[Bug 1152804] Review Request: miniz - Deflate/Inflate compression library with zlib API, ZIP read/write, PNG write
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152804 --- Comment #7 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #6) > That said, I regret not to be able to have negative feelings on this > package. In short, I feel this package should not be included into Fedora. Sorry, typo: ... I regret not to be able to deny negative feelings ... -- 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 1152804] Review Request: miniz - Deflate/Inflate compression library with zlib API, ZIP read/write, PNG write
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152804 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to Scott Talbert from comment #5) > (In reply to Matthew Miller from comment #4) > > I'm also unsure about including the source .c file in -devel -- that seems > > out of the ordinary, but seems to be in line with the _intent_ of upstream > > as a copylib > > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Copylibs) > > Yes, this is certainly out of the ordinary. :-) Well, I guess upstream is not aware about the fact, bundling zlib is THE historic precedence for banning static linkage and generally consider bundling to be a crap design. That said, I regret not to be able to have negative feelings on this package. In short, I feel this package should not be included into Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151747] Review request: onionshare - share files of any size securely and anonymously
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151747 pjp changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from pjp --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: onionshare Short Description: Securely and anonymously share files of any size Upstream URL: https://onionshare.org/ Owners: pjp robyduck Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1152245] Review Request: jsr292-mock - Mock versions of java.lang.invoke
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152245 --- Comment #1 from Michal Srb --- Similarly as in unsafe-mock review. This package doesn't make much sense in Fedora, as we have Java 8 (f21+). It's only a build-time dependency of JRuby and it can be safely omitted when building in Fedora. So I would recommend simply removing this dependency from JRuby's pom.xml file. But if you really want to have this package in Fedora, I can continue with the review. Unlike unsafe-mock, this package doesn't bundle anything. -- 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 1152244] Review Request: unsafe-mock - A mock of sun.misc.Unsafe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152244 --- Comment #1 from Michal Srb --- This package is a bit controversial, because it basically bundles sun.misc.Unsafe from JDK8. And it looks like it's not really needed in Fedora. If I understand it correctly, it's only a build-time dependency of JRuby. Upstream uses this JAR as a placeholder for JDK8's sun.misc.Unsafe class and they build JRuby against it. Since Fedora 21+ comes with Java 8 (only), wouldn't be easier to just remove this dependency from pom.xml file? -- 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 1152394] Review Request: maven-mapping - Apache Maven Mapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152394 Mikolaj Izdebski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-10-15 00:52:55 --- Comment #6 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- Building for rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7870211 -- 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 1152804] Review Request: miniz - Deflate/Inflate compression library with zlib API, ZIP read/write, PNG write
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152804 --- Comment #5 from Scott Talbert --- (In reply to Matthew Miller from comment #4) > I'm also unsure about including the source .c file in -devel -- that seems > out of the ordinary, but seems to be in line with the _intent_ of upstream > as a copylib > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Copylibs) Yes, this is certainly out of the ordinary. :-) Upstream doesn't provide a separate header file - their intention is for you to #define MINIZ_HEADER_FILE_ONLY and then #include the C file if you want just the header. Thus I think we have to include the C file in -devel so that we can have other packages link against miniz. -- 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 1152804] Review Request: miniz - Deflate/Inflate compression library with zlib API, ZIP read/write, PNG write
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152804 --- Comment #4 from Matthew Miller --- I'm also unsure about including the source .c file in -devel -- that seems out of the ordinary, but seems to be in line with the _intent_ of upstream as a copylib (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Copylibs) -- 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 1152804] Review Request: miniz - Deflate/Inflate compression library with zlib API, ZIP read/write, PNG write
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152804 --- Comment #3 from Matthew Miller --- And sorry to hit you with things one by one here, but: license should be "Unlicense" -- see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Unlicense and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License_List -- 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 1152804] Review Request: miniz - Deflate/Inflate compression library with zlib API, ZIP read/write, PNG write
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152804 --- Comment #2 from Scott Talbert --- Done: https://code.google.com/p/miniz/issues/detail?id=40 -- 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 1150762] Review Request: python-xcffib - A drop in replacement for xpyb, an XCB python binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150762 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python-xcffib-0.1.7-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-xcffib-0.1.7-1.fc21 -- 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 1150762] Review Request: python-xcffib - A drop in replacement for xpyb, an XCB python binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150762 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RELEASE_PENDING |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 1152804] Review Request: miniz - Deflate/Inflate compression library with zlib API, ZIP read/write, PNG write
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152804 Matthew Miller changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mat...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Matthew Miller --- Please ask upstream to remove the precompiled exe files from the source. -- 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 1152804] New: Review Request: miniz - Deflate/Inflate compression library with zlib API, ZIP read/write, PNG write
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152804 Bug ID: 1152804 Summary: Review Request: miniz - Deflate/Inflate compression library with zlib API, ZIP read/write, PNG write Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: s...@techie.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://www.techie.net/~talbert/miniz.spec SRPM URL: http://www.techie.net/~talbert/miniz-1.15r4-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: miniz.c is a lossless, high performance data compression library in a single source file that implements the zlib (RFC 1950) and Deflate (RFC 1951) compressed data format specification standards. It supports the most commonly used functions exported by the zlib library, but is a completely independent implementation so zlib's licensing requirements do not apply. miniz.c also contains simple to use functions for writing .PNG format image files and reading/writing/appending .ZIP format archives. miniz's compression speed has been tuned to be comparable to zlib's, and it also has a specialized real-time compressor function designed to compare well against fastlz/minilzo. Fedora Account System Username: swt2c Koji Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7869152 -- 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 1151464] Review Request: ballerburg - Two players, two castles, and a hill in between
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464
--- Comment #7 from Christian Dersch ---
Detailed review below :) There are two (small) points I want to discuss. One is
the documentation already mentioned by Raphael. Can you explain if the part
below is still required? At least my buildsystem the manual installation of the
doc isn't a requirement and I think no current Fedora needs it.
>
> > > # Install additional docs
> > > install -p -m 644 COPYING.txt LIESMICH.txt README.txt doc/authors.txt \
> > > %{buildroot}%{_pkgdocdir}
> >
> > This is not needed and should be handled in %files section with the %doc
> > tag:
> > %files
> > %doc COPYING.txt LIESMICH.txt README.txt doc/authors.txt
>
> If I did that on older version of rpm, I would have wiped out the doc
> already installed by "make install".
>
The second point: Please add a comment on zlib licensed files in your spec. The
License tag itself is fine. Now the detailed review:
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)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated",
"zlib/libpng". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/packaging/1151464-ballerburg/licensecheck.txt
==> See comment above, no unclear files now. But please mention the zlib
licensed
files as a comment in spec file. Whole package is GPLv3+ of course.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in ballerburg
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 81920 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[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 mat
[Bug 1152575] python-kitchen branch for epel7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152575 Jon Ciesla 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 1152575] python-kitchen branch for epel7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152575 --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla --- Ignoring. -- 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 476526] Review Request: python-zope-event - Zope Event Publication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476526 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 476526] Review Request: python-zope-event - Zope Event Publication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476526 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 1039315] Review Request: nuvolaplayer - Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315 MartinKG changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-10-14 15:16:57 --- Comment #68 from MartinKG --- nuvolaplayer has been built successfully on f20, f21 and rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1150762] Review Request: python-xcffib - A drop in replacement for xpyb, an XCB python binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150762 John Dulaney changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RELEASE_PENDING -- 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 1150653] Review Request: libosmo-dsp - A library with SDR DSP primitives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150653 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- libosmo-dsp-0.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libosmo-dsp-0.3-1.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 1151747] Review request: onionshare - share files of any size securely and anonymously
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151747 --- Comment #13 from Robert Mayr --- Yes sure! 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 1150653] Review Request: libosmo-dsp - A library with SDR DSP primitives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150653 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- libosmo-dsp-0.3-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libosmo-dsp-0.3-1.fc21 -- 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 1150653] Review Request: libosmo-dsp - A library with SDR DSP primitives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150653 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- libosmo-dsp-0.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libosmo-dsp-0.3-1.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 1151747] Review request: onionshare - share files of any size securely and anonymously
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151747 --- Comment #12 from pjp --- (In reply to Robert Mayr from comment #11) > Ok, works for me now! Cool! Thanks so much for the review Robert, I appreciate it. Would you like to co-maintain 'onionshare' package with me? Thank you. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151711] Review Request: lxqt-libs - Core LXQT library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151711 --- Comment #4 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #3) > (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #2) > > (As also noted by Ralf, but with more details, thus he was quicker:) > Actually, I read about the new LXQt release in the press today and was > trying to check the status in Fedora. I couldn't find it, until the mails > reflecting Rex's changes to this review request arrived ;) lxqt-0.8.0 is in progress. And this "in progress" doesn't mean rejecting lxqt-0.7.0. Because: * pushing lxqt into fedora/centos/rhel requires tooolong cat * I hope to catch it (lxqt) befor f21 release. * maybe - will be Fedora-21-LXQT-Spin.iso. Maybe. -- 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 1148816] Review Request: python-XStatic-Bootstrap-Datepicker - Bootstrap-Datepicker (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148816 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python-XStatic-Bootstrap-Datepicker-1.3.1.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151369] Review Request: perl-Crypt-URandom - Non-blocking randomness for Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151369 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Crypt-URandom-0.34-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 248291] Review Request: libXNVCtrl - Library that provides the NV-CONTROL API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248291 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- Package libXNVCtrl-169.12-12.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 libXNVCtrl-169.12-12.el7' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2014-3395/libXNVCtrl-169.12-12.el7 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- 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 1151778] Review Request: golang-github-elazarl-go-bindata-assetfs - Serve embedded files from jteeuwen/go-bindata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151778 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-elazarl-go-bindata-assetfs-0-0.1.gitae4665c.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151779] Review Request: golang-gopkg-check - Rich testing for the Go language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151779 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- golang-gopkg-check-0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1148484] Review Request: golang-github-influxdb-gomdb - Go wrapper for LMDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148484 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-influxdb-gomdb-0-0.1.git29fe330.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1148956] Review Request: python-XStatic-Bootstrap-SCSS - Bootstrap-SCSS (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148956 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-XStatic-Bootstrap-SCSS-3.2.0.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1150284] Review Request: perl-CGI-Deurl-XS - Fast decoder for URL parameter strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150284 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- perl-CGI-Deurl-XS-0.07-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247 --- Comment #2 from Mo Morsi --- Thanks for review (In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #1) > Package Review > == > > Issues: > - ASL 2.0 license requires the license text to be included in the RPM > - Incorrect changelog format (missing version-release) > - Group tag is obsolete, please don't use it Fixed. https://github.com/headius/options/issues/1 Spec URL: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/options.spec SRPM URL: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/options-1.2-2.fc20.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7864863 -- 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 1151711] Review Request: lxqt-libs - Core LXQT library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151711 --- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #2) > (As also noted by Ralf, but with more details, thus he was quicker:) Actually, I read about the new LXQt release in the press today and was trying to check the status in Fedora. I couldn't find it, until the mails reflecting Rex's changes to this review request arrived ;) -- 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 1152246] Review Request: joda-timezones - Timezone data for joda-time
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152246 --- Comment #2 from Mo Morsi --- Thx for review. Mostly copy-n-paste errors. Spec URL: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/joda-timezones.spec SRPM URL: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/joda-timezones-2013d-2.fc20.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7864861 (In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #1) > Issues: > - Upstream URL doesn't exist > - Source0 URL doesn't exist > - Missing BR exec-maven-plugin and joda-time > - Missing period at the end of description Fixed all of these > - Undetermined license - ask upstream to include it https://github.com/jruby/joda-timezones/issues/2 > - Incorrect changelog format - missing version-release > - Group tag is obsolete, remove it Fixed these > - Outdated timezone data (2013) This is what the upstream release uses so figure it'd best to go w/ this to mitigate any unexpected consequences. > - Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM Fixed -- 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 1149300] Review Request: NetworkManager-libreswan - NetworkManager VPN plug-in for libreswan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149300 Paul Wouters changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||pwout...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pwout...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Paul Wouters --- I'll take this -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151462] Review Request: belen - GUI of youtube-dl command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151462 --- Comment #9 from Carlos Morel-Riquelme --- (In reply to Samuel Sieb from comment #8) > > note: belen.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/belen.svg ? > > shebang is a icon file ? > > "shebang" is the "#!" line at the start of most script files. For some > reason, it thinks your svg is a script file. Is it flagged as executable > perhaps? yes, it's strange but i fix this change the path of icon and using foo.png file :) -- 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 1151711] Review Request: lxqt-libs - Core LXQT library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151711 --- Comment #2 from Kevin Kofler --- (As also noted by Ralf, but with more details, thus he was quicker:) Wouldn't liblxqt make more sense as a package name in this case? I know we often use the *-libs naming convention in Fedora, but we use that for subpackages, where there is a main package called lxqt, and lxqt-libs is a subpackage of that SRPM with one or more libraries. But here, we have a separate upstream tarball called liblxqt, so I don't see a good reason to name the package differently. There are many lib* packages in Fedora, corresponding to upstream lib* tarballs. We just don't like ADDING a prepended "lib" to libraries that do not have it in the upstream name (e.g. libqt) or using "%package -n libfoo" for subpackages. -- 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 1151711] Review Request: lxqt-libs - Core LXQT library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151711 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #1 from Ralf Corsepius --- Package does not comply to Fedora's packaging conventions to name a package after it's tarname => This package should be named liblxqt -- 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 1151462] Review Request: belen - GUI of youtube-dl command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151462 --- Comment #8 from Samuel Sieb --- > note: belen.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/belen.svg ? > shebang is a icon file ? "shebang" is the "#!" line at the start of most script files. For some reason, it thinks your svg is a script file. Is it flagged as executable perhaps? -- 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 1151462] Review Request: belen - GUI of youtube-dl command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151462
--- Comment #7 from Carlos Morel-Riquelme ---
Thank for all help friend :)
well i follow your tips, now i have new spec and srpm
new SPEC https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.spec
new SRPM https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen-0.1-3.fc21.src.rpm
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package 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]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Sou
[Bug 1151711] Review Request: lxqt-libs - Core LXQT library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151711 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||lxqt-libs -- 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 1151711] Review Request: lxqt-libs - Core LXQT library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151711 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Blocks||928937 (qt-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928937 [Bug 928937] Qt-related package review tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1150504] Review Request: openstack-ironic-discoverd - hardware properties discovery daemon for OpenStack Ironic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504 --- Comment #8 from Dmitry Tantsur --- Done, links are the same. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1730743/ironic-discoverd/openstack-ironic-discoverd.spec https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1730743/ironic-discoverd/openstack-ironic-discoverd-0.2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm New build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7863064 -- 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 1152653] New: Review Request: miniz - Compression library implementing the zlib and Deflate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152653 Bug ID: 1152653 Summary: Review Request: miniz - Compression library implementing the zlib and Deflate Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/miniz/miniz.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/miniz/miniz-1.15-0.1.r4.fc22.src.rpm Description: Miniz is a lossless, high performance data compression library in a single source file that implements the zlib (RFC 1950) and Deflate (RFC 1951) compressed data format specification standards. It supports the most commonly used functions exported by the zlib library, but is a completely independent implementation so zlib's licensing requirements do not apply. It also contains simple to use functions for writing PNG format image files and reading/writing/appending ZIP format archives. Miniz's compression speed has been tuned to be comparable to zlib's, and it also has a specialized real-time compressor function designed to compare well against fastlz/minilzo. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- 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 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247
--- Comment #1 from Michael Simacek ---
Package Review
==
Issues:
- ASL 2.0 license requires the license text to be included in the RPM
- Incorrect changelog format (missing version-release)
- Group tag is obsolete, please don't use it
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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/msimacek/1152247-options/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-poms/options, /usr/share/maven-
metadata
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-poms/options,
/usr/share/maven-metadata
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the package
[Bug 1150504] Review Request: openstack-ironic-discoverd - hardware properties discovery daemon for OpenStack Ironic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
--- Comment #7 from Haïkel Guémar ---
* You should remove bundled eggs-info in %prep
* I suggest you use the %license tag to mark license files
(For the record, since packaging guidelines has not been updated, you may read
the FPC ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411)
ATM, I suggest that you add the fallback macro (required on EL6)
%{?!_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
%license LICENSE
Except that, it should be good.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151462] Review Request: belen - GUI of youtube-dl command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151462
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
good to see that you used fedora-review first on your own package before
reviewing other people's packages.
As you can see you need some fixes in your package to follow packaging
guidelines. But before that I see you are also upstream for what you have
packaged. So, I got some suggestions. If upstream is good in generating good
releases then it becomes easy for us to package it in fedora.
1) I see you already host your source on github. Its good to create tarball of
your source files which will contain files
belen.rb
belen.svg
README -> this will provide information about what this source is and how can
one use it.
LICENSE -> Always good to add a single license text for all your source files.
belen.desktop -> desktop file
Makefile -> This will install the above files on the system.
This will make your spec more simple instead to add every source files and then
desktop file contents in spec.
2) your desktop file should look like
[Desktop Entry]
Name=Belen
Comment=Belen is a GUI of command youtube-dl for Linux
Icon=/usr/share/pixmaps/belen.svg
Type=Application
Categories=Video;AudioVideo;
Exec=/usr/bin/belen
StartupNotify=true
Terminal=false
See http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html for valid
categories.
3) when you want to install desktop file, follow guidelines
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
4) As given by fedora-review
Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT but in this package spec
both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT are used. See more
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
5) you should not install icon file in /usr/share/icons directory but in
/usr/share/pixmaps
6)As per ruby packaging guidelines you should
Requires: ruby(release)
and remove Requires: for ruby and python both are not needed
7) It is now optional and should not be added following lines for fedora
packaging
Group:Applications/Multimedia
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%defattr(755, root, root)
you can read about this in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
You can submit new spec and srpm fixing above issues for further review of this
package. Note you should bump release tag and add changelog for what you
changed in spec file since its last release.
--
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 855656] Review Request: perl-Safe-Isa - Call isa, can, does and DOES safely on things that may not be objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855656 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Safe-Isa-1.05-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Safe-Isa-1.05-2.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 855656] Review Request: perl-Safe-Isa - Call isa, can, does and DOES safely on things that may not be objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855656 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Safe-Isa-1.05-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Safe-Isa-1.05-2.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 855656] Review Request: perl-Safe-Isa - Call isa, can, does and DOES safely on things that may not be objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855656 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Safe-Isa-1.05-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Safe-Isa-1.05-2.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 1150653] Review Request: libosmo-dsp - A library with SDR DSP primitives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150653 Jaroslav Å karvada changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-10-14 09:51:48 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1150666] Review Request: gr-iqbal - GNURadio block for suppressing IQ imbalance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150666 Bug 1150666 depends on bug 1150653, which changed state. Bug 1150653 Summary: Review Request: libosmo-dsp - A library with SDR DSP primitives https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150653 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1152246] Review Request: joda-timezones - Timezone data for joda-time
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152246 --- Comment #1 from Michael Simacek --- Issues: - Upstream URL doesn't exist - Source0 URL doesn't exist - Missing BR exec-maven-plugin and joda-time - Missing period at the end of description - Undetermined license - ask upstream to include it - Incorrect changelog format - missing version-release - Group tag is obsolete, remove it - Outdated timezone data (2013) - Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM -- 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 1150610] Review Request: kalibrate-rtl - GSM based frequency calibration for rtl-sdr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150610 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- kalibrate-rtl-0.4.1-3.20141008gitaae11c8a.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kalibrate-rtl-0.4.1-3.20141008gitaae11c8a.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 1152575] python-kitchen branch for epel7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152575 Pierre-YvesChibon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2014-10-14 09:32:21 --- Comment #1 from Pierre-YvesChibon --- nm, it's in rhel-base -- 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 476526] Review Request: python-zope-event - Zope Event Publication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476526 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rb...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Ralph Bean --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-zope-event New Branches: epel7 Owners: ralph -- 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 1151462] Review Request: belen - GUI of youtube-dl command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151462
--- Comment #5 from Carlos Morel-Riquelme ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in belen
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package 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]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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]: 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 pr
[Bug 248291] Review Request: libXNVCtrl - Library that provides the NV-CONTROL API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248291 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- libXNVCtrl-169.12-12.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libXNVCtrl-169.12-12.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 248291] Review Request: libXNVCtrl - Library that provides the NV-CONTROL API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248291 Fedora Update System 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
[Bug 1152575] python-kitchen branch for epel7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152575 Pierre-YvesChibon 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 1152575] New: python-kitchen branch for epel7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152575 Bug ID: 1152575 Summary: python-kitchen branch for epel7 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel7 Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pin...@pingoured.fr QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Package Change Request == Package Name: python-kitchen New Branches: epel7 Owners: group::infra-sig pingou -- 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 634036] Review Request: python-zope-i18nmessageid - Message Identifiers for internationalization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634036 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 634036] Review Request: python-zope-i18nmessageid - Message Identifiers for internationalization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634036 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247 Michael Simacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||msima...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msima...@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 632808] Review Request: python-zope-schema - Zope 3 schemas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=632808 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 632808] Review Request: python-zope-schema - Zope 3 schemas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=632808 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1151419] Review Request: perl-String-Compare-ConstantTime - Timing side-channel protected string compare
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151419 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-String-Compare-Constan ||tTime-0.310-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-10-14 08:44:56 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar --- Thank you for the review and the repository. I added the commas into the description. -- 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 1141872] Review Request: golang-github-stretchr-testify - Tools for testifying that your code will behave as you intend
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141872 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-stretchr-testify-0-0.4.gitda775f0.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-stretchr-testify-0-0.4.gitda775f0.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 1151414] Review Request: perl-Number-Tolerant - Tolerance ranges for inexact numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151414 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Number-Tolerant-1.703- ||1.fc22 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-10-14 08:27:13 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar --- Thank you for the review and the 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 1151369] Review Request: perl-Crypt-URandom - Non-blocking randomness for Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151369 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Crypt-URandom-0.34-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Crypt-URandom-0.34-1.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 634036] Review Request: python-zope-i18nmessageid - Message Identifiers for internationalization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634036 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rb...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Ralph Bean --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-zope-i18nmessageid New Branches: epel7 Owners: ralph -- 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 1151369] Review Request: perl-Crypt-URandom - Non-blocking randomness for Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151369 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||perl-Crypt-URandom-0.34-1.f ||c22 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar --- Thank you for the review and the 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 632808] Review Request: python-zope-schema - Zope 3 schemas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=632808 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rb...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Ralph Bean --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-zope-schema New Branches: epel7 Owners: ralph -- 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 1152246] Review Request: joda-timezones - Timezone data for joda-time
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152246 Michael Simacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||msima...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msima...@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 1152245] Review Request: jsr292-mock - Mock versions of java.lang.invoke
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152245 Michal Srb changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||m...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@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 1152244] Review Request: unsafe-mock - A mock of sun.misc.Unsafe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152244 Michal Srb changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@redhat.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 1141864] Review Request: golang-github-stretchr-objx - Go package for dealing with maps, slices, JSON and other data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141864 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-stretchr-objx-0-0.3.gitcbeaeb1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-stretchr-objx-0-0.3.gitcbeaeb1.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 1152244] Review Request: unsafe-mock - A mock of sun.misc.Unsafe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152244 Michal Srb changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||m...@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 1148700] Review Request: golang-github-bmizerany-assert - Assertions for Go tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148700 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-bmizerany-assert-0-0.2.gite17e998.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-bmizerany-assert-0-0.2.gite17e998.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 1148702] Review Request: golang-github-bmizerany-pat - A Sinatra style pattern muxer for Go's net/http library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148702 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-bmizerany-pat-0-0.2.gitb8a3500.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-bmizerany-pat-0-0.2.gitb8a3500.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 1152394] Review Request: maven-mapping - Apache Maven Mapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152394 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |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 1152394] Review Request: maven-mapping - Apache Maven Mapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152394 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1152047] Review Request: jenkins-matrix-project-plugin - Jenkins Matrix Project Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152047 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |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 1152047] Review Request: jenkins-matrix-project-plugin - Jenkins Matrix Project Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152047 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1148460] Review Request: golang-github-SeanDolphin-bqschema - Package for creating Google Big Query from Go structs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148460 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-SeanDolphin-bqschema-0-0.2.gita713d26.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-SeanDolphin-bqschema-0-0.2.gita713d26.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 1132356] Review Request: perl-Mo - Micro Objects. Mo is less
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1132356 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |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 1132356] Review Request: perl-Mo - Micro Objects. Mo is less
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1132356 --- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 874720] Review Request: python-anykeystore - A key-value store supporting multiple backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874720 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 874720] Review Request: python-anykeystore - A key-value store supporting multiple backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874720 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |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 860424] Review Request: octave-general - General tools for Octave, string dictionary, parallel computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860424 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |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 860424] Review Request: octave-general - General tools for Octave, string dictionary, parallel computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860424 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 855656] Review Request: perl-Safe-Isa - Call isa, can, does and DOES safely on things that may not be objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855656 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 855656] Review Request: perl-Safe-Isa - Call isa, can, does and DOES safely on things that may not be objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855656 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |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 674676] Review Request: python-zope-deprecation - Zope 3 Deprecation Infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674676 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 674676] Review Request: python-zope-deprecation - Zope 3 Deprecation Infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674676 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 674674] Review Request: python-zope-configuration - Zope Configuration Markup Language (ZCML)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674674 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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
