[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #22 from Philip Prindeville --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #21) > Oh, I didn't notice that you're the co-maintainer. Sorry. No worries. > You could play with Provides and Obsoletes and join updates of GeoIP and > geoipupdate, but is it worth the trouble? Do you need to do the split for > F21? Well, personally I run a few F20 machines that I've not yet had time to update (and I'm still cringing at the thought of 'fedup' not handling /var filesystems correctly). And I know of a lot of web services (Apache, SpamAssassin, ProFTPD, Mimedefang, etc) which all have GeoIP-based plugins and use geoipupdate to fetch databases weekly. I wouldn't want to leave them all in a lurch... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187337] Review Request: sil-coval-fonts - font derived from sans-serif
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187337 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproj ||ect.org, ||i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproje ||ct.org, panem...@gmail.com 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 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #21 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Oh, I didn't notice that you're the co-maintainer. Sorry. You could play with Provides and Obsoletes and join updates of GeoIP and geoipupdate, but is it worth the trouble? Do you need to do the split 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 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #20 from Philip Prindeville --- Oh, and I pushed a new .spec, etc. to fedorapeople.org with the migrated Provides: and Obsoletes: as you suggested changing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #19 from Philip Prindeville --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #18) > BTW, I found a problem with the Provides and Obsoletes: > Provides: GeoIP-update = 1.6.0 > Obsoletes: GeoIP-update < 1.6.0 > They should be moved to the -cron subpackage. In F21, GeoIP-update provides > the cron file, so it should be replaced with GeoIP-update-cron on upgrades. Yeah, Paul and I kind of botched that up. It should have been GeoIP, GeoIP-update, GeoIP-update-cron, and GeoIP-update-cron6... and that way it could have been restructured as GeoIP, geoipupdate, geoipupdate-cron, and geoipupdate-cron6. But GeoIP-update ended up being overloaded, containing both the utility and the IPv4 cron script... We'll brainstorm and see what can be done to fix the issue for F20 and 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 1187030] Review Request: giza - A scientific plotting library for C/Fortran built on cairo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187030 --- Comment #4 from Joachim Frieben --- (In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #3) > Do you want to become a packager for Fedora? Thanks, I can take care of the giza package. I just need to unlock my user account at fedoraproject.org :o/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 --- Comment #66 from jiri vanek --- > > or remove maven-dependency-plugin and maven-assembly-plugin Thanx that helped! https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/elasticsearch/v4/elastic/ updated with https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/elasticsearch/v4/elastic/elasticsearch-1.4.0-0.1.Beta1.fc22.noarch.rpm https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/elasticsearch/v4/elastic/elasticsearch-javadoc-1.4.0-0.1.Beta1.fc22.noarch.rpm Somehow reliable packages! However still long way to go! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187713] netty-tcnative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187713 --- Comment #2 from jiri vanek --- Hi! Thank you for review. I will get back to this next week. However. You are writing this should be made noarch - but in fact, it is native package. But... my jar do not contains (correctly) the native parts. Only classes. However not even rpm is containing them => So I made it wrongly and forget to pack the native parts completly! In next iteration the javadoc and main jar will be noarch, but native lib will be regular ARCHed one. As for url, it is : https://github.com/netty/netty-tcnative/archive/netty-tcnative-1.1.30.Fork2.tar.gz not sure how it slipped... mea culpa! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #18 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- What I meant to say, I now see that this wasn't very clear, was that this *version* with the specific Provides and Obsoletes works in F22. In F21 they might need adjustment. Basically what the maintainer of GeoIP says in #c14. Please coordinate with him. IIUC, GeoIP-1.5.1-6.fc21.x86_64 provides /usr/bin/geoipupdate, while GeoIP-1.6.4-0.fc22.x86_64 does not, so your package can be installed without conflicts in F22, but not in F21. BTW, I found a problem with the Provides and Obsoletes: Provides:GeoIP-update = 1.6.0 Obsoletes:GeoIP-update < 1.6.0 They should be moved to the -cron subpackage. In F21, GeoIP-update provides the cron file, so it should be replaced with GeoIP-update-cron on upgrades. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 Philip Prindeville 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 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
--- Comment #17 from Philip Prindeville ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #16)
> Please remove the extension from the man pages in %files:
>%{_mandir}/man1/geoipupdate.1.*
> etc. This makes a potential change of compression easier.
Done
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
>
> = MUST items =
>
> C/C++:
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
> [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
>
> Generic:
> [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
> other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
> Guidelines.
> [-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
> in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
> for the package is included in %doc.
> [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
> "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or
> later)",
> "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 5
> files
> have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
> /var/tmp/1186889-geoipupdate/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
> [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]: 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 3 files.
> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
> one
> supported primary architecture.
> [x]: Package installs properly.
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
> Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [x]: Package 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
> [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
> [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> [x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
> [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
> work.
> [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
> [x]: No %config files under /usr.
> [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
> [x]: Package is not relocatable.
> [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
> in the spec URL.
> [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
> %{name}.spec.
> [x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
> [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
>
> = SHOULD items =
>
> Generic:
> [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
> file
> from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
> [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
> [x]: Package functions as described.
> It seems to.
>
> [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
[Bug 734248] Review Request: apf - Adventure PHP Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(reiner@rottmann.i | |t) | --- Comment #29 from Orion Poplawski --- rpmlint: apf.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/adventure-php-framework/APF/migration/migrate-code.sh 0644L /bin/bash apf.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/adventure-php-framework/APF/migration/relocate.sh 0644L /bin/bash apf.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/adventure-php-framework/APF/migration/migrate-config.sh 0644L /bin/bash - Was upstream ever notified about the line ending issue? (Just wondering if dos2unix is still needed - seems like a tarball should have the proper line-endings). - I (still) believe the license should be "LGPLv3+" - I don't think the jquery.ui vulnerability applies - doesn't look to use jquery.ui. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875087] Review Request: pbsclusterviz - Visualise the status of PBS clusters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875087 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags||needinfo?(p...@liekut.de) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 734248] Review Request: apf - Adventure PHP Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(reiner@rottmann.i ||t) --- Comment #28 from Orion Poplawski --- Any word on CVE fixes upstream? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #16 from Dave Johansen --- I wanted to make sure everything still worked with clang 3.4.2 on EL 6/7 and I found an issue with the check section, so the updated .spec and source .rpm can be found at: https://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/iwyu_3.4.2/iwyu.spec https://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/iwyu_3.4.2/iwyu-3.4-1.el7.centos.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 1131825] Review Request: qtile - Small, flexible, scriptable tiling window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131825 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENT_DATA Last Closed||2015-01-30 19:47:19 --- Comment #13 from Raphael Groner --- So I'll close as dead review cause it is quite obvious now. Feel free to duplicate (reopen) to start a new review process. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking 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 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #16 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Please remove the extension from the man pages in %files:
%{_mandir}/man1/geoipupdate.1.*
etc. This makes a potential change of compression easier.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)",
"GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/var/tmp/1186889-geoipupdate/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
[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]: 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 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
It seems to.
[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
transla
[Bug 1166947] Review Request: perl-Dancer2 - Lightweight yet powerful web application framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166947 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Dancer2-0.158000-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1119063] Review Request: python-service-identity - Service identity verification for pyOpenSSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119063 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- python-service-identity-14.0.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1131825] Review Request: qtile - Small, flexible, scriptable tiling window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131825 --- Comment #12 from John Dulaney --- No reply from Christopher Meng in quite some time; as the deadline for getting things into F22 is coming fast, something needs to be done. I have qtile 0.9 ready to go for a review request. I would also like to point out that I had started pacaging deps for qtile prior to this review request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1185582] Review Request: openambit - Open software for the Suunto Ambit(2)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185582 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- openambit-0.3-2.git5f2b784.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openambit-0.3-2.git5f2b784.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 1185021] Review Request: gap-pkg-spinsym - GAP package for Brauer tables of spin-symmetric groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185021 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 1185021] Review Request: gap-pkg-spinsym - GAP package for Brauer tables of spin-symmetric groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185021 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- gap-pkg-spinsym-1.5-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gap-pkg-spinsym-1.5-1.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 1185020] Review Request: gap-pkg-ctbllib - GAP Character Table Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185020 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 1185020] Review Request: gap-pkg-ctbllib - GAP Character Table Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185020 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- gap-pkg-ctbllib-1.2.2-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gap-pkg-ctbllib-1.2.2-3.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1185019] Review Request: gap-pkg-tomlib - GAP Table of Marks package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185019 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- gap-pkg-tomlib-1.2.5-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gap-pkg-tomlib-1.2.5-3.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1185019] Review Request: gap-pkg-tomlib - GAP Table of Marks package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185019 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 1185018] Review Request: gap-pkg-sonata - GAP package for systems of nearrings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185018 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 1185018] Review Request: gap-pkg-sonata - GAP package for systems of nearrings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185018 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- gap-pkg-sonata-2.6-4.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gap-pkg-sonata-2.6-4.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 1185016] Review Request: gap-pkg-io - Unix I/O functionality for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185016 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- gap-pkg-io-4.4.4-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gap-pkg-io-4.4.4-1.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 1185016] Review Request: gap-pkg-io - Unix I/O functionality for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185016 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 1185015] Review Request: gap-pkg-browse - GAP browser for 2-dimensional arrays of data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185015 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- gap-pkg-browse-1.8.6-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gap-pkg-browse-1.8.6-2.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 1185015] Review Request: gap-pkg-browse - GAP browser for 2-dimensional arrays of data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185015 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 1185014] Review Request: gap-pkg-atlasrep - GAP interface to the Atlas of Group Representations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185014 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 1185014] Review Request: gap-pkg-atlasrep - GAP interface to the Atlas of Group Representations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185014 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- gap-pkg-atlasrep-1.5.0-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gap-pkg-atlasrep-1.5.0-2.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 657071] Review Request: fuse-ext2 - Ext2/3/4 file-system support for FUSE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657071 Damian Wrobel changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(dwrobel@ertelnet. | |rybnik.pl) | --- Comment #11 from Damian Wrobel --- On the one hand the project seems to be inactive since 2010 on the other hand I don't see an easy way to unbundle the problematic file. Thus, I don't know what possibilities do we have to move things forward. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171129] Review Request: freeradius-client - Client library and utilities for radius
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171129 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- freeradius-client-1.1.7-3.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freeradius-client-1.1.7-3.el7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171129] Review Request: freeradius-client - Client library and utilities for radius
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171129 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- freeradius-client-1.1.7-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freeradius-client-1.1.7-3.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187224] Review Request: python-backport_collections - Backport of Python 2.7's collections module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187224 Matěj Cepl changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1179743 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179743 [Bug 1179743] FTBFS on RHEL 6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169498] Review Request: retext - Text editor for Markdown and reStructuredText
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498
--- Comment #5 from William Moreno ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains
desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in retext
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
database
= 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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package 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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
[Bug 169801] Review Request: perl-Net-IP-CMatch - Efficiently match IP addresses against IP ranges with C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=169801 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Net-IP-CMatch New Branches: epel7 Owners: orion InitialCC: -- 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 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
--- Comment #15 from Philip Prindeville ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #13)
> - Add %config(noreplace) to the cron tab file.
> - Add Requires: crontabs.
Done.
> = 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:
> [?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
> other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
> Guidelines.
> I cannot find the license statement anywhere.
There's a LICENSE file on github that somehow didn't make it into the release
tarball.
> [?]: 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.
> Please ask upstream to include a license file and add a link to the bug
> report in the spec file.
Done.
> [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
> "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or
> later)",
> "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 5
> files
> have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
> /var/tmp/1186889-geoipupdate/licensecheck.txt
> [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Upstream limitation... no LICENSE file.
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/cron.weekly
> [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> Package processes untrusted input from the network. Add
> %global _hardened_build 1
Fixed.
> [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.
>
> [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
Not sure why this was marked thusly.
> [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
> names).
> [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
> [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
> one
> supported primary architecture.
> [x]: Package installs properly.
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
> Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x]: Package 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
> [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
> [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> [x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
> [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
> work.
> [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
> [x]: No %config files under /usr.
> [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
> [x]: Package is not relocatable.
> [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
> in the spec URL.
> [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
> %{name}.spec.
> [x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
> [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> (~1MB) or number of files.
> Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
> [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
>
> = SHOULD items =
>
> Generic:
> [?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
> file
> from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to in
[Bug 1171129] Review Request: freeradius-client - Client library and utilities for radius
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171129 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-01-30 16:35:18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086
--- Comment #65 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #61)
> The error and following logs are based on:
> https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/elasticsearch/v4/elastic/
>
> (updated blocking depndencies avaiable also:
> https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/elasticsearch/v4/ )
Try with
%mvn_package org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch:tar.gz:%{namedversion}
__noinstall
or remove maven-dependency-plugin and maven-assembly-plugin
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186725] Review Request: perl-Apache-Session-NoSQL - NoSQL implementation of Apache::Session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186725 David Dick changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from David Dick --- Yeah, fair enough. I can't say i have a lot of interest in it either. :) 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 1131825] Review Request: qtile - Small, flexible, scriptable tiling window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131825 --- Comment #11 from Raphael Groner --- Who is the packager here? I can help with the review, mostly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177019] Review Request: os-net-config - Host network configuration tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177019 James Slagle changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| 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 1177019] Review Request: os-net-config - Host network configuration tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177019 James Slagle changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709328] Review Request: psi-plus - Jabber client based on Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709328 --- Comment #106 from Raphael Groner --- Use autodownloader and remove content downloader plugin: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/autodownloader/ 1) Plugin has bad usability and does not work properly. 2) Autodownloader will ask the user if it should download additional stuff like icons etc., this is without legal issue cause of the manual question to confirm by the individual user. -- 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 1177019] Review Request: os-net-config - Host network configuration tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177019 James Slagle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bne...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(bne...@redhat.com ||) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177019] Review Request: os-net-config - Host network configuration tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177019
--- Comment #2 from James Slagle ---
Can you fix the spacing in the spec file as well? Looks like there might be a
mix of tabs and spaces.
Please remove the first changelog entry from dprince. I'm not sure what the XXX
version is supposed to represent. Is that a Delorean thing?
In addition, please address Dmitry's points as well.
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)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jslagle/code/fedora-packages/1177019-os-net-config/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should
[Bug 1177019] Review Request: os-net-config - Host network configuration tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177019 James Slagle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsla...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsla...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187713] netty-tcnative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187713
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Remove dot from summary.
BuildRequires: java-devel should not be needed.
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: make tar
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
In principle this could be removed, but is allowed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-poms/netty-tcnative,
/usr/lib/java/netty-tcnative
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-poms/netty-
tcnative, /usr/lib/java/netty-tcnative
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
Please remove.
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
Yes.
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
This should be fixed.
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/netty/netty-
tcnative/releases/tag/netty-tcnative-1.1.30.Fork2.tar.gz
This link does not work.
[ ]: 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).
No, see above.
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in netty-
tcnative-javadoc
OK.
Java:
[ ]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
Note: netty-tcnative subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually
Should be noarch.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached
diff).
See: (this test has no URL)
[ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2396160 bytes in /usr/share
Rpmlint
---
Checking: netty-tcnative-1.1.30-0.fc22.x86_64.rpm
netty-tcnative-javadoc-1.1.30-0.fc22.x86_64.rpm
netty-tcnative-1.1.30-0.fc22.src.rpm
netty-tcnative.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Netty-tcnative is a fork of
Tomcat Native.
Should be fixed.
netty-tcnative.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Netty-tcnative
Should be fixed.
netty-tcnative.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mavenization ->
magnetization, humanization, maximization
netty-tcnative.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.30.Fork2.0
['1.1.30-0.fc22', '1.1.30-0']
Should be fixed.
netty-tcnative.x86_64: E: no-binary
netty-tcnative.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
netty-tcnative.x86_64: W: no-documentation
netty-tcnative.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Netty-tcnative is a fork of
Tomcat Native.
netty-tcnative.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Netty-tcnative
netty-tcnative.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mavenization ->
magnetization, humanization, maximization
netty-tcnative.src: W: strange-permission netty-tcnative-1.1.30.Fork2.tar.gz
0640L
netty-tcnative.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://github.com/netty/netty-tcnative/releases/tag/netty-tcnative-1.1.30.Fork2.tar.gz
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
-
--- /var/tmp/1187713-netty-tcnative/srpm/netty-tcnative.spec2015-01-30
13:38:39.140804828 -0500
+++ /var/tmp/1187713-netty-tcnative/srpm-unpacked/netty-tcnative.spec
2015-01-29 10:33:27.0 -0500
@@ -10,8 +10,4 @@
Source0:
https://github.com/netty/netty-tcnative/releases/tag/%{name}-%{namedversion}.tar.gz
-#dont know how to configure requires, just guessing
-Requires: java-headless
-Requires: apr
-Requires: openssl
BuildRequires: maven-local
@@ -25,8 +21,7 @@
BuildRequires: openssl-devel
BuildRequires: java-devel
-BuildRequires: maven-hawtjni-plugin
#parent pom is needed
BuildRequires: netty
-
+BuildRequires: maven-hawtjni-plugin
%description
Requires
netty-tcnative (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
java-headless
jpackage-utils
netty-tcnative-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jpackage-utils
Should be removed.
Provides
netty-tcnative:
mvn(io.netty:netty-tcnative)
mvn(io.netty:netty-tcnative:pom:)
netty-tcnative
netty-
[Bug 1185021] Review Request: gap-pkg-spinsym - GAP package for Brauer tables of spin-symmetric groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185021 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1185021] Review Request: gap-pkg-spinsym - GAP package for Brauer tables of spin-symmetric groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185021 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1185020] Review Request: gap-pkg-ctbllib - GAP Character Table Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185020 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1185020] Review Request: gap-pkg-ctbllib - GAP Character Table Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185020 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 --- Comment #64 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- I think that so far the "tight bundling requirements" have not proven to be true. What is required instead is latest (or at least recent) versions of various packages. And I think that this push has been beneficial to the distribution as a whole: various packages refreshed, more stuff packaged. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187713] netty-tcnative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187713 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 jiri vanek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1181564 --- Comment #63 from jiri vanek --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #59) > proposed: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Elasticsearch This was approved, In FeSCo meeting log was few very interesting sentences: [1] * though a little worried whether everyone will be able to keep all of the packages in sync over time. * Right, this is a prime example of the tradeoff we get with strict no-bundling policies. * I'd rather reject this for F22 and have them work tightly with the Env/Stacks group for a better F23 plan. [2] * SCLs would be great for such change * No, the worst case is that we can't upgrade to a newer version of one of the deps because Elasticsearch is holding it back. * I’d much rather not have that blanket exception[3]. Compat packages are better. * I could keep the +1 with assumption that the contingency is “package does not added”, but sending this back for a revision wouldn’t hurt that much. [4] * I *really* want this to get used to solve the wider problem of "big packages with tight dep requirements". Hence why I want to make this an Env/Stacks problem. [2] [again] [1] http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2015-01-07/fesco.2015-01-07-18.01.log.html [2] I understand this as an effort to support similar cases in future [3] for bundling [4] not added is ok for now, but what about future breakages? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181564 [Bug 1181564] Elasticsearch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1185021] Review Request: gap-pkg-spinsym - GAP package for Brauer tables of spin-symmetric groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185021 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jerry James --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gap-pkg-spinsym Short Description: GAP package for Brauer tables of spin-symmetric groups Upstream URL: https://www.uni-due.de/~s400304/spinsym/ Owners: jjames 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 1185020] Review Request: gap-pkg-ctbllib - GAP Character Table Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185020 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Jerry James --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gap-pkg-ctbllib Short Description: GAP Character Table Library Upstream URL: http://www.math.rwth-aachen.de/~Thomas.Breuer/ctbllib/ Owners: jjames 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 1185020] Review Request: gap-pkg-ctbllib - GAP Character Table Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185020
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /var/tmp/1185020-gap-pkg-ctbllib/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package 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]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
Done, although without much sucess :)
[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.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note
[Bug 1187613] Review Request: devassistant-dap-common_args - Common arguments to be used from other assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187613 Miro Hrončok 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 1185020] Review Request: gap-pkg-ctbllib - GAP Character Table Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185020 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 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 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 jiri vanek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #934730|0 |1 is obsolete|| Attachment #936517|0 |1 is obsolete|| Attachment #936518|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #62 from jiri vanek --- Created attachment 986126 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=986126&action=edit v4 install failure -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186976] Review Request: gnome-battery-bench - Measure power usage in defined scenarios
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186976
Florian "der-flo" Lehner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||d...@der-flo.net
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@der-flo.net
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Florian "der-flo" Lehner ---
Hi Owen!
There is just one thing so far:
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
Cheers,
Florian
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 --- Comment #61 from jiri vanek --- The error and following logs are based on: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/elasticsearch/v4/elastic/ (updated blocking depndencies avaiable also: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/elasticsearch/v4/ ) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 --- Comment #60 from jiri vanek --- With netty updated ( jiri vanek 2015-01-30 13:05:06 EST, Depends On: 1187718) I was able to compile ES sucessfully. however install failed with: + xmvn-install -R .xmvn-reactor -n elasticsearch -d /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/elasticsearch-1.4.0-0.1.Beta1.fc22.x86_64 [INFO] Installing artifact org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch:jar:1.4.0.Beta1 [INFO] Installing artifact org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch:pom:1.4.0.Beta1 [INFO] Installing artifact org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch:tar.gz:1.4.0.Beta1 [ERROR] Artifact installation failed org.fedoraproject.xmvn.tools.install.ArtifactInstallationException: Installation repository is incapable of holding artifact org.elasticsearch:elasticsearch:tar.gz:SYSTEM at org.fedoraproject.xmvn.tools.install.impl.DefaultArtifactInstaller.install(DefaultArtifactInstaller.java:119) at org.fedoraproject.xmvn.tools.install.impl.DefaultInstaller.installArtifact(DefaultInstaller.java:222) at org.fedoraproject.xmvn.tools.install.impl.DefaultInstaller.install(DefaultInstaller.java:332) at org.fedoraproject.xmvn.tools.install.cli.InstallerCli.run(InstallerCli.java:65) at org.fedoraproject.xmvn.tools.install.cli.InstallerCli.main(InstallerCli.java:86) error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.U6qOV7 (%install) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.U6qOV7 (%install) I had never seen this error -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187713] netty-tcnative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187713 jiri vanek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1187718 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187718 [Bug 1187718] please update netty3 to 3.9.3 (or maybe higher) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 jiri vanek changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1187718 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187718 [Bug 1187718] please update netty3 to 3.9.3 (or maybe higher) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187030] Review Request: giza - A scientific plotting library for C/Fortran built on cairo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187030 Florian "der-flo" Lehner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@der-flo.net --- Comment #3 from Florian "der-flo" Lehner --- Hi Joachim! Do you want to become a packager for Fedora? Then please take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers In addition, I recommend to read https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process 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 1187713] New: netty-tcnative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187713 Bug ID: 1187713 Summary: netty-tcnative Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jva...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org This package is needed to update netty3 to 3.9.3 or higher. src rpm: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/elasticsearch/v4/netty-tcnative/netty-tcnative-1.1.30-0.fc22.src.rpm spec: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/elasticsearch/v4/netty-tcnative/netty-tcnative.spec rpms: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/elasticsearch/v4/netty-tcnative/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187626] Review Request: devassistant-dap-php - Perl assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187626 --- Comment #2 from Tomas Radej --- Ah, thanks. This is an upstream bug. Will fix. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
--- Comment #14 from Paul Howarth ---
(In reply to Philip Prindeville from comment #12)
> (In reply to Paul Howarth from comment #11)
>
> > Yes, this should be:
> >
> > Provides: GeoIP-update = 1.6.0
> > Obsoletes: GeoIP-update < 1.6.0
> >
> > You could arguably use %{version} in the Provides: line but I think it's
> > safer to stick with 1.6.0 as geoipupdate looks to have a different numbering
> > scheme to GeoIP.
>
> Fixed.
We must make sure that anyone updating from GeoIP 1.5.x to 1.6.x gets the GeoIP
+ geoipupdate combination, as must anyone with GeoIP updating from F-21 to
F-22. People doing fresh installs on F-22 can install the two packages
independently. It can be tricky to get the provides/obsoletes/requires correct
for all of these cases, so they should be tested.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187626] Review Request: devassistant-dap-php - Perl assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187626 Shawn Iwinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Shawn Iwinski --- s/Perl/PHP/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: geoipupdate |Review Request: geoipupdate
|- decouple update utility |- Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP
|from GeoIP as per upstream |Legacy binary databases
||from MaxMind
--- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
- Add %config(noreplace) to the cron tab file.
- Add Requires: crontabs.
= 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:
[?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
I cannot find the license statement anywhere.
[?]: 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.
Please ask upstream to include a license file and add a link to the bug
report in the spec file.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)",
"GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/var/tmp/1186889-geoipupdate/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/cron.weekly
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Package processes untrusted input from the network. Add
%global _hardened_build 1
[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.
[?]: 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
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager
[Bug 1185020] Review Request: gap-pkg-ctbllib - GAP Character Table Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185020 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Jerry James --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3) > Input file: docxpl.tst > GAP4stones: 45 > gap> > > If I press ^D at this point build continues. Yes, under mock, the build terminates properly, but with rpmbuild, it sits there and waits for more input. Redirecting from /dev/null fixes the problem for me. New package: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-ctbllib/gap-pkg-ctbllib.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-ctbllib/gap-pkg-ctbllib-1.2.2-3.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - decouple update utility from GeoIP as per upstream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl Flags|fedora-cvs- |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 1185685] Review Request: vagrant-lxc - LXC-provider for vagrant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185685 Michael Adam changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-01-30 12:05:16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1175328] Review Request: powerdevil - Manages the power consumption settings of a Plasma Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175328 Martin Kho changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lists@gmail.com --- Comment #17 from Martin Kho --- Hi Jan, FYI: The package powerdevil is not automatically installed with the rawhide update to plasma-5. Martin Kho -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1185685] Review Request: vagrant-lxc - LXC-provider for vagrant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185685 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 1185685] Review Request: vagrant-lxc - LXC-provider for vagrant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185685 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- vagrant-lxc-1.1.0-6.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/vagrant-lxc-1.1.0-6.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 1187610] Review Request: devassistant-dap-c - C assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187610 Tomas Radej changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(i.gnatenko.brain@ ||gmail.com) --- Comment #3 from Tomas Radej --- Thanks for the review, but please provide the output of fedora-review. Thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187613] Review Request: devassistant-dap-common_args - Common arguments to be used from other assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187613 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - decouple update utility from GeoIP as per upstream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
--- Comment #12 from Philip Prindeville ---
(In reply to Paul Howarth from comment #11)
> Yes, this should be:
>
> Provides: GeoIP-update = 1.6.0
> Obsoletes: GeoIP-update < 1.6.0
>
> You could arguably use %{version} in the Provides: line but I think it's
> safer to stick with 1.6.0 as geoipupdate looks to have a different numbering
> scheme to GeoIP.
Fixed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186494] Review Request: libticonv - Texas Instruments calculators charsets library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186494
--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande ---
Hi Ben.
- Release: 0%{?dist}
First release number is 1, not 0.
- About wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding warnings, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues?rd=PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
- Update latest Changelog change to today.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171260] Review Request: rubygem-jmespath - JMESPath - Ruby Edition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171260 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1185019] Review Request: gap-pkg-tomlib - GAP Table of Marks package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185019 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018057] Review Request: golang-googlecode-goprotobuf - Go support for Google protocol buffers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018057 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System --- golang-googlecode-goprotobuf-0-0.11.git7f07925.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-googlecode-goprotobuf-0-0.11.git7f07925.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1185019] Review Request: gap-pkg-tomlib - GAP Table of Marks package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185019 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187610] Review Request: devassistant-dap-c - C assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187610 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- looks good to me . http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8783683 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1122777] Review Request: tcpcrypt - Opportunistically encrypt TCP connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122777 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- tcpcrypt-0.4-0.3.bb990b1b.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tcpcrypt-0.4-0.3.bb990b1b.el7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1122777] Review Request: tcpcrypt - Opportunistically encrypt TCP connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122777 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1122777] Review Request: tcpcrypt - Opportunistically encrypt TCP connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122777 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- tcpcrypt-0.4-0.3.bb990b1b.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tcpcrypt-0.4-0.3.bb990b1b.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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #29 from Parag AN(पराग) --- You can submit at any time more than one package but the first package to get reviewed/approved must be by a Sponsor packager and rest all can be by any other packager. See http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html page which can also show you that people do submit more than one package. So take your time, get familiar with this fedora review process, provide full quality reviews and get sponsorship. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171260] Review Request: rubygem-jmespath - JMESPath - Ruby Edition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171260 František Dvořák changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from František Dvořák --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-jmespath Short Description: JMESPath - Ruby Edition Upstream URL: http://github.com/trevorrowe/jmespath.rb Owners: valtri Branches: f20 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #28 from Sinny Kumari --- There is no rush to get this package into Fedora. I am sure that its very easy for Dodji to submit this package himself. Apparently, it was a bad idea on my part to think that it will be a nice to learn Fedora packaging, given that its preferred for only existing packagers to submit packages. Anyway, there is another thing I want to understand- 1. For the first package to be submitted, a sponsor is mandatory 2. For having a sponsor, more than one package to be submitted I'm a bit confused by this because 1 requires 2 and 2 requires 1 back. I do not understand how do I submit my second package while my first one is still incomplete. While I request some clarity on that, I will definitely try to do more peer-reviews. I have read the docs about the fedora-review tool, and that is what I am currently trying to understand and use. It is feeling quite overwhelming at first so I need more time on that. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 956147] Review Request: wide-dhcpv6 - DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation client that works on PPP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
Paul Wouters changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@bevhost.com
Flags||fedora-review?
||needinfo?(d...@bevhost.com)
--- Comment #21 from Paul Wouters ---
This package is APPROVED
(my ISP changed v6 config so I needed this package, once started it
has been rock solid and never stopped working. Thanks!)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Do please fix the below nit-picks:
1) Please add a comment just above the license field:
# The entire source code is BSD except the bison parser code which is GPL
2) fixup compiler flags, eg add %{?_smp_mflags} to the make command
3) remove rm -rf %{buildroot} at start of install
4) Please add the dist tag to the version
5) fix or remove macros from changelog
6) make sure to use the RIGHT spec file as the spec file listed and spec file
in the source rpm differ (mostly due to versioned doc dir)
= 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (3 clause) ISC", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
generated", "BSD (4 clause)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /vol/home/paul/956147-wide-
dhcpv6/licensecheck.txt
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/wide-dhcpv6
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/wide-dhcpv6
[!]: %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
[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.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 11 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: 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 U
[Bug 1185019] Review Request: gap-pkg-tomlib - GAP Table of Marks package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185019 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Jerry James --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gap-pkg-tomlib Short Description: GAP Table of Marks package Upstream URL: http://schmidt.nuigalway.ie/tomlib/ Owners: jjames 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
