find and use a file/dir from a directory above your script file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121330 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-File-FindLib-0.001004- |perl-File-FindLib-0.001004- |1.fc20 |1.el6 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-File-FindLib-0.001004-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1128045] Review Request: perl-IO-Tee - Multiplex output to multiple output handles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128045 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|imapsync-1.592-1.fc19 |imapsync-1.592-1.el5 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- imapsync-1.592-1.el5, perl-IO-Tee-0.64-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1128045] Review Request: perl-IO-Tee - Multiplex output to multiple output handles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128045 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|imapsync-1.592-1.el5|perl-IO-Tee-0.64-1.el6 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-IO-Tee-0.64-1.el6, imapsync-1.592-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1099166] Review Request: screenfetch - Display system information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099166 --- Comment #11 from Martín Buenahora martinbuenah...@openmailbox.org --- Ok, here's the SRPM link: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/screenfetch.git/tree/screenfetch-3.2.2-1.fc20.src.rpm And the spec in plain text: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/screenfetch.git/plain/screenfetch.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 1099166] Review Request: screenfetch - Display system information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099166 --- Comment #12 from Martín Buenahora martinbuenah...@openmailbox.org --- I think I should have included the SRPM download link rather than the cgit view: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/screenfetch.git/plain/screenfetch-3.2.2-1.fc20.src.rpm (Sorry -.- ) -- 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 583301] Review Request: whereami - Displays work location
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583301 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- whereami-1.0-9.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/whereami-1.0-9.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 583301] Review Request: whereami - Displays work location
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583301 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- whereami-1.0-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/whereami-1.0-2.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 456385] Review Request: ptrash - Move file(s) to ~/.trash directory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456385 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ptrash-1.0-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ptrash-1.0-3.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 456385] Review Request: ptrash - Move file(s) to ~/.trash directory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456385 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ptrash-1.0-10.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ptrash-1.0-10.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 456385] Review Request: ptrash - Move file(s) to ~/.trash directory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456385 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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
