[Bug 1151635] Review Request: torbrowser-launcher - Tor Browser Bundle managing tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151635 --- Comment #6 from Robert Mayr --- Ok, thank you. I will try it too, probably there are some changes when updating to 4.x. It seemd to work fino for updates from 3.6.x to 3.6.y... -- 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: liblxqt - Core LXQT library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151711 --- Comment #9 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #1) > Package does not comply to Fedora's packaging conventions to name a package > after it's tarname => This package should be named liblxqt Spec URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/liblxqt/liblxqt.spec SRPM URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/liblxqt/liblxqt-0.7.0-1.src.rpm Koji build (f21): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7879723 -- 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 1151635] Review Request: torbrowser-launcher - Tor Browser Bundle managing tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151635 --- Comment #5 from pjp --- Hello Robert, I've torbrowser-launcher.noarch 0:0.1.5-3.fc19 installed. Today when I invoked it, it upgraded TBB from 3.6.6 -> 4.0 _without_ preserving browser history & open tabs from 3.6.6. Second, upon each invocation of torbrowser-launcher it seems to download and install TBB 4.0. It shows === $ torbrowser-launcher ... Starting launcher dialog LATEST VERSION 4.0 Checked for update within 24 hours, skipping TBB is out of date, attempting to upgrade to 4.0 ... === closer look at the .local/share/torbrowser/tbb/x86_64/tor-browser_en-US/Docs/sources/versions still shows TORBROWSER_VERSION=3.6.6 instead of 4.0; Probably that is why it downloads TBB-4.0 each time. If I did not have an old instance of TBB-3.6.5 in a separate directory, I would have lost all browser history and open tabs, with no way to recover them. This is severe. Could you please ping upstream about it? 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: liblxqt - Core LXQT library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151711 Eugene A. Pivnev changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|lxqt-libs |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 1147149] Review Request: python-cryptography-vectors - Test vectors for the cryptography package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147149 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.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 1147149] Review Request: python-cryptography-vectors - Test vectors for the cryptography package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147149 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cryptography-vectors-0.5.4-3.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 1151711] Review Request: liblxqt - Core LXQT library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151711 Eugene A. Pivnev changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: lxqt-libs - |Review Request: liblxqt - |Core LXQT library |Core LXQT library -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1147149] Review Request: python-cryptography-vectors - Test vectors for the cryptography package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147149 Matěj Cepl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-10-16 01:53:24 --- Comment #12 from Matěj Cepl --- Built in Rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7879712 -- 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 1114267] Review Request: python-cryptography - PyCA's cryptography library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114267 Bug 1114267 depends on bug 1147149, which changed state. Bug 1147149 Summary: Review Request: python-cryptography-vectors - Test vectors for the cryptography package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147149 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 1149566] Review Request: slurm - Simple LinUx Resource Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #5 from David Brown ---
Here's the epel-6 build of the same spec.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7879588
slurm-slurmdbd.x86_64: E: no-status-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/slurmdbd
slurm-slurmdbd.x86_64: W: no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/slurmdbd
slurm-slurmdbd.x86_64: E: no-chkconfig-line /etc/rc.d/init.d/slurmdbd
slurm-slurmdbd.x86_64: E: subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/slurmdbd
slurm-slurmdbd.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name slurmdbd
('slurm-slurmdbd', 'slurm-slurmdbdd')
slurm.x86_64: E: no-status-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/slurm
slurm.x86_64: W: no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/slurm
slurm.x86_64: E: no-chkconfig-line /etc/rc.d/init.d/slurm
slurm.x86_64: E: subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/slurm
Thanks,
- David Brown
--
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] Review Request: miniz - Compression library implementing the zlib and Deflate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152653 Scott Talbert changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1085059 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1085059 [Bug 1085059] New upstream release for binwalk - (1.3) -- 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] Review Request: miniz - Compression library implementing the zlib and Deflate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152653
--- Comment #4 from Scott Talbert ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
- Pre-compiled binaries included in source package. According to guidelines,
"Remove all pre-built program binaries and program libraries in %prep prior
to the building of the package"
See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
[-]: 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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check i
[Bug 1148365] Review Request: perl-URI-Encode - Simple percent Encoding/Decoding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148365 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-URI-Encode-0.09-1.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-10-15 22:05:44 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- perl-URI-Encode-0.09-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 1135502] Review Request: rubygem-rack-cors - Middleware for enabling Cross-Origin Resource Sharing in Rack apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135502 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-rack-cors-0.2.9-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 1152312] Review Request: cloudtoserver - Tool to convert Fedora Cloud instance to Fedora Server instance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152312 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- cloudtoserver-0.1-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 1133198] Review Request: perl-Compress-LZ4 - Perl interface to the LZ4 compression library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133198 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Compress-LZ4-0.20-1.fc ||21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-10-15 21:59:18 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Compress-LZ4-0.20-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 1151072] Review Request: fig - Punctual, lightweight development environments using Docker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151072 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- fig-0.5.2-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 1141841] Review Request: golang-googlecode-google-api-client - Go libraries for "new style" Google APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141841 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- golang-googlecode-google-api-client-0-0.2.alpha.hge1c259484b49.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1147269] Review Request: GeographicLib - Library for geographic coordinate transformations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147269 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||GeographicLib-1.38-2.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-10-15 21:56:54 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- GeographicLib-1.38-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 996780] Rename Request: python-astroid - Python Abstract Syntax Tree New Generation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996780 b...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from b...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-astroid New Branches: el6 Owners: bcl mrunge Please branch it from master. -- 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 1152653] Review Request: miniz - Compression library implementing the zlib and Deflate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152653
--- Comment #3 from Scott Talbert ---
A few initial comments.
> Release:0.1.%{miniz_rc}%{?dist}
I'm thinking this should just be 1.%{miniz_rc}%{?dist} since this is a
post-release (ie, 1.15r4 came after 1.15) rather than a pre-release. See here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease
> gcc %{?__global_ldflags} -fPIC -shared %{name}.o -o lib%{name}.so
I'm wondering if we should be adding soname versioning? It doesn't seem like
upstream is changing much but it seems like it might be good to have.
--
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 1149566] Review Request: slurm - Simple LinUx Resource Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566 --- Comment #4 from David Brown --- The first bit is a misspelling, it should be libibumad-devel and libibmad-devel. Those aren't supported in Fedora, not sure why, but they are supported in RHEL. I was going to look into why that's the case since I think ibverbs is supported in Fedora ... this is the whole funky infiniband network we like to run :) I've fixed the other two issues, it cleans up things quite a bit, I'll have to apply those changes to my other packages... The el6 version of the SYSV init script has a lot of issues. I'd like someone to look at them and figure out which are important to clean up. I can submit that back to slurm-devel and have them take a look. I'll post those later tonight. Thanks, - David Brown -- 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] Review Request: miniz - Compression library implementing the zlib and Deflate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152653 Scott Talbert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|s...@techie.net Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Scott Talbert --- I was working on packaging the same package, so I'll take this 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 1149566] Review Request: slurm - Simple LinUx Resource Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
Haïkel Guémar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Haïkel Guémar ---
Few things:
* why is libmad-devel a build requirements for slurm ? I don't see the point in
having a MP3 decoder to build a batch scheduler, and we don't ship libmad
(rpmfusion does) so it's a NO-NO in Fedora. Looks like a typo to me.
Besides, it's inside a conditional that is always false "%if 0"
* All supported Fedora releases (oldest being 19) and EL7 have systemd and
supports systemd macroized scriptlets.
%if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} == 6
# sysV stuff
%else
# systemd stuff
%endif
* systemd BR & R are not correct, they should be:
Requires(post): systemd
Requires(preun): systemd
Requires(postun): systemd
BuildRequires: systemd
* subpackages should requires fully versionned base package or other "base"
subpackages
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151464] Review Request: ballerburg - Two players, two castles, and a hill in between
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- ballerburg-1.1.0-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ballerburg-1.1.0-2.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 1151464] Review Request: ballerburg - Two players, two castles, and a hill in between
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- ballerburg-1.1.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ballerburg-1.1.0-2.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 1151464] Review Request: ballerburg - Two players, two castles, and a hill in between
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1039315] Review Request: nuvolaplayer - Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315 --- Comment #74 from Fedora Update System --- nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-3.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 1126046] Review Request: perl-MouseX-NativeTraits - Extend your attribute interfaces for Mouse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126046 Devrim GÜNDÜZ changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(dev...@gunduz.org | |) | --- Comment #2 from Devrim GÜNDÜZ --- devrim -- 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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt ---
> bug 831383
Fixed in 2012. gcc is not multilib anymore, i.e. no multilib package causes the
multilib repo composer to pull it it anymore.
# yum list gcc
Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks
Installed Packages
gcc.x86_644.9.1-11.fc21
@updates-testing
Of course, that also means %{?_isa} doesn't add any benefit, since there is
only once gcc package to choose. ;-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1039315] Review Request: nuvolaplayer - Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315 --- Comment #73 from Fedora Update System --- nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-3.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 1129220] Review Request: bash-argsparse - An high level argument parsing library for bash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129220 --- Comment #11 from Dams --- Due to a dual bug in both bash ( which was actually fun to trace and report: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2014-10/msg00160.html ) and the unittest script (patch is inside the srpm), the build was failing in both fedora 21 and 22 which have bash 4.3 (while fedora 20 has bash 4.2). This updated package & spec file build in all 3 fedora 20+ releases. 1f4d7a609b8cc675740fd744cb1504d638cb31355eb4bfa42418f143d29e658a http://argsparse.livna.org/bash-argsparse-1.6.1-2.fc20.src.rpm 97e12a91a769efcad4d8724c58237336f75d878653edefe8d66f09b3ad70b363 http://argsparse.livna.org/bash-argsparse.spec http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7876218 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7876293 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7876373 -- 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 1153302] Review Request: tilda - A Gtk based drop down terminal for Linux and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153302 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chrisder...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|chrisder...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Christian Dersch --- Taken, review will follow soon! -- 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 1153302] Review Request: tilda - A Gtk based drop down terminal for Linux and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153302 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1153302] New: Review Request: tilda - A Gtk based drop down terminal for Linux and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153302 Bug ID: 1153302 Summary: Review Request: tilda - A Gtk based drop down terminal for Linux and Unix Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: johannes.l...@googlemail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://hannes.fedorapeople.org/tilda.spec SRPM URL: https://hannes.fedorapeople.org/tilda-1.1.13-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Tilda is a Linux terminal taking after the likeness of many classic terminals from first person shooter games, Quake, Doom and Half-Life (to name a few), where the terminal has no border and is hidden from the desktop until a key is pressed. Fedora Account System Username: hannes This is a review for a package, which already existed in previous fedora releases and was retired a while ago. -- 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 1152057] Review Request: csnappy - Snappy compression library ported to C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152057 --- Comment #3 from Florian "der-flo" Lehner --- Hi! Quote from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text: "Common licenses that require including their texts with all derivative works include ASL 2.0, EPL, BSD and MIT." Therefore, it is not enough,just to inform upstream about the missing license text. So please include a copy of the license text, as part of the Fedora package in %doc, in order to remain in compliance. Cheers, Flo -- 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 1153023] Review Request: jenkins-antisamy-markup-formatter-plugin - OWASP Markup Formatter Plugin for Jenkins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153023 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo --- Please fix also: W: strange-permission LICENSE-MIT.txt 0444L -- 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 1153023] Review Request: jenkins-antisamy-markup-formatter-plugin - OWASP Markup Formatter Plugin for Jenkins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153023 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- Source package does not include license text. Please, you SHOULD query upstream to include it. Found non-blocking issues, approved -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1153023] Review Request: jenkins-antisamy-markup-formatter-plugin - OWASP Markup Formatter Plugin for Jenkins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153023
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo ---
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:
"BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1153023-jenkins-antisamy-
markup-formatter-plugin/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/jenkins/webroot/WEB-INF,
/usr/share/jenkins/webroot/WEB-INF/plugins, /usr/share/jenkins/webroot,
/usr/share/maven-metadata, /usr/share/jenkins
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/jenkins/webroot/WEB-
INF, /usr/share/jenkins/webroot/WEB-INF/plugins,
/usr/share/jenkins/webroot, /usr/share/jenkins, /usr/share/maven-metadata
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jenkins-
antisamy-markup-formatter-plugin-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms o
[Bug 1151747] Review request: onionshare - share files of any size securely and anonymously
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151747 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- onionshare-0.6-5.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/onionshare-0.6-5.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 #16 from Fedora Update System --- onionshare-0.6-5.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/onionshare-0.6-5.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 1151747] Review request: onionshare - share files of any size securely and anonymously
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151747 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- onionshare-0.6-6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/onionshare-0.6-6.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 1151747] Review request: onionshare - share files of any size securely and anonymously
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151747 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- onionshare-0.6-5.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/onionshare-0.6-5.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 #18 from Fedora Update System --- onionshare-0.6-5.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/onionshare-0.6-5.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1153023] Review Request: jenkins-antisamy-markup-formatter-plugin - OWASP Markup Formatter Plugin for Jenkins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153023 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 1153023] Review Request: jenkins-antisamy-markup-formatter-plugin - OWASP Markup Formatter Plugin for Jenkins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153023 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it 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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #3)
> It is not just inconvenient to hardcode such a dependency in a Documentation
> package, so the package cannot be installed without pulling in lots of
> dependencies. Please keep doc packages free of such deps unless the base app
> is strictly required to display the doc files.
Okay, I have removed this dependency.
> Here %{?_isa} would make sense. The generated .config file (_not_ in libpuma
> package btw) seems arch-specific, subpackage "-aspectc++" (which is not
> multi-lib) requires arch-specific libpuma, so libpuma ought to require the
> arch-specific compiler, too.
No, see bug 831383. I have instead added arch-specific dependencies on
libstdc++-devel and glibc-devel. (The dependency on libgcc isn't needed,
because that comes via libstdc++-devel -> libstdc++ -> libgcc.)
The generated puma.config file is a bit more problematic. You are correct that
it should be in the main package rather than in the aspectc++ subpackage. But
that breaks multilib, since the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of that file will
differ. I don't think that file should be in %{_sysconfdir} anyway. It isn't
intended to be edited by humans. I have moved it to %{_libdir}/libpuma
instead, which will work with multilib. Does that sound reasonable?
> Nasty trap. ;)
>
> Seeing this I wondered about the license file, and indeed you modify the
> license file which must not be done:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
I've had reviewers of other packages insist that I fix the address, so this was
a preemptive strike to avoid taking flak from the reviewer of this package.
That didn't work out so well. :-) I'm going to remove the address changing
code, and just complain to upstream about it. It looks like upstream is
currently recovering from some kind of website breakage, and their bugzilla is
offline. It may take a few days to alert them to the problem.
Thanks for the feedback! New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libpuma/libpuma.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libpuma/libpuma-1.2-2.fc22.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755510] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510 --- Comment #66 from nicolas.vievi...@univ-valenciennes.fr --- (In reply to Jeff Peeler from comment #65) > You don't need to ask permission for reviewing other packages. Ok. > Just review > the package so that you can show a sponsor, "Hey, I know enough about > packaging to be trusted to generally do the right thing." A good start is > utilization of the fedora-review tool (mentioned here > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process). Perhaps you can even > find another gnome extension to package in order to use the knowledge you've > learned. Thanks. I've already search in the review request list for some packages I've got some knowledge, and it will be my preferred search method. > I understand that there is a lot to learn about packaging, but your reviews > nor your official package submission has to be perfect. That's one thing the > entire process is designed to do - that is correct your mistakes. > > I can't approve you to be a packager, but I can look over your package > reviews to make it easier for your package reviews to be reviewed. I'm > trying to do everything I can for you here :) Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. > That said, if nothing happens > within a very long time span, say 6 months, I'll probably un-CC myself from > this bug. Understood and I found this normal. I'll let you know what, when and where. Cordially, -- NVieville -- 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 1152057] Review Request: csnappy - Snappy compression library ported to C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152057 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1153074 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153074 [Bug 1153074] Review Request: perl-Sereal-Encoder - Perl serialization into Serial format -- 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] Review Request: miniz - Compression library implementing the zlib and Deflate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152653 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1153074 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153074 [Bug 1153074] Review Request: perl-Sereal-Encoder - Perl serialization into Serial format -- 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 1153074] Review Request: perl-Sereal-Encoder - Perl serialization into Serial format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153074 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1152653 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152653 [Bug 1152653] Review Request: miniz - Compression library implementing the zlib and Deflate -- 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 1153074] Review Request: perl-Sereal-Encoder - Perl serialization into Serial format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153074 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1152057 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152057 [Bug 1152057] Review Request: csnappy - Snappy compression library ported to C -- 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 1153074] New: Review Request: perl-Sereal-Encoder - Perl serialization into Serial format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153074 Bug ID: 1153074 Summary: Review Request: perl-Sereal-Encoder - Perl serialization into Serial format 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/perl-Sereal-Encoder/perl-Sereal-Encoder.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Sereal-Encoder/perl-Sereal-Encoder-3.002-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: This library implements an efficient, compact-output, and feature-rich serializer using a binary protocol called Sereal. 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 1140403] Review Request: dreamchess - open source chess game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|1141506 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141506 [Bug 1141506] [abrt] mock: subprocess.py:1327:_execute_child:OSError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory -- 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 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 1151464] Review Request: ballerburg - Two players, two castles, and a hill in between
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464 --- 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 1150666] Review Request: gr-iqbal - GNURadio block for suppressing IQ imbalance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150666 Jan Synacek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsyna...@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 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 #10 from Matthew Miller --- Heh, I was going to make the suggestion of pulling out a .h file — that encourages people to use it as a shared library (and, prevents it from being compiled in by accident). -- 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 Jan Synacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jsyna...@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 1152897] Review Request: python-ndg_httpsclient - Provides enhanced HTTPS support for httplib and urllib2 using PyOpenSSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152897 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-ndg-httpsclient -|python-ndg_httpsclient - |Provides enhanced HTTPS |Provides enhanced HTTPS |support for httplib and |support for httplib and |urllib2 using PyOpenSSL |urllib2 using PyOpenSSL --- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-ndg_httpsclient Short Description: Provides enhanced HTTPS support for httplib and urllib2 using PyOpenSSL Upstream URL: http://ndg-security.ceda.ac.uk/wiki/ndg_httpsclient/ Owners: churchyard Branches: f21 epel7 -- 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 1152897] Review Request: python-ndg-httpsclient - Provides enhanced HTTPS support for httplib and urllib2 using PyOpenSSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152897 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- Everything seems to be fine, APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1152897] Review Request: python-ndg-httpsclient - Provides enhanced HTTPS support for httplib and urllib2 using PyOpenSSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152897 --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok --- Fixed the name, python2-devel. Also noticed the module uses entrypoints so requiring setuptools for runtime as well. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/python-ndg_httpsclient.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-ndg_httpsclient-0.3.2-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1150393] Review Request: tengine - A high performance web server and reverse proxy server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150393 --- Comment #7 from Marcela Mašláňová --- Only man page is called nginx, which doesn't seem right. At least you should create link from tengine man page to this nginx. You are missing check section in specfile. Did you think about running tests during build time? At least some? They could be conditionalized for running on local if it's not possible to run them at koji. -- 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] Review Request: miniz - Compression library implementing the zlib and Deflate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152653 Scott Talbert changed: What|Removed |Added CC||s...@techie.net --- Comment #1 from Scott Talbert --- *** Bug 1152804 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 Scott Talbert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2014-10-15 08:41:07 --- Comment #9 from Scott Talbert --- Thanks all for the feedback. Since Petr beat me by about 150 bugs, I'll close mine and let him have this one. :-) In his packaging, he has extracted a header file from the C file, so I think that might address Ralf's concerns about allowing static linking. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1152653 *** -- 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 1152897] Review Request: python-ndg-httpsclient - Provides enhanced HTTPS support for httplib and urllib2 using PyOpenSSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152897 --- Comment #2 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- - You should use python2-devel, not python-devel [1] - I think you shouldn't replace the underscore in package name. [2] says, that "packages where the upstream name naturally contains an underscore" aren't supposed to replace underscore with dash. Otherwise the package looks good, so once you fix these, I can approve. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators -- 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 1150393] Review Request: tengine - A high performance web server and reverse proxy server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150393 --- Comment #6 from Marcela Mašláňová --- Other sources like 404.html 50x.html contains Powered by nginx. Shouldn't it be powered by Tengine? tengine.init contains nginx.conf and calling of nginx, which is probably fine, because Fedora will be using tengine.service. Personally, I dislike calling binary nginx. There is set a strict conflict with nginx, so it should be functionally fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151464] Review Request: ballerburg - Two players, two castles, and a hill in between
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464 Andrea Musuruane changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Andrea Musuruane --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ballerburg Short Description: Two players, two castles, and a hill in between Upstream URL: http://baller.tuxfamily.org/ Owners: musuruan Branches: f20 f21 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151464] Review Request: ballerburg - Two players, two castles, and a hill in between
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464 --- Comment #10 from Andrea Musuruane --- (In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #9) > Approved! I just wanted you to point out these (cosmetic) parts. The package > is fine, I mentioned this above and set the review + flag now ;) Thank you 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 1152963] Review Request: indi-eqmod - INDI driver for SkyWatcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152963
--- Comment #1 from Christian Dersch ---
Forgot to replace %make_install with make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-eqmod.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-eqmod-0.9.9-2.20141015svn1783.fc21.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1153023] Review Request: jenkins-antisamy-markup-formatter-plugin - OWASP Markup Formatter Plugin for Jenkins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153023 Michal Srb changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- 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 1153023] New: Review Request: jenkins-antisamy-markup-formatter-plugin - OWASP Markup Formatter Plugin for Jenkins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153023 Bug ID: 1153023 Summary: Review Request: jenkins-antisamy-markup-formatter-plugin - OWASP Markup Formatter Plugin for Jenkins Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/jenkins-antisamy-markup-formatter-plugin.spec SRPM URL: https://msrb.fedorapeople.org/review/jenkins-antisamy-markup-formatter-plugin-1.2-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: This package provides Jenkins plugin which uses policy definitions to allow limited HTML markup in user-submitted text. Fedora Account System Username: msrb -- 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 1152897] Review Request: python-ndg-httpsclient - Provides enhanced HTTPS support for httplib and urllib2 using PyOpenSSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152897 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bkab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bkab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- Taking this 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 1152966] Review Request: indi-gphoto - INDI driver for many cameras using gPhoto
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152966
--- Comment #1 from Christian Dersch ---
Forgot to replace %make_install with make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-gphoto.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-gphoto-0.9.9-2.20141015svn1783.fc21.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151462] Review Request: belen - GUI of youtube-dl command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151462 --- Comment #10 from Parag AN(पराग) --- I see you still missed some of my points like using desktop-file-install and what Exec I wrote for desktop file. I will post few more issues in spec soon but meanwhile do some package reviews submitted by other people. -- 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 1149390] Review Request: dnfdaemon - Dbus daemon for dnf package actions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149390 --- Comment #7 from Tim Lauridsen --- https://github.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/releases/download/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3.fc21.src.rpm https://raw.githubusercontent.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-3/dnfdaemon.spec * remove python3-dnfdaemon requirement from main package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151464] Review Request: ballerburg - Two players, two castles, and a hill in between
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Christian Dersch --- Approved! I just wanted you to point out these (cosmetic) parts. The package is fine, I mentioned this above and set the review + flag now ;) (In reply to Andrea Musuruane from comment #8) > (In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #7) > > 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. > > I don't want to sound harsh but please explain why my method is not good. > AFAIK I could even patch CMake source files to include the installation of > those doc files and it would be perfectly fine. Fine but not beautiful ;) > > The Fedora packaging guidelines just state that "Any relevant documentation > [..] should be included in the package as %doc": > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation > > My spec file satisfies this requirement. I didn't say this is wrong or not good, I just want to know if/why it is required ;) The most common way is %doc COPYING.txt LIESMICH.txt README.txt doc/authors.txt Then you don't need the additional doc part in %install then. I tested it and it works. The magic of rpmbuild works fine ;) > > > The second point: Please add a comment on zlib licensed files in your spec. > > The License tag itself is fine. Now the detailed review: > > Again, I can't find any requirement to list the license of every source file > (BTW, why just the zlib licensed ones and not the others?). > > Fedora guidelines requires to specify the License tag and that is the > license of the contents of the *binary* RPM: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines > > The result binary RPM is GPLv3+ (PD & GPLv2+ & GPLv3+ & zlib = GPLv3+). Thats correct and License tag is ok ;) I just think it is nicer to add a comment on other used licenses to get a better overview. It is a little bit analogous to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios but in this case not a requirement. Greetings, Christian -- 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 226209] Merge Review: nut
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226209 --- Comment #10 from Michal Hlavinka --- (In reply to Vitezslav Crhonek from comment #9) > Sorry for (very) late response. > > rpmlint: > ./nut.spec:125: W: macro-in-comment %patch4 > ./nut.spec:131: W: macro-in-comment %patch10 > ./nut.spec:132: W: macro-in-comment %patch11 > ./nut.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch4: nut-2.6.5-ipmifix.patch > > Any reason to not apply Patch4? it was required for new release of freeipmi that broke api (patch), got reverted (disabled patch) and released new version with compatible api (patch no longer needed) I've removed it > Patches number 10 and 11 are not defined at all, removing comments with them > will do no harm. done > ./nut.spec:387: E: hardcoded-library-path in > /lib/systemd/system-shutdown/nutshutdown > > Isn't it possible to use some rpm macro here? there is no usable macro for this, afaik there are only 2 packages using this path, so probably insufficient demand :) > nut-client.x86_64: W: one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig modified > nut-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/nutscan-ip.h I will notify upstream, but won't patch it myself. Not worth it -- 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 --- Comment #72 from Fedora Update System --- nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-2.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 1039315] Review Request: nuvolaplayer - Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315 --- Comment #71 from Fedora Update System --- nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-2.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 1039315] Review Request: nuvolaplayer - Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315 --- Comment #70 from Fedora Update System --- nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-2.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 1039315] Review Request: nuvolaplayer - Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315 --- Comment #69 from Fedora Update System --- nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nuvolaplayer-2.4.3-2.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 1138850] Review Request: openstack-zaqar - Message queuing service for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138850 Alan Pevec changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-10-15 06:52:26 --- Comment #14 from Alan Pevec --- According to comment 13 openstack-zaqar is >= f22 only. -- 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 1138850] Review Request: openstack-zaqar - Message queuing service for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138850 Alan Pevec changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ape...@redhat.com --- Comment #13 from Alan Pevec --- > Branches: f21 Please keep openstack-marconi in F21 that's Icehouse code and we're keeping fedora:openstack 1:1 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OpenStack#OpenStack Also Zaqar depends on python-oslo-utils which is Juno addition so it won't be pushed to F21. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1149390] Review Request: dnfdaemon - Dbus daemon for dnf package actions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149390 --- Comment #6 from Tim Lauridsen --- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-2/dnfdaemon.spec https://github.com/timlau/dnf-daemon/releases/download/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-2/dnfdaemon-0.3.2-2.fc21.src.rpm * merged python3-dnfdaemon into main dnfdaemon package * renamed python3-dnfdaemon-client to python3-dnfdaemon * renamed python-dnfdaemon-client to python-dnfdaemon * fixed dir ownerships. -- 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 #8 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #7) > (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #6) > > (In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #5) > > > Hm... lxqt-0.8.0 requires libqtxdg-1.0.0, > > Where? I do not see such dependency. > > Try to compile: > /mnt/shares/home/eugene/rpmbuild/BUILD/lxqt-0.8.0/lxqt-config-0.8.0/lxqt- > config-file-associations/mimetypedata.h:32:23: fatal error: XdgMimeType: No > such file or directory > #include Thanks, I see. Another problem is lxqt-admin. It depends on liboops, a library which isn't in Fedora and seems to be dead upstream. > That is not compilable in RHEL6 I don't care. This is Fedora and we do not care about what's in RHEL. -- 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 #7 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #6) > (In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #5) > > Hm... lxqt-0.8.0 requires libqtxdg-1.0.0, > Where? I do not see such dependency. Try to compile: /mnt/shares/home/eugene/rpmbuild/BUILD/lxqt-0.8.0/lxqt-config-0.8.0/lxqt-config-file-associations/mimetypedata.h:32:23: fatal error: XdgMimeType: No such file or directory #include And liblxqt-1.0.0 requires qtmimetype. That is not compilable in RHEL6 and x64: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/X11:QtDesktop:LXQT/qtmimetypes But razorqt requires libqtxdg... It's a Long Way to Tipperary -- 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 #8 from Andrea Musuruane --- (In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #7) > 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. I don't want to sound harsh but please explain why my method is not good. AFAIK I could even patch CMake source files to include the installation of those doc files and it would be perfectly fine. The Fedora packaging guidelines just state that "Any relevant documentation [..] should be included in the package as %doc": https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation My spec file satisfies this requirement. > The second point: Please add a comment on zlib licensed files in your spec. > The License tag itself is fine. Now the detailed review: Again, I can't find any requirement to list the license of every source file (BTW, why just the zlib licensed ones and not the others?). Fedora guidelines requires to specify the License tag and that is the license of the contents of the *binary* RPM: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines The result binary RPM is GPLv3+ (PD & GPLv2+ & GPLv3+ & zlib = GPLv3+). -- 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 #15 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 1151747] Review request: onionshare - share files of any size securely and anonymously
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151747 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 1150504] Review Request: openstack-ironic-discoverd - hardware properties discovery daemon for OpenStack Ironic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504 --- Comment #11 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 1150504] Review Request: openstack-ironic-discoverd - hardware properties discovery daemon for OpenStack Ironic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504 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 1152966] New: Review Request: indi-gphoto - INDI driver for many cameras using gPhoto
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152966 Bug ID: 1152966 Summary: Review Request: indi-gphoto - INDI driver for many cameras using gPhoto Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: chrisder...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-gphoto.spec SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-gphoto-0.9.9-1.20141015svn1783.fc21.src.rpm Description: INDI driver using gPhoto to add support for many cameras to INDI. This includes many DSLR, e.g. Canon or Nikon. Fedora Account System Username: lupinix Hi, I started to package some INDI drivers (enhancing the libindi package). Thank you for review in advance! Greetings Christian -- 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 1152963] New: Review Request: indi-eqmod - INDI driver for SkyWatcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152963 Bug ID: 1152963 Summary: Review Request: indi-eqmod - INDI driver for SkyWatcher Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: chrisder...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-eqmod.spec SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-eqmod-0.9.9-1.20141015svn1783.fc21.src.rpm Description: INDI driver adding support for telescope mounts using the SkyWatcher protocol. Fedora Account System Username: lupinix Hi, I started to package some INDI drivers (enhancing the libindi package), so this is the first one :) Thank you for review in advance! Greetings Christian -- 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 #6 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to Eugene A. Pivnev from comment #5) > Hm... lxqt-0.8.0 requires libqtxdg-1.0.0, Where? I do not see such dependency. -- 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 Dmitry Tantsur changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Dmitry Tantsur --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: openstack-ironic-discoverd Short Description: Hardware discovery daemon for OpenStack Ironic Upstream URL: https://github.com/Divius/ironic-discoverd Owners: divius Branches: 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 1132356] Review Request: perl-Mo - Micro Objects. Mo is less
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1132356 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Mo-0.39-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Mo-0.39-1.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 1150504] Review Request: openstack-ironic-discoverd - hardware properties discovery daemon for OpenStack Ironic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150504
Haïkel Guémar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Haïkel Guémar ---
Hi Dmitry, I sponsored you into the packaging group. Feel free to ask me any
questions related to packaging or guidelines, that's also part of the
sponsoring package :)
---
As this package complies with Fedora packaging guidelines, I hereby approve it.
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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/haikel/1150504-openstack-
ironic-discoverd/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package 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.
[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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[Bug 1151711] Review Request: lxqt-libs - Core LXQT library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151711 --- Comment #5 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 ;) Hm... lxqt-0.8.0 requires libqtxdg-1.0.0, that requires qtmimetypes... I have to test new libqtxdg with razorqt. I think lxqt-0.7.0 as stable is best way now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1152897] New: Review Request: python-ndg-httpsclient - Provides enhanced HTTPS support for httplib and urllib2 using PyOpenSSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152897 Bug ID: 1152897 Summary: Review Request: python-ndg-httpsclient - Provides enhanced HTTPS support for httplib and urllib2 using PyOpenSSL Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mhron...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/python-ndg-httpsclient.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-ndg-httpsclient-0.3.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This is a HTTPS client implementation for httplib and urllib2 based on PyOpenSSL. PyOpenSSL provides a more fully featured SSL implementation over the default provided with Python and importantly enables full verification of the SSL peer. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard Note: Does not work with Python 3 and generally has no obvious purpose there anyway, because the SSL implementation in Python 3 is "good enough". -- 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
