[Bug 1167175] New: Review Request: CheMPS2 - spin-adapted DMRG for ab initio quantum chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167175 Bug ID: 1167175 Summary: Review Request: CheMPS2 - spin-adapted DMRG for ab initio quantum chemistry Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: talc...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/ayers/downloads/CheMPS2.spec SRPM URL: http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/ayers/downloads/CheMPS2-1.4-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: The CheMPS2 library provides a free open-source spin-adapted implementation of the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) for ab initio quantum chemistry. This method allows to obtain numerical accuracy in active spaces beyond the capabilities of full configuration interaction. For the input Hamiltonian and targeted symmetry sector, the library performs successive DMRG sweeps according to a user-defined convergence scheme. As output, the library returns the minimal encountered energy as well as the 2-RDM of the active space. The latter allows to calculate various properties, as well as the gradient and Hessian for orbital rotations or nuclear displacements. Fedora Account System Username: talc...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151817] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-sed - Grunt task for search and replace
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151817 Dan Callaghan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Dan Callaghan --- This is built in rawhide now: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=595113 Just need to wait for its dependencies to go stable before I can build for F21 and 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 1157295] Review Request: IRMI - Intercepting RMI implementation for the Java platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157295 --- Comment #1 from Dave Chen --- Spec URL: https: https://github.com/chendave/OAT2.X-fedora21-Dependencies/blob/master/irmi/carol-irmi.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/chendave/OAT2.X-fedora21-Dependencies/blob/master/irmi/carol-irmi-1.0.1-1_1fc.src.rpm Description: IRMI is one of dependencies of OAT (OpenAttestation) project, OAT1.6 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository, while in the latest OAT's release we still need push IRMI into fedora repository before we could update OAT pacakge to latest version. OpenAttestation's source link: https://github.com/OpenAttestation/OpenAttestation Fedora Account System Username:jungler Could anyone give some review on this package, appreciate for any comments you drop by. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167144] Review Request: ow2-jta-1.1-spec's spec file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167144 Dave Chen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2014-11-23 20:46:17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167144] New: Review Request: ow2-jta-1.1-spec's spec file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167144 Bug ID: 1167144 Summary: Review Request: ow2-jta-1.1-spec's spec file Product: Fedora Version: 21 Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: wei.d.c...@intel.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1159223] Review Request: ow2-jta-1.1-spec - "ow2-jta-1.1-spec" spec file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159223 --- Comment #2 from Dave Chen --- (In reply to Dave Chen from comment #1) > Spec URL: > https://github.com/chendave/OAT2.X-fedora21-Dependencies/blob/master/ow2-jta- > 1.1-spec/ow2-jta-1.1-spec-1.0.8.spec > SRPM URL: > https://github.com/chendave/OAT2.X-fedora21-Dependencies/blob/master/ow2-jta- > 1.1-spec/ow2-jta-1.1-spec-1.0.8-1.fc20.src.rpm > > > Description: "ow2-jta-1.1-spec" is one of dependencies of OAT > (OpenAttestation) project, OAT1.6 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable > repository, while in the latest OAT's release we still need push monolog The package is "ow2-jta-1.1-spec" instead of monolog. > into fedora repository before update OAT pacakge to latest version. > OpenAttestation's source link: > https://github.com/OpenAttestation/OpenAttestation > > Fedora Account System Username:jungler > > Could anyone give some review on this package, appreciate for any comments > you drop by. Fix the typo there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1159223] Review Request: ow2-jta-1.1-spec - "ow2-jta-1.1-spec" spec file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159223 Dave Chen changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |ow2-jta-1.1-spec's spec |ow2-jta-1.1-spec - |file|"ow2-jta-1.1-spec" spec ||file --- Comment #1 from Dave Chen --- Spec URL: https://github.com/chendave/OAT2.X-fedora21-Dependencies/blob/master/ow2-jta-1.1-spec/ow2-jta-1.1-spec-1.0.8.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/chendave/OAT2.X-fedora21-Dependencies/blob/master/ow2-jta-1.1-spec/ow2-jta-1.1-spec-1.0.8-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: "ow2-jta-1.1-spec" is one of dependencies of OAT (OpenAttestation) project, OAT1.6 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository, while in the latest OAT's release we still need push monolog into fedora repository before update OAT pacakge to latest version. OpenAttestation's source link: https://github.com/OpenAttestation/OpenAttestation Fedora Account System Username:jungler Could anyone give some review on this package, appreciate for any comments you drop by. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923831] Review Request: python-ipaddress - Port of the python 3.3+ ipaddress module to 2.6 and 2.7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923831 Sergio Pascual changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matt_dom...@dell.com Flags||needinfo?(matt_domsch@dell. ||com) --- Comment #6 from Sergio Pascual --- Hi, are you still interested in this? Most of the problems (README, LICENSE) have been fixed upstream already -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1113310] Review Request: python-libnacl - Python ctypes wrapper for libsodium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113310 Sergio Pascual changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@saltstack.com Flags||needinfo?(e...@saltstack.co ||m) --- Comment #24 from Sergio Pascual --- Any progress with this? You only need to add the license file to finish... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1113328] Review Request: python-ioflo - Flow Based Programming Automated Reasoning Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328 Sergio Pascual changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@saltstack.com Flags||needinfo?(e...@saltstack.co ||m) --- Comment #15 from Sergio Pascual --- Any progress with this? The review is very close to completion... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1166851] Review Request: python-husl - A Python implementation of HUSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166851 Sergio Pascual changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1167136 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167136 [Bug 1167136] Review Request: python-seaborn - Statistical data visualization in Python -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167136] Review Request: python-seaborn - Statistical data visualization in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167136 Sergio Pascual changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1166851 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166851 [Bug 1166851] Review Request: python-husl - A Python implementation of HUSL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167136] New: Review Request: python-seaborn - Statistical data visualization in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167136 Bug ID: 1167136 Summary: Review Request: python-seaborn - Statistical data visualization in Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sergio.pa...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/python-seaborn.spec SRPM URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/python-seaborn-0.5.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Seaborn is a library for making attractive and informative statistical graphics in Python. It is built on top of matplotlib and tightly integrated with the PyData stack, including support for numpy and pandas data structures and statistical routines from scipy and statsmodels. Fedora Account System Username: sergiopr -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151816] Review Request: nodejs-replace - Command line search and replace utility using Nodejs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151816 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 1151816] Review Request: nodejs-replace - Command line search and replace utility using Nodejs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151816 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-replace-0.3.0-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-replace-0.3.0-2.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 1167128] Review Request: package apachebuddy - Tools for make some recommendations on tuning your Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167128 Andreas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2014-11-23 17:42:56 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151812] Review Request: nodejs-backbone - Models, Views, Collections, and Events for JavaScript applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151812 Dan Callaghan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Dan Callaghan --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-backbone Short Description: Models, Views, Collections, and Events for JavaScript applications Upstream URL: http://backbonejs.org/ Owners: dcallagh Branches: f21 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167128] New: Review Request: package apachebuddy - Tools for make some recommendations on tuning your Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167128 Bug ID: 1167128 Summary: Review Request: package apachebuddy - Tools for make some recommendations on tuning your Apache Product: Fedora Version: 20 Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: aceo...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1115703] Review Request: nodejs-saucelabs - A wrapper around Sauce Labs REST API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115703 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1115703] Review Request: nodejs-saucelabs - A wrapper around Sauce Labs REST API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115703
Piotr Popieluch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch ---
Some comments:
- Empty debug package is created.
- BuildArch: noarch needs to be specified, eg:
BuildArch: noarch
%if 0%{?fedora} >= 19
ExclusiveArch: %{nodejs_arches} noarch
%else
ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 %{arm} noarch
%endif
- %description can be improved, e.g. make it %{summary}.
- %nodejs_symlink_deps --build can be ommited in %{build}
I can do a full review later this week when you fix those issues.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989792] Review Request: doublecmd-gtk2 - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager(Gtk2)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989792 --- Comment #6 from Raphael Groner --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5) > I will re check it soon. Are you still interested in maintaining doublecmd? If you like, I could do co-maintainer to speed up things a little bit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810049] Review Request: netbeans - Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||upstream-release-monitoring ||@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #9 from Raphael Groner --- *** Bug 781388 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 810049] Review Request: netbeans - Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||iluh...@gmail.com --- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner --- *** Bug 821636 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 810048] Review Request: netbeans-l10n - Internationalization support for NetBeans IDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810048 --- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner --- Version 8.0.1 is available: https://netbeans.org/community/releases/80/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810049] Review Request: netbeans - Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 --- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner --- Please update to v8.0.1: https://netbeans.org/community/releases/80/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1163559] Review Request: python-flask-uwsgi-websocket - High-performance WebSockets for your Flask apps powered by uWSGI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1163559
--- Comment #2 from Eduardo Mayorga ---
(In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #1)
> Just some quick comments:
>
> - 'Requires: python-Flask' seems wrong, the package is named python-flask
Done.
> - The tag 'Group:' is obsolete
I'll leave it as I'm going for EPEL too.
> - The python3 install must be first
In this case it doesn't matter because it does not write any file in %{_bindir}
or other common location.
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mayorga/python-flask-uwsgi-websocket.spec
SRPM URL:
https://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-uwsgi-websocket-0.2.10-1.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 1123537] Review Request: nodejs-handlebars - Mustache extension for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123537 --- Comment #3 from Eduardo Mayorga --- Yes, they require grunt tasks we don't have. Spec URL: https://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-handlebars.spec SRPM URL: https://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-handlebars-2.0.0-1.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 1167041] Review Request: nodejs-tern - JavaScript code analyzer for deep, cross-editor language support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167041
--- Comment #5 from Gerard Ryan ---
(In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #4)
> The files in the defs directory should maybe go in
> %{_datadir} though and then be symlinked into the node library directory.
Ok, so the files inside defs/ should go directly into %{_datadir}/tern/ and
then symlinked from there back to %{nodejs_sitelib}/tern/defs/ ?
> Also does it make sense to package anything in bin?
Hmm, actually yes tern, condense, and from_ts from bin/ should probably all be
packaged. bin/test comes with the module as downloaded from npm...should I just
include the entire dir?
> or the emacs files as a subpackage?
I was looking at that initially, but I must have gotten distracted. I've never
created a package for emacs (even my first js/nodejs packaging started
yesterday!). A subpackage seems like a good approach, but reading the packaging
guidelines for emacs[1], this sounds like "Case 2", for which it says:
> Where a package's principal functionality does not require (X)Emacs, but the
> package also includes some auxiliary Elisp files to provide support for the
> package in (X)Emacs, these should be included in the main package which will
> need to Require the emacs-filesystem and/or xemacs-filesystem packages.
So, is a subpackage acceptable, or would the main package need to have the
files & depend on emacs-filesystem? If subpackage, is nodejs-tern-emacs
acceptable? Or do you know of a way that we could have a subpackage that looks
like an emacs package, like emacs-tern or something?
Thanks again for reviewing, and any help you can provide.
Purely for context: I'm mainly just packaging this as a dependency for the
Eclipse plugin that bundles it, that I need as a new dependency for another
Eclipse plugin.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Emacs
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066613] Review Request: gtkdialog - Fast and easy GUI builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066613 --- Comment #18 from Mosaab Alzoubi --- - Using icon due to original MAKE operation. - All Done. Thank you both === Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/test/gtkdialog.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/test/gtkdialog-0.8.3-5.oj35.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 1165300] Review Request: paratype-pt-mono-fonts - PT Mono fonts by Paratype, a monospaced typeface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165300 Rajeesh changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Rajeesh --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: paratype-pt-mono-fonts Short Description: Paratype PT Mono fonts, a monospaced typeface Upstream URL: http://www.paratype.com/public/ Owners: rajeeshknambiar Branches: f21 f22 epel7 InitialCC: pnemade -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1165299] Review Request: paratype-pt-serif-fonts - PT Serif fonts by Paratype, a pan-Cyrillic typeface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165299 Rajeesh changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Rajeesh --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: paratype-pt-serif-fonts Short Description: Paratype PT Serif fonts, a pan-Cyrillic typeface Upstream URL: http://www.paratype.com/public/ Owners: rajeeshknambiar Branches: f21 f22 epel7 InitialCC: pnemade -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1119087] Review Request: python-voluptuous - A Python data validation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119087 Sergio Pascual changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-11-23 11:38:45 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167041] Review Request: nodejs-tern - JavaScript code analyzer for deep, cross-editor language support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167041
--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes ---
Moslty look good. The files in the defs directory should maybe go in
%{_datadir} though and then be symlinked into the node library directory.
Also does it make sense to package anything in bin? or the emacs files as a
subpackage?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167041] Review Request: nodejs-tern - JavaScript code analyzer for deep, cross-editor language support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167041
--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes ---
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.
[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.
[!]: 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 256000 bytes in 16 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-tern-0.7.0-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
nodejs-tern-0.7.0-2.fc22.src.rpm
nodejs-tern.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-tern.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/tern/node_modules/glob /usr/lib/node_modules/glob
nodejs-tern.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/n
[Bug 1166851] Review Request: python-husl - A Python implementation of HUSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166851 Sergio Pascual changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Sergio Pascual --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-husl Short Description: A Python implementation of HUSL Upstream URL: http://github.com/boronine/pyhusl Owners: sergiopr Branches: f21 f20 f19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822283] Review Request: vim-omnicppcomplete - vim c++ completion omnifunc with a ctags database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822283 Marc Deop changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822283] Review Request: vim-omnicppcomplete - vim c++ completion omnifunc with a ctags database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822283 --- Comment #12 from Marc Deop --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: vim-omnicppcomplete Short Description: vim c++ completion omnifunc with a ctags database Upstream URL: http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=1520 Owners: marcdeop Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167041] Review Request: nodejs-tern - JavaScript code analyzer for deep, cross-editor language support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167041 --- Comment #2 from Gerard Ryan --- Spec URL: https://galileo.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-tern/0.7.0-2/nodejs-tern.spec SRPM URL: https://galileo.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-tern/0.7.0-2/nodejs-tern-0.7.0-2.fc22.src.rpm Thanks for taking this review Tom. (In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #1) > This needs a BuildRequire on npm(acorn) for the tests. I've added that 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 1167032] Review Request: nodejs-acorn - ECMAScript parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167032 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Gerard Ryan --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-acorn Short Description: ECMAScript parser Owners: galileo Branches: f21 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167032] Review Request: nodejs-acorn - ECMAScript parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167032 --- Comment #3 from Gerard Ryan --- (In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #2) > I think util/test_walk.js should probably be left out of the package, but > other than that this all looks good. Thanks a lot for the review Tom, I'll take that file out before building. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066613] Review Request: gtkdialog - Fast and easy GUI builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066613 --- Comment #17 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Mosaab, I think what Michael has suggested above is better than what I asked in point 2 above. I have not checked above patch but I believe above patch is good way to have %make_install working for that 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 1100870] Review Request: perl-Parse-EDID - Extended display identification data parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100870 maria...@tuxette.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from maria...@tuxette.fr --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-parse-EDID Short Description: Extended display identification data (EDID) parser Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Parse-EDID/ Owners: jehane Branches: f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167041] Review Request: nodejs-tern - JavaScript code analyzer for deep, cross-editor language support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167041 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes --- This needs a BuildRequire on npm(acorn) for the tests. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167032] Review Request: nodejs-acorn - ECMAScript parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167032 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes --- I think util/test_walk.js should probably be left out of the package, but other than that this all looks good. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167032] Review Request: nodejs-acorn - ECMAScript parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167032
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||t...@compton.nu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
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.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmli
[Bug 1100870] Review Request: perl-Parse-EDID - Extended display identification data parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100870 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1100870] Review Request: perl-Parse-EDID - Extended display identification data parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100870
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer ---
So the package is good, minus a few cleaning to do.
( mostly cleaning for old stuff, nothing
blocking ). So approved, and i can sponsor you.
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:
"GPL (v3 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/fedora/1100870-perl-Parse-EDID/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Parse(perl-Parse-CPAN-Packages, perl-Parse-
CPAN-Distributions, perl-BackPAN-Index, perl-ParseTemplate, perl-Parse-
Yapp, samba-pidl, perl-Parse-CPAN-Packages-Fast, perl-Parse-ErrorString-
Perl, perl-Parse-RecDescent, perl-Parse-DebControl, perl-Parse-Method-
Signatures, perl-Parse-CPAN-Meta, perl-ParseLex, perl-Parse-DMIDecode)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported
[Bug 1100870] Review Request: perl-Parse-EDID - Extended display identification data parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100870 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added 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 1100870] Review Request: perl-Parse-EDID - Extended display identification data parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100870 --- Comment #5 from maria...@tuxette.fr --- updated spec and new url : SPECS: http://giverny.tuxette.fr/~jehane/copr/perl-Parse-EDID/perl-Parse-EDID.spec SRPMS: http://giverny.tuxette.fr/~jehane/copr/perl-Parse-EDID/perl-Parse-EDID-1.0.6-2.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 1100870] Review Request: perl-Parse-EDID - Extended display identification data parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100870 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167076] Review Request: jlibrtp - Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167076 Mikolaj Izdebski 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 1066613] Review Request: gtkdialog - Fast and easy GUI builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066613
--- Comment #16 from Michael Schwendt ---
Created attachment 960413
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=960413&action=edit
fix for %make_install
Beyond that, gtkdialog-0.8.3-4.oj35.src.rpm didn't build again, because it
commented out the "rm %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/info/dir" again.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1161213] Review Request: sc - Spreadsheet Calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161213 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1078901 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167076] New: Review Request: jlibrtp - Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167076 Bug ID: 1167076 Summary: Review Request: jlibrtp - Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: projects...@smart.ms QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/jlibrtp/jlibrtp.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/jlibrtp/jlibrtp-0.2.2-1.20141122svn252.fc20.src.rpm Description: Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Fedora Account System Username: raphgro -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066613] Review Request: gtkdialog - Fast and easy GUI builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066613
--- Comment #15 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
Can you please add full changelog for every new release? I see you are just
adding "Fixes". Now when I want to check what has changed from last release,
there is no information where to look into the spec file.
Some other improvements:
1) After looking into this program usage, a question, why we need to install
icon files if this not that end user need to execute directly? Also we don't
need desktop file so what is use case to have icon file installed?
2) doc files are added to both the packages. Let's install only required doc
files. Use %files for both binary rpms as
%files
%{_bindir}/gtkdialog
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/gtkdialog.png
%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog COPYING NEWS README TODO
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/examples
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/reference
%files doc
%{_datadir}/info/%{name}.info.gz
%{_pkgdocdir}/
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/AUTHORS
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/ChangeLog
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/COPYING
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/NEWS
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/README
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/TODO
3) now to work for using %make_install, you need to remove makefile rules that
causes compilation error when used %make_install. Add to end of %prep as
sed -i '3,8d' data/icons/hicolor/Makefile.am
autoreconf -ivf
%configure
now to use autoreconf, you need to add
BuildRequires: autoconf
BuildRequires: automake
and then in %install replace %makeinstall with
%make_install
4) I did a scratch build with above changes and it failed for missing makeinfo
command. So now add
BuildRequires: texinfo
Just check what I suggested working for you also :)
Submit new srpm with what has changed since last srpm in changelog.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1165300] Review Request: paratype-pt-mono-fonts - PT Mono fonts by Paratype, a monospaced typeface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165300 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Looks good. 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 1165299] Review Request: paratype-pt-serif-fonts - PT Serif fonts by Paratype, a pan-Cyrillic typeface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165299 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Looks good. 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
