[Bug 1173205] Review Request: nodejs-dependency-lister - Lists your module's dependencies with URLs and licenses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173205 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Thank you for this review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-dependency-lister Short Description: Lists your module's dependencies with URLs and licenses Upstream URL: https://github.com/mattdesl/dependency-lister Owners: pnemade Branches: 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 1182070] Review Request: gnome-2048 - A 2048 clone for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182070 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- Sorry, lets try this again. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-2048 Short Description: A 2048 clone for GNOME Owners: yaneti group::gnome-sig 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 1182548] Review Request: gnome-taquin - Sliding-block puzzle game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182548 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-taquin Short Description: Sliding-block puzzle game Owners: yaneti group::gnome-sig 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 1178911] Review Request: cairo-dock - Light eye-candy fully themable animated dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178911 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Thank you for initial comments!! First I write some reply to your comments I am not sure here, I suppose the existing orhpaned package will get un-retired (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/cairo-dock/) Yes. You mentioned there were some concerns in the past but now it was ACK'd by spot. It would be best if it there was a public record of that, couldn't find anything on fedora-legal/fedora-devel MLs. Well, there is no public record. All spot and my exchange was in private. I am not sure if I can make these show in public (as this is very legal issue), so for now I put them in private (but I can write the summary of the mail, will add) IIUIC, the patent stuff is being removed prior to creating the resulting source tarball thanks cairo-dock-create-fedora-tarball.sh. Yes. Hence I think the license should be: GPLv3+ and BSD GPLv3+ is more strict than BSD (and BSD is compatible with GPL) so it is okay to write GPLv3+ only: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F This doesn't seem to be true, e.g., one may install cairo-dock-libs and miss the licenses/* files. Yes, this must need fixing. Will fix in the next push Perhaps %cmake macro is robust enough so thar -O3 - -O2 in CMakeLists.txt is not necessary? Well, for gcc compiler flags related to optimization level, the latter always wins (i.e. gcc -O2 -O3 is gcc -O3). So it is safer to change -O3 in source code to -O2 explicitly. For %changelog dates rpmlint - Well, I don't rememeber what date is correct any longer... So although it is true that date is wrong in some way, I don't want to fix them. Personally, I don't have experience with such a setup (used mockchain locally) so hopefully it is acceptable and optimal. Well, for this build bootstrap is not difficult. Just building in the order of cairo-dock - cairo-dock-plug-ins (srpm) is okay. Other comments seems okay. I will fix - license files placement (should be moved to -libs) - write some brief explanation about legal issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1131019] Review Request: lejos-nxj - Run Java on the Lego NXT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131019 Damian Wrobel dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady BuildFails | --- Comment #2 from Damian Wrobel dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl --- Spec URL: https://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SPECS/lejos-nxj.spec SRPM URL: https://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SRPMS/lejos-nxj-0.9.1-6.20120529svn6624.fc21.src.rpm Changelog: Fix compilation with ant =1.9.4 for =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 1183422] New: Review Request: python-ghp-pages - Copies docs directly to the gh-pages branch of a GitHub repo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183422 Bug ID: 1183422 Summary: Review Request: python-ghp-pages - Copies docs directly to the gh-pages branch of a GitHub repo Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@petetravis.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://immanetize.fedorapeople.org/python-ghp-import.spec SRPM URL: https://immanetize.fedorapeople.org/python-ghp-import-0.4.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: ghp-import manages content in the gh-pages branch of your GitHub repo. Use it to publish documentation or other content that requires sources in your main branch. Fedora Account System Username: immanetize -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1180723] Review Request: clufter - Tool for transforming/analyzing cluster configuration formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180723 --- Comment #9 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- At least fix %changelog. For other things, it is recommend to modify, but if you want I try reading them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1183294] Review Request: perl-Compress-Snappy - Perl interface to Google's Snappy (de)compressor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183294 --- Comment #1 from David Dick dd...@cpan.org --- koji builds rawhide at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8655290 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1183294] New: Review Request: perl-Compress-Snappy - Perl interface to Google's Snappy (de)compressor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183294 Bug ID: 1183294 Summary: Review Request: perl-Compress-Snappy - Perl interface to Google's Snappy (de)compressor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dd...@cpan.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ddick.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Compress-Snappy.spec SRPM URL: https://ddick.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Compress-Snappy-0.23-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Perl interface to Google's Snappy (de)compressor Fedora Account System Username: ddick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1178861] Review Request: mapdb - Java database engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178861 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 1178861] Review Request: mapdb - Java database engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178861 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mapdb-1.0.6-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mapdb-1.0.6-1.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1179342] Review Request: ua-parser-java - Java implementation of user agent parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179342 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ua-parser-java-1.3.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ua-parser-java-1.3.0-1.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1179342] Review Request: ua-parser-java - Java implementation of user agent parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179342 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 1119056] Review Request: python-idna - Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119056 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-idna-1.0-1.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-01-18 20:34:26 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-idna-1.0-1.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 1176882] Review Request: nodejs-tar-stream - A streaming tar parser and generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176882 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||nodejs-tar-stream-1.1.1-1.f ||c21 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-tar-stream-1.1.1-1.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 1119004] Review Request: python-characteristic - Say 'yes' to types but 'no' to typing!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119004 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-characteristic-14.3. ||0-1.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-01-18 20:34:52 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-characteristic-14.3.0-1.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 1119063] Review Request: python-service-identity - Service identity verification for pyOpenSSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119063 Bug 1119063 depends on bug 1119004, which changed state. Bug 1119004 Summary: Review Request: python-characteristic - Say 'yes' to types but 'no' to typing! https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119004 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1119063] Review Request: python-service-identity - Service identity verification for pyOpenSSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119063 Bug 1119063 depends on bug 1119056, which changed state. Bug 1119056 Summary: Review Request: python-idna - Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119056 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1179342] Review Request: ua-parser-java - Java implementation of user agent parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179342 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Thanks for the review! i will solve the rpmlint issue on import New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ua-parser-java Short Description: Java implementation of user agent parser Upstream URL: https://github.com/tobie/ua-parser/ Owners: gil Branches: f21 InitialCC: java-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 1181365] Review Request: ice - ZeroC Object-Oriented middleware (un-retire)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181365 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||karlthe...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- @Carlos: I retired Ice because of an irrespectful individual from ARM SIG. Before retiring the package, I offered my fellow co-maintainers and mumble co-maintainers to pick up Ice, since I didn't get any answers, I orphaned it. If you want to blame someone, blame people insulting maintainers who maintains packages on their *free time* on irc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1183273] Review Request: gitshelf - Utility to manage git repositories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183273
hgue...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hgue...@redhat.com
Summary|Review Request: main |Review Request: gitshelf -
|package name here - short |Utility to manage git
|summary here |repositories
--- Comment #1 from hgue...@redhat.com ---
1. submitted by Eduardo Mayorga (FAS: mayorga) confirmed by its mail, but
comment #1 says FAS: espasmo (Fernando Espinoza who is not in packager group).
*Please clarify this asap*
If you're not sponsored, set the FE-NEEDSPONSOR
2. spec should have the same name as the source package
3. Description is insufficient
4. please version your BR: python2-devel
5. %{_bindir gitshelf}/ WTF ?
6. %description text is not useful, besides, the first line will be processed
as a comment by RPM
7. protip: if you want your review to be processed, take the time to fill in
the template, especially the *title*. Put yourself in a reviewer's shoes, do
you believe he'll even have a peek to a review request title Review Request:
main package name here - short summary here ?
I fixed it in your stead but keep it in mind for the next time.
Besides, the angle brackets are not to be kept.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1183169] Review Request: ykfde - opening LUKS with yubikey
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183169
Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@der-flo.net
--- Comment #4 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
hi!
Why don't you use the base source?
URL: https://github.com/nj0y/ykfde
Source: https://git.nj0y.ch/download/ykfde-%{version}.tar.gz
%{URL} is a fork from https://github.com/eworm-de/mkinitcpio-ykfde without
advantages as far as I can say now.
There is also no advantage in using %{Source} from an private git server, which
seems like another fork from https://github.com/eworm-de/mkinitcpio-ykfde .
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 1183169] Review Request: ykfde - opening LUKS with yubikey
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183169 --- Comment #5 from Benjamin Pereto benjamin.per...@gmail.com --- Hi! Why don't you use the base source? No problem with that. it's a fork, just to implement the fedora things, which were merged into upstream. Changed it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1182070] Review Request: gnome-2048 - A 2048 clone for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182070
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
I hereby approve this package into Fedora Packages Collection since it complies
with Fedora guidelines. Please submit a SCM request.
btw, my personal thanks for packaging this, I love 2048 :)
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), Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/haikel/1182070-gnome-2048/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help,
/usr/share/help/C
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has
*.gschema.xml files.
Note: gschema file(s) in gnome-2048
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in gnome-2048
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package 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:
[-]: 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
[Bug 1090933] Review Request : fusioninventory-agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090933 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #6 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- Marianne has been sponsored since, dropping the 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 1182070] Review Request: gnome-2048 - A 2048 clone for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182070 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-2048 Short Description: A 2048 clone for GNOME Owners: yaneti gnome-sig 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 1178861] Review Request: mapdb - Java database engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178861
Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com ---
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:
Apache (v2.0), MIT/X11 (BSD like), LGPL, Unknown or generated,
*No copyright* Apache (v2.0). 117 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package 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.
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are
[Bug 566407] Review Request: perl-Number-Bytes-Human - Convert byte count to human readable format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566407 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #26 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- Sorry, again. Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Number-Bytes-Human New Branches: epel7 Owners: rebus lystor fab -- 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 1179342] Review Request: ua-parser-java - Java implementation of user agent parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179342 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mgold...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgold...@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 542210] Review Request: python-execnet - Elastic Python Deployment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542210 Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-execnet New Branches: el6 Owners: thm -- 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 1178861] Review Request: mapdb - Java database engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178861 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mapdb Short Description: Java database engine Upstream URL: http://www.mapdb.org/ Owners: gil Branches: f21 InitialCC: java-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 1179342] Review Request: ua-parser-java - Java implementation of user agent parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179342
Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com ---
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:
Apache (v2.0), BSD (2 clause), MIT/X11 (BSD like), *No copyright*
MIT/X11 (BSD like), Unknown or generated. 81 files have unknown
license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[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.
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from
[Bug 1144802] Review Request: globus-xio-rate-driver - Globus Toolkit - Globus XIO Rate Limiting Driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144802 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1181118 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144803] Review Request: globus-xio-udt-driver - Globus Toolkit - Globus XIO UDT Driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144803 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1181118 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1181118] Review Request: globus-net-manager - Globus Toolkit - Globus Network Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181118 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1144800, ||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1144802, ||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1144803 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144800] Review Request: globus-gridmap-eppn-callout - Globus Toolkit - Globus gridmap ePPN callout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144800 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1181118 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1173159] Review Request: libsbml - Systems Biology Markup Language library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173159 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(michel@michel-slm ||.name) --- Comment #19 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- @Michel If you haven't time for this review, leave it to me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1182548] Review Request: gnome-taquin - Sliding-block puzzle game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182548
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
According dependencies, it will only build on rawhide onwards, so using
%license macro without fallback is ok.
I hereby approve this package into Fedora Packages Collection, since it
complies with Fedora
guidelines. Please submit a SCM request.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/1182548-gnome-
taquin/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/icons/HighContrast/24x24/apps,
/usr/share/icons/HighContrast/256x256, /usr/share/help,
/usr/share/icons/HighContrast/32x32, /usr/share/icons/HighContrast/22x22,
/usr/share/icons/HighContrast/16x16/apps,
/usr/share/icons/HighContrast/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/HighContrast,
/usr/share/icons/HighContrast/48x48,
/usr/share/icons/HighContrast/22x22/apps,
/usr/share/icons/HighContrast/16x16,
/usr/share/icons/HighContrast/48x48/apps, /usr/share/help/C,
/usr/share/icons/HighContrast/256x256/apps,
/usr/share/icons/HighContrast/24x24
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has
*.gschema.xml files.
Note: gschema file(s) in gnome-taquin
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in gnome-taquin
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use
[Bug 1144802] Review Request: globus-xio-rate-driver - Globus Toolkit - Globus XIO Rate Limiting Driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144802
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
- Please add %license (and a workaround for epel7)
- If you change the description in #1181118, do it here too.
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
Plugin.
= 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 2 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1144802
-globus-xio-rate-driver/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
OK.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[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]: 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 character s.
[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.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions
[Bug 1090933] Review Request : fusioninventory-agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090933 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- Two things before approving this package: 1. Fix the following unowned directories /usr/share/fusioninventory /usr/share/fusioninventory/lib /usr/share/fusioninventory/lib/FusionInventory /usr/share/fusioninventory/lib/FusionInventory/Agent /usr/share/fusioninventory/lib/FusionInventory/Agent/Task http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories 2. Add a comment explaining why the wakeonlan plugin is not shipping due to a dependency with problematic licensing (Artistic Perl v1) That is not mandatory, but this will avoid that a comaintainer or provenpackager adds it back by mistake. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144802] Review Request: globus-xio-rate-driver - Globus Toolkit - Globus XIO Rate Limiting Driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144802 --- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Package is APPROVED, pending the two small issues listed above. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144803] Review Request: globus-xio-udt-driver - Globus Toolkit - Globus XIO UDT Driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144803 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl 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 1144800] Review Request: globus-gridmap-eppn-callout - Globus Toolkit - Globus gridmap ePPN callout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144800 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- - Please add %license (and a workaround for epel7) - If you change the description in #1181118, do it here too. Rpmlint --- Checking: globus-gridmap-eppn-callout-1.7-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm globus-gridmap-eppn-callout-1.7-2.fc22.src.rpm globus-gridmap-eppn-callout.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eduPersonPrincipalName - principality globus-gridmap-eppn-callout.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libglobus_gridmap_eppn_callout.so libglobus_gridmap_eppn_callout.so globus-gridmap-eppn-callout.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eduPersonPrincipalName - principality 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. All OK. Rpmlint (installed packages) ]0;mock-chrootmock-chroot[root@bupkis /]# rpmlint globus-gridmap-eppn-callout globus-gridmap-eppn-callout.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eduPersonPrincipalName - principality globus-gridmap-eppn-callout.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libglobus_gridmap_eppn_callout.so libglobus_gridmap_eppn_callout.so globus-gridmap-eppn-callout.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libglobus_gridmap_eppn_callout.so /tmp/tmpAFQ8HI/lib64/nosync.so 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. ]0;mock-chrootmock-chroot[root@bupkis /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:' All OK. Requires globus-gridmap-eppn-callout (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig config(globus-gridmap-eppn-callout) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libglobus_common.so.0()(64bit) libglobus_common.so.0(GLOBUS_COMMON_14)(64bit) libglobus_gridmap_callout_error.so.0()(64bit) libglobus_gsi_credential.so.1()(64bit) libglobus_gss_assist.so.3()(64bit) libglobus_gssapi_error.so.2()(64bit) libglobus_gssapi_gsi.so.4()(64bit) libglobus_gssapi_gsi.so.4(globus_gssapi_gsi)(64bit) libglobus_openssl_error.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides globus-gridmap-eppn-callout: config(globus-gridmap-eppn-callout) globus-gridmap-eppn-callout globus-gridmap-eppn-callout(x86-64) libglobus_gridmap_eppn_callout.so()(64bit) Unversioned so-files globus-gridmap-eppn-callout: /usr/lib64/libglobus_gridmap_eppn_callout.so Source checksums http://www.globus.org/ftppub/gt6/packages/globus_gridmap_eppn_callout-1.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 15e5a6404d1f25897cdcaa07a26bc83f08755c92fcec31906cb2e6b51d662938 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 15e5a6404d1f25897cdcaa07a26bc83f08755c92fcec31906cb2e6b51d662938 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1144800 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG Package is APPROVED, pending the two small issues listed above. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1183273] Review Request: gitshelf - Utility to manage git repositories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183273 Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2015-01-18 12:51:08 --- Comment #2 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com --- I'm closing this bug as the actual submitter is espasmo. He was logged in as me 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 1183245] php-horde-gollem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183245 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2015-01-18 12:50:00 --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu --- This is not a wishlist; the Package Review component is for actually submitting packages for review. There is essentially no chance that the people who packaged the other Horde products will see this ticket in any case. You are welcome to add your request to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainers_wishlist -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1182548] Review Request: gnome-taquin - Sliding-block puzzle game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182548 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- Thanks for the review. I'll cosider adding a -data noarch subpackage after the import. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-taquin Short Description: Sliding-block puzzle game Owners: yaneti gnome-sig 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 1103852] Review Request: drupal7-site_map - This module provides a site map that gives visitors an overview of your site
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103852 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: drupal7-site_map Short Description: Provides a site map that gives visitors an overview of your site Upstream URL: https://www.drupal.org/project/site_map Owners: asrob siwinski Branches: 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 1103539] Review Request: drupal7-email - This module provides a field type for email addresses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103539 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: drupal7-email Short Description: Provides a field type for email addresses Upstream URL: https://www.drupal.org/project/email Owners: asrob siwinski Branches: 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 1144803] Review Request: globus-xio-udt-driver - Globus Toolkit - Globus XIO UDT Driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144803 --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- - BR: libselinux-devel seems to be missing - Please add %license (and a workaround for epel5) - If you change the description in #1181118, do it here too. Rpmlint --- Checking: globus-xio-udt-driver-1.16-1.fc22.i686.rpm globus-xio-udt-driver-devel-1.16-1.fc22.i686.rpm globus-xio-udt-driver-1.16-1.fc22.src.rpm globus-xio-udt-driver.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libglobus_xio_udt_driver.so libglobus_xio_udt_driver.so globus-xio-udt-driver-devel.i686: W: no-documentation globus-xio-udt-driver.src:23: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 23, tab: line 3) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ]0;mock-chrootmock-chroot[root@bupkis /]# rpmlint globus-xio-udt-driver globus-xio-udt-driver-devel globus-xio-udt-driver.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libglobus_xio_udt_driver.so libglobus_xio_udt_driver.so globus-xio-udt-driver.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libglobus_xio_udt_driver.so /tmp/tmpUOZZmn/lib/nosync.so globus-xio-udt-driver.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libglobus_xio_udt_driver.so /lib/libgio-2.0.so.0 globus-xio-udt-driver.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libglobus_xio_udt_driver.so /lib/libz.so.1 globus-xio-udt-driver.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libglobus_xio_udt_driver.so /lib/libresolv.so.2 globus-xio-udt-driver.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libglobus_xio_udt_driver.so /lib/libselinux.so.1 globus-xio-udt-driver.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libglobus_xio_udt_driver.so /lib/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 globus-xio-udt-driver.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libglobus_xio_udt_driver.so /lib/libdl.so.2 globus-xio-udt-driver.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libglobus_xio_udt_driver.so /lib/libffi.so.6 globus-xio-udt-driver.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libglobus_xio_udt_driver.so /lib/libm.so.6 Hm. nosync is a dnf/mock issue, not sure about the rest. globus-xio-udt-driver-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. ]0;mock-chrootmock-chroot[root@bupkis /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires globus-xio-udt-driver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6 libdl.so.2 libffi.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgio-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0 libglobus_common.so.0 libglobus_common.so.0(GLOBUS_COMMON_14) libglobus_xio.so.0 libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgthread-2.0.so.0 libm.so.6 libnice.so.10 libresolv.so.2 libselinux.so.1 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libudt.so.0 libz.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) globus-xio-udt-driver-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config globus-common-devel(x86-32) globus-xio-devel(x86-32) globus-xio-udt-driver(x86-32) pkgconfig(globus-common) pkgconfig(globus-xio) Provides globus-xio-udt-driver: globus-xio-udt-driver globus-xio-udt-driver(x86-32) libglobus_xio_udt_driver.so globus-xio-udt-driver-devel: globus-xio-udt-driver-devel globus-xio-udt-driver-devel(x86-32) pkgconfig(globus-xio-udt-driver) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1181118] Review Request: globus-net-manager - Globus Toolkit - Globus Network Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181118
--- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
- Please add %license (and a workaround for epel7)
- I still think the description could be reworded to more concisely describe
the functionality of the globus framework, but I leave it to your
consideration.
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
Fine. A plugin.
= 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 12 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1181118
-globus-net-manager/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/globus
globus-common-devel owns it.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
EPEL5 compat.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in
[Bug 1182548] Review Request: gnome-taquin - Sliding-block puzzle game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182548 --- Comment #3 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com --- Filed an upstream report wrt the cats images sizes, which imho seem excessive. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=743137 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177486] Review Request: golang-github-glacjay-goini - INI file parser in go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177486 Lokesh Mandvekar l...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@redhat.com --- Spec file looks good as per golang packaging draft. - Upstream license is correct - only sources installed for now Package 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 1177486] Review Request: golang-github-glacjay-goini - INI file parser in go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177486 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-glacjay-goini Short Description: INI file parser in go Upstream URL: https://github.com/glacjay/goini Owners: jchaloup lsm5 Branches: f21 f20 f19 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1181197] Review Request: golang-github-skynetservices-skydns - DNS service discovery for etcd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181197 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-skynetservices-skydns-0-0.2.git245a121.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-skynetservices-skydns-0-0.2.git245a121.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 1181197] Review Request: golang-github-skynetservices-skydns - DNS service discovery for etcd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181197 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-skynetservices-skydns-0-0.2.git245a121.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-skynetservices-skydns-0-0.2.git245a121.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 851680] Review Request: mingw-libidl - MinGW Windows IDL Parsing Library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851680 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- WARNING: Requested package name mingw-libIDL doesn't match bug summary mingw-libidl Please correct. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851680] Review Request: mingw-libidl - MinGW Windows IDL Parsing Library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851680 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1103539] Review Request: drupal7-email - This module provides a field type for email addresses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103539 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1103539] Review Request: drupal7-email - This module provides a field type for email addresses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103539 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1178861] Review Request: mapdb - Java database engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178861 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1103852] Review Request: drupal7-site_map - This module provides a site map that gives visitors an overview of your site
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103852 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 1103852] Review Request: drupal7-site_map - This module provides a site map that gives visitors an overview of your site
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103852 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1178861] Review Request: mapdb - Java database engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178861 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1182548] Review Request: gnome-taquin - Sliding-block puzzle game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182548 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- gnome-sig is not in the packager group. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1182548] Review Request: gnome-taquin - Sliding-block puzzle game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182548 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1182070] Review Request: gnome-2048 - A 2048 clone for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182070 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- gnome-sig is not in the packager group. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1182070] Review Request: gnome-2048 - A 2048 clone for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182070 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1179342] Review Request: ua-parser-java - Java implementation of user agent parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179342 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1179342] Review Request: ua-parser-java - Java implementation of user agent parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179342 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- 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 542210] Review Request: python-execnet - Elastic Python Deployment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542210 --- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 566407] Review Request: perl-Number-Bytes-Human - Convert byte count to human readable format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566407 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 566407] Review Request: perl-Number-Bytes-Human - Convert byte count to human readable format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566407 --- Comment #27 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 542210] Review Request: python-execnet - Elastic Python Deployment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542210 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 218183] Review Request: offlineimap - sync local and remote mail repositories via imap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=218183 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 218183] Review Request: offlineimap - sync local and remote mail repositories via imap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=218183 --- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1173205] Review Request: nodejs-dependency-lister - Lists your module's dependencies with URLs and licenses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173205
Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
APPROVED.
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. 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1173205-nodejs-dependency-
lister/licensecheck.txt
[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 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 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:
[-]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: 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
