[Bug 1186497] Review Request: libtifiles2 - Texas Instruments calculator files library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186497
--- Comment #8 from Ben Rosser rosser@gmail.com ---
Spec: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libtifiles2.spec
SRPM: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libtifiles2-1.1.6-3.fc21.src.rpm
Fixed the gettext/*.gmo stuff; the prebuilt file is now removed in %prep and
rebuilt during %build.
The doc subpackage no longer depends on the package itself and also is now
noarch.
I investigated the documentation stuff. Turns out that there's a bug (?) in
using both relative paths in %doc and copying files directly into
%{_pkgdocdir}, according to here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/DocdirDraft#Documentation. I fixed
this, and also discovered why COPYING was winding up in the documentation
directory- the documentation makefile, when running make docs install,
installs the COPYING/README/ChangeLog documentation as well as the HTML
documentation. Whoops. This was easy to fix.
So that should all be better now.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196353] Review Request: itop - Interrupts 'top-like' utility for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196353 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(lupinix@mailbox.o ||rg) --- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Please be aware of what Thomas said, or that annoying Epoch will last the life of this package in Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195875] Review Request: ti-uim - Texas Instruments User Mode Init manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195875 John Dulaney jdula...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jdula...@fedoraproject.org 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 1195875] Review Request: ti-uim - Texas Instruments User Mode Init manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195875
John Dulaney jdula...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pbrobin...@gmail.com
Flags||needinfo?(pbrobinson@gmail.
||com)
--- Comment #2 from John Dulaney jdula...@fedoraproject.org ---
Okay, a few things:
Any reason for using %define tarfile %{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 ? The only
time I see it is where it is defined.
Since you are using a couple directories (/usr/lib/udev/ and /usr/lib/systemd)
owned by systemd, you probably ought to require systemd for completeness.
In your %files section, you're explicitly using /usr/lib/ instead of %{_libdir}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195573] Review Request: dropbox-api-command - Dropbox API wrapper command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195573 --- Comment #9 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://mathstuf.fedorapeople.org//dropbox-api-command.spec SRPM URL: http://mathstuf.fedorapeople.org//dropbox-api-command-1.17-3.fc23.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9096721 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195875] Review Request: ti-uim - Texas Instruments User Mode Init manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195875
--- Comment #1 from John Dulaney jdula...@fedoraproject.org ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
= 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:
*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address). Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/1195875-ti-
uim/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev,
/usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d, /usr/lib/systemd
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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 does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define
[Bug 1186501] Review Request: libticables2 - Texas Instruments link cables library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186501
--- Comment #4 from Ben Rosser rosser@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticables2.spec
SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticables2-1.3.4-1.fc21.src.rpm
Fixed all of those except for the cp -a one; that did not appear to work. I
did add the -a flag but it did not automatically create the directories and
rpmbuild exited with an error code, so I just reintroduced the mkdir line (but
changed it to use %{_udevdir}.
I also added a doc subpackage for HTML documentation.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195573] Review Request: dropbox-api-command - Dropbox API wrapper command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195573
--- Comment #10 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: http://mathstuf.fedorapeople.org//dropbox-api-command.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mathstuf.fedorapeople.org//dropbox-api-command-1.17-4.fc23.src.rpm
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9096834
So --prefix is required and %{perl_vendorlib} is the wrong path.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libticonv-1.1.4-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libticonv-1.1.4-4.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 1186494] Review Request: libticonv - Texas Instruments calculators charsets library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186494 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libticonv-1.1.4-4.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libticonv-1.1.4-4.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 1186494] Review Request: libticonv - Texas Instruments calculators charsets library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186494 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196353] Review Request: itop - Interrupts 'top-like' utility for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196353 Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@der-flo.net Flags|needinfo?(lupinix@mailbox.o |needinfo?(d...@der-flo.net) |rg) | --- Comment #12 from Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org --- Yes, was a review failure by me... Spec was too simple for me, my brain turned off. But we (Florian, Thomas and me) already discussed this in IRC and Flo fixed the versioning in SCM. @Flo: Did you analyze if we still can avoid the Epoch? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1180723] Review Request: clufter - Tool for transforming/analyzing cluster configuration formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180723 --- Comment #28 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1180723] Review Request: clufter - Tool for transforming/analyzing cluster configuration formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180723 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195557] Review Request: ghc-Decimal - Decimal numbers with variable precision
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195557 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197126] Review Request: perl-Test-Run-CmdLine - Run TAP tests from command line using the Test::Run module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197126 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1197066 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197066 [Bug 1197066] Review Request: perl-Test-Run - Extensible and object-oriented test harness for TAP scripts -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197066] Review Request: perl-Test-Run - Extensible and object-oriented test harness for TAP scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197066 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1197126 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197126 [Bug 1197126] Review Request: perl-Test-Run-CmdLine - Run TAP tests from command line using the Test::Run module -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197132] Review Request: reflections - a Java runtime metadata analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197132 Sandro Bonazzola sbona...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1197125 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197125 [Bug 1197125] maven builds failing on F22 with java.lang.CNFE: org.objectweb.asm.ClassVisitor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187869] Review Request: kdocker - Dock any application in the system tray
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187869 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added External Bug ID||Launchpad 1243955 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197057] Review Request: perl-Text-Sprintf-Named - Sprintf-like function with named conversions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197057 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- I tried but couldn't find any issues... Approving. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195551] Review Request: ghc-prelude-extras - Haskell98 higher order versions of Prelude classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195551 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195551] Review Request: ghc-prelude-extras - Haskell98 higher order versions of Prelude classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195551 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1180723] Review Request: clufter - Tool for transforming/analyzing cluster configuration formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180723 --- Comment #29 from Jan Pokorný jpoko...@redhat.com --- Thank you, Jon. Just for the sake of transparency, at the occasion of getting introduced into Fedora, I've bumped the version of clufter to 0.10.0 and also from this point, I'd like to keep packaging only complete tagged versions, not pre-releases as mostly done prior to inclusion. There is a minimal delta to the accepted version: SPEC: https://people.redhat.com/jpokorny/pkgs/clufter/review/clufter-0.10.0-1.spec SRPM: https://people.redhat.com/jpokorny/pkgs/clufter/review/clufter-0.10.0-1.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197057] Review Request: perl-Text-Sprintf-Named - Sprintf-like function with named conversions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197057 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #11 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- But question is how to make preupgrade-assistant project compatible with Python2.6. Python2.7 is wrong of course because it is not delivered to F21. Sorry for mystification. I do not want to create a separate branch. I thought that if oscap_group_xml is called from Python3 than it does not make sence if /usr/bin/python2 is mentioned. But I can create a patch for RHEL6 which will replace /usr/bin/python3 with /usr/bin/python2 of course. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1182358] New package request: clufter - Tool for transforming/analyzing cluster configuration formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182358 Steve Almy sa...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|medium |high -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195573] Review Request: dropbox-api-command - Dropbox API wrapper command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195573
--- Comment #7 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #6)
1. I would use the release URL instead of just pointing to the commit (which
could be something entirely different and nobody will notice). For example
https://github.com/s-aska/%{name}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz should work just
fine. The tarball filename will be just the version plus extension but that
doesn't really matter.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github
2. Missing buildtime dependencies: perl, perl(CPAN::Meta),
perl(CPAN::Meta::Prereqs), perl(File::Basename), perl(File::Spec),
perl(strict), perl(utf8), perl(warnings)
Hmm. Is there a way to detect these automatically? I think
perl(WebService::Dropbox) also necessary. Or is that just a runtime dep? I'm
not all that well-versed in Perl stuff.
3. Use perl macros for the perl lib paths in %files; changing
%{_datadir}/perl5/App/dropboxapi.pm to %{perl_vendorlib}/* would be fine.
Ah, I used rpmdev-newspec -t perl for this. Will do.
4. A more useful %description would be nice. This isn't necessary.
I'll put something together.
5. You shouldn't need to define prefix, I suppose?
rpmdev-newspec's doing; I'll remove it if that's more modern.
6. Perhaps the project Github page would work better for the URL.
Probably. Will do.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196366] Review Request: openstack-designateclient - Client library for OpenStack Designate DNS API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196366
--- Comment #4 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
Formal review report below
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).
2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/haikel/1196366-python-designateclient/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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
[Bug 1196366] Review Request: openstack-designateclient - Client library for OpenStack Designate DNS API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196366 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #3 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- First, I just sponsored you into the Fedora Packager group, you showed good understanding of RPM packaging and Fedora guidelines. Congratulations Victoria ! As your sponsor, I'll remain available to answer your questions and/or help you with your packages, so feel free to ping me any time. Then, I reviewed python-designateclient and I hereby approved into Fedora Packages Collection since it complies with our guidelines. Please submit a SCM request to import the package. For the branches, I recommend rawhide (Kilo), F22 (Juno); F21/Juno package will be provided through RDO repositories. 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 1195573] Review Request: dropbox-api-command - Dropbox API wrapper command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195573
--- Comment #8 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Ben Boeckel from comment #7)
(In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #6)
1. I would use the release URL instead of just pointing to the commit (which
could be something entirely different and nobody will notice). For example
https://github.com/s-aska/%{name}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz should work just
fine. The tarball filename will be just the version plus extension but that
doesn't really matter.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github
Indeed. Let me quote your link:
If the upstream does not create tarballs for releases, you can use this
mechanism to produce them. If the upstream does create tarballs you should use
them as tarballs provide an easier trail for people auditing the packages.
Your upstream provides tarballs.
https://github.com/s-aska/dropbox-api-command/releases
2. Missing buildtime dependencies: perl, perl(CPAN::Meta),
perl(CPAN::Meta::Prereqs), perl(File::Basename), perl(File::Spec),
perl(strict), perl(utf8), perl(warnings)
Hmm. Is there a way to detect these automatically? I think
perl(WebService::Dropbox) also necessary. Or is that just a runtime dep? I'm
not all that well-versed in Perl stuff.
Yes, perl(WebService::Dropbox) is just a runtime dependency and is generated
automatically by rpmbuild (via perl-generators). It's required by
script/dropbox-api which isn't used neither during %build nor %check phases.
You can use the `tangerine' command (from perl-Tangerine) to check perl files
for what modules they provide or require. For example in your case, to see
buildtime deps you could run `tangerine Build.PL lib t'.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195862] Review Request: perl-Class-Virtual - Base class for virtual base classes in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195862 Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Class-Virtual Short Description: Base class for virtual base classes in Perl Owners: dfateyev Branches: f20 f21 f22 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #13 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- Well, configparser is now corrected. Spec URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant.spec SRPM URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985051] Review Request: vcprompt - efficient program to print VCS info on your prompt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985051
--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/AutoConf
That's just an old draft - an opinion piece - not a final guideline approved
by the FPC. Also notice the comment someone has left at the top. ;-)
Fact is, regenerating Autotools files is not trivial for all projects. At best,
they would fail to rebuild and you would get error messages. At worst, they are
broken silently (and e.g. you lose macros or inserted/appended modifications
which result in building the source code differently and possibly in a wrong
way).
Upstream's Makefile now supports DESTDIR, which let me cut out %make_install.
%make_install is one of the macros that's _recommended_. It differs from
%makeinstall (no '_' in there!). See: rpm -E %make_install
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used
Currently, it would only save some typing compared with your full invocation of
make install Good to know, but that's all.
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} PREFIX=%{_prefix}
MANDIR=%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1
Noticing the extra %buildroot here in the MANDIR definition, I've had a look at
Makefile*. It's a mix between a manually written Makefile and one that uses
Autotools. It contains some questionable definitions for PREFIX, BINDIR, MANDIR
and DESTDIR, which should not be done like that.
After running the configure script, it should not be necessary anymore to
override PREFIX or MANDIR anymore when running make. Typically, configure
defines those paths already and substitutes them in the generated Makefiles.
See rpm -E %configure for the options passed to the configure script. It
would be good to use what configure determines, so there are no competing and
potentially conflicting places where paths (or other values) are defined.
Autotools even generate install paths based on the values it determines (e.g.
$prefix, $bindir, $mandir).
%build
%configure
This contains a check for SQLite 3, and indeed ./src/svn.c contains conditional
code that uses SQLite. It's a bit fragile, because it doesn't error out if
SQLite 3 is not found. If you want to add BuildRequires for it, you may want to
add a safety check that verifies that SQLite 3 is found and built with.
Else build with --with-sqlite3=no to disable that feature explicitly.
%check
make check
Any comment on what I asked about at the bottom of comment 5?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #14) from the pykickstart point of view I am not a maintainer but I can ask. But I think that it won't be updated. Tests are going to be turn on definitelly. Also in F22. In F22 can be used only pykickstart How? pykickstart provides a module for Python2, but you will be running under Python 3. In F23 python3-pykickstart is enough. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197057] New: Review Request: perl-Text-Sprintf-Named - Sprintf-like function with named conversions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197057 Bug ID: 1197057 Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-Sprintf-Named - Sprintf-like function with named conversions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Text-Sprintf-Named/perl-Text-Sprintf-Named.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Text-Sprintf-Named/perl-Text-Sprintf-Named-0.0402-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Text::Sprintf::Named provides a sprintf equivalent with named conversions. Named conversions are sprintf field specifiers (like %s or %4d) only they are associated with the key of an associative array of parameters. So for example %(name)s will emit the 'name' parameter as a string, and %(num)4d will emit the 'num' parameter as a variable with a width of 4. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195557] Review Request: ghc-Decimal - Decimal numbers with variable precision
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195557 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #10 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #9) Created attachment 996036 [details] fedora-review output (In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #8) Regarding configparser. All is working properly. configparser.py provides class ConfigParser in F22 and in F23 too. This was not changed. The class name did not change. But the module name did. Well, I have checked the class name and module name configparser.py and both are identical. F22 and F23. It changed between Python 2 and 3. In comment #c5 there's a code snippet to make the code compatible with both versions. Only Python3 is supported by preupgrade-assistant OK, I see you removed %check. This is *not* the way to go. If the tests find a problem, fix the problem, don't remove the tests! I am going to add them later on. This BZ blocks a Feature for Fedora 22. We are going in circles. Let's go back to the beginning, and start with the basic questions: - what python version is preupgrade-assistant supposed to run? Is it going to be packaged for F21? Is the answer the same for both F23 and F22 and F21? Preupgrade-assistant is going to be used only for F22 and later. Not F21. Some data points: - in F22 pykickstart is at 1.99.66 and does *not* provide a python 3 version I know that. Therefore in SPEC file is mentioned if fedora is bigger then 23 then include python3-kickstart. - in F23 pykickstart is at 2.0 and does provide python3-kickstart - the version in F21 is even older and does Python 2 only No F21. - the code in ./preuputils/oscap_group_xml.py is atm Python2 only I have forgot that. I am going to change that in the next version. Spec URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant.spec SRPM URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-1.fc21.src.rpm Would it be possible to execute fedora-review and paste result? In F21 I have problems with fedora-review. Attached. Thanks for the review. The preupgrade-assistant is already used on RHEL 6 systems before fedup. I have decided to release them in Fedora. Therefore code have to be compatible for Python3, Python2.7 and Python2.6. It is a bit complicated. And for your time with 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 1197057] Review Request: perl-Text-Sprintf-Named - Sprintf-like function with named conversions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197057 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Text-Sprintf-Named-0.0 ||402-1.fc23 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-02-27 09:22:33 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196289] Review Request: nodejs-defaults - Merge single level defaults over a config object
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196289 Zuzana Svetlikova zsvet...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197066] New: Review Request: perl-Test-Run - Extensible and object-oriented test harness for TAP scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197066 Bug ID: 1197066 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Run - Extensible and object-oriented test harness for TAP scripts Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test-Run/perl-Test-Run.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test-Run/perl-Test-Run-0.0302-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: These Perl modules are an improved test harness based on Test::Harness, but more modular, extensible and object-oriented. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197066] Review Request: perl-Test-Run - Extensible and object-oriented test harness for TAP scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197066 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1197057 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197057 [Bug 1197057] Review Request: perl-Text-Sprintf-Named - Sprintf-like function with named conversions -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197057] Review Request: perl-Text-Sprintf-Named - Sprintf-like function with named conversions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197057 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1197066 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197066 [Bug 1197066] Review Request: perl-Test-Run - Extensible and object-oriented test harness for TAP scripts -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Created attachment 996036 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=996036action=edit fedora-review output (In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #8) Regarding configparser. All is working properly. configparser.py provides class ConfigParser in F22 and in F23 too. This was not changed. The class name did not change. But the module name did. Well, I have checked the class name and module name configparser.py and both are identical. F22 and F23. It changed between Python 2 and 3. In comment #c5 there's a code snippet to make the code compatible with both versions. OK, I see you removed %check. This is *not* the way to go. If the tests find a problem, fix the problem, don't remove the tests! We are going in circles. Let's go back to the beginning, and start with the basic questions: - what python version is preupgrade-assistant supposed to run? Is it going to be packaged for F21? Is the answer the same for both F23 and F22 and F21? Some data points: - in F22 pykickstart is at 1.99.66 and does *not* provide a python 3 version - in F23 pykickstart is at 2.0 and does provide python3-kickstart - the version in F21 is even older and does Python 2 only - the code in ./preuputils/oscap_group_xml.py is atm Python2 only Spec URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant.spec SRPM URL: https://phracek.fedorapeople.org/preupgrade-assistant-0.11.7-1.fc21.src.rpm Would it be possible to execute fedora-review and paste result? In F21 I have problems with fedora-review. Attached. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195555] Review Request: ghc-tabular - Two-dimensional data tables with rendering functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=119 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195555] Review Request: ghc-tabular - Two-dimensional data tables with rendering functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=119 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1174974] Review Request: python-mox3 - Mock object framework for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174974 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Assignee|zbys...@in.waw.pl |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | Last Closed||2015-02-27 09:38:38 --- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- I won't need this. Sorry for wasting your time. In case you would ever need a package review, feel free to assign me directly and I'll do it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197066] Review Request: perl-Test-Run - Extensible and object-oriented test harness for TAP scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197066 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196992] Review Request: golang-github-evanphx-json-patch - A Go library to apply RFC6902 patches to JSON documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196992 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196992] Review Request: golang-github-evanphx-json-patch - A Go library to apply RFC6902 patches to JSON documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196992 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197126] Review Request: perl-Test-Run-CmdLine - Run TAP tests from command line using the Test::Run module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197126 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1190740] Review Request: mycila-xmltool - simple library to do common operations on xml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190740 --- Comment #3 from Guido Grazioli guido.grazi...@gmail.com --- aargh; they did change groupId and artifactId so many times, even while i was maintaining both packages (they were optional dependencies of objenesis). Anyway, I think it would be better to go ahead with your two reviews, then obsolete the two older packages (I did not update for very long time and are outdated both for java packaging guidelines and release version) when your packages are deployed. About the naming, up to you. Maybe give a peek at how the naming/obsolete/provide thing was handled at the time all the jakarta-* packages were renamed to apache-* -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195554] Review Request: ghc-wizards - High level, generic library for interrogative user interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195554 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195553] Review Request: ghc-control-monad-free - Free monads and monad transformers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195553 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195554] Review Request: ghc-wizards - High level, generic library for interrogative user interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195554 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1180723] Review Request: clufter - Tool for transforming/analyzing cluster configuration formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180723 Jan Pokorný jpoko...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-02-27 09:27:54 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195553] Review Request: ghc-control-monad-free - Free monads and monad transformers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195553 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197066] Review Request: perl-Test-Run - Extensible and object-oriented test harness for TAP scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197066 Bug 1197066 depends on bug 1197057, which changed state. Bug 1197057 Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-Sprintf-Named - Sprintf-like function with named conversions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197057 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1182358] New package request: clufter - Tool for transforming/analyzing cluster configuration formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182358 Bug 1182358 depends on bug 1180723, which changed state. Bug 1180723 Summary: Review Request: clufter - Tool for transforming/analyzing cluster configuration formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180723 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197132] New: Review Request: reflections - a Java runtime metadata analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197132 Bug ID: 1197132 Summary: Review Request: reflections - a Java runtime metadata analysis Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sbona...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://resources.ovirt.org/repos/staging/reflections.spec SRPM URL: http://resources.ovirt.org/repos/staging/reflections-0.9.9-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Java runtime metadata analysis, in the spirit of Scannotations Reflections scans your classpath, indexes the metadata, allows you to query it on runtime and may save and collect that information for many modules within your project. Using Reflections you can query your metadata such as: * get all subtypes of some type * get all types/members annotated with some annotation, optionally with annotation parameters matching * get all resources matching a regular expression * get all methods with specific signature including parameters, parameter annotations and return type Fedora Account System Username: sbonazzo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197132] Review Request: reflections - a Java runtime metadata analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197132 Mat Booth mat.bo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mat.bo...@redhat.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 1197057] Review Request: perl-Text-Sprintf-Named - Sprintf-like function with named conversions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197057 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197057] Review Request: perl-Text-Sprintf-Named - Sprintf-like function with named conversions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197057 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Text-Sprintf-Named Short Description: Sprintf-like function with named conversions Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Text-Sprintf-Named/ Owners: ppisar jplesnik psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1182358] New package request: clufter - Tool for transforming/analyzing cluster configuration formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182358 Jan Pokorný jpoko...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(sa...@redhat.com) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197126] New: Review Request: perl-Test-Run-CmdLine - Run TAP tests from command line using the Test::Run module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197126 Bug ID: 1197126 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Run-CmdLine - Run TAP tests from command line using the Test::Run module Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test-Run-CmdLine/perl-Test-Run-CmdLine.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test-Run-CmdLine/perl-Test-Run-CmdLine-0.0126-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: These Perl modules allow one to run TAP tests and analyze them from the command line using the Test::Run module. It provides runprove tool with command line facilities similar to Test::Harness' prove tool. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1178912] Review Request: cairo-dock-plug-ins - Plug-ins files for Cairo-Dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-02-27 13:05:30 --- Comment #43 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Rebuilt on all branches, push request on F-22/21/20, now closing. Thank you for review and git preocedure. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1178912] Review Request: cairo-dock-plug-ins - Plug-ins files for Cairo-Dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912 Bug 1178912 depends on bug 1178911, which changed state. Bug 1178911 Summary: Review Request: cairo-dock - Light eye-candy fully themable animated dock https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178911 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1178911] Review Request: cairo-dock - Light eye-candy fully themable animated dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178911 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-02-27 13:04:28 --- Comment #21 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Rebuilt on all branches, push request on F-22/21/20, now closing. Thank you for review and git preocedure. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195862] Review Request: perl-Class-Virtual - Base class for virtual base classes in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195862 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1188018] Review Request: nodejs-tern-liferay - Tern plugin for Liferay JavaScript API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188018 Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-02-27 13:41:26 --- Comment #4 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt --- Built for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9093814 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187961] Review Request: nodejs-typescript - A language for application scale JavaScript development
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187961 Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-02-27 13:58:15 --- Comment #5 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt --- Built for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9093927 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195862] Review Request: perl-Class-Virtual - Base class for virtual base classes in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195862 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197132] Review Request: reflections - a Java runtime metadata analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197132 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- This bug is a duplicate of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1073014] Review Request: parquet-format - Columnar file format for Hadoop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073014
Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(wi...@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #6 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com ---
Thanks for your work (and patience), Gil! LGTM.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated.
NB: Util.java, which is missing a license, is fixed in upstream trunk.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Looks like upstream doesn't ship tests?
[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
[Bug 1197132] Review Request: reflections - a Java runtime metadata analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197132 Mat Booth mat.bo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197132] Review Request: reflections - a Java runtime metadata analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197132 --- Comment #1 from Mat Booth mat.bo...@redhat.com --- Couple of items from a quick glance at the spec: * BuildRoot tag and %clean section is not necessary unless you plan to maintain this package in EPEL5 too, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean * You have nothing specified in your %doc tags When making changes to your spec, don't forget to bump the release number (rpmdev-bumpspec command can do this for you) and re-upload a new spec file and source 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 1195573] Review Request: dropbox-api-command - Dropbox API wrapper command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195573
--- Comment #6 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com ---
1. I would use the release URL instead of just pointing to the commit (which
could be something entirely different and nobody will notice). For example
https://github.com/s-aska/%{name}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz should work just
fine. The tarball filename will be just the version plus extension but that
doesn't really matter.
2. Missing buildtime dependencies: perl, perl(CPAN::Meta),
perl(CPAN::Meta::Prereqs), perl(File::Basename), perl(File::Spec),
perl(strict), perl(utf8), perl(warnings)
3. Use perl macros for the perl lib paths in %files; changing
%{_datadir}/perl5/App/dropboxapi.pm to %{perl_vendorlib}/* would be fine.
4. A more useful %description would be nice. This isn't necessary.
5. You shouldn't need to define prefix, I suppose?
6. Perhaps the project Github page would work better for the URL.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #10) (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #9) Created attachment 996036 [details] fedora-review output (In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #8) Regarding configparser. All is working properly. configparser.py provides class ConfigParser in F22 and in F23 too. This was not changed. The class name did not change. But the module name did. Well, I have checked the class name and module name configparser.py and both are identical. F22 and F23. It changed between Python 2 and 3. In comment #c5 there's a code snippet to make the code compatible with both versions. Only Python3 is supported by preupgrade-assistant OK. OK, I see you removed %check. This is *not* the way to go. If the tests find a problem, fix the problem, don't remove the tests! I am going to add them later on. This BZ blocks a Feature for Fedora 22. The tests are helpful. They already caught a silly bug, so it seems right to keep them, even in F22. We are going in circles. Let's go back to the beginning, and start with the basic questions: - what python version is preupgrade-assistant supposed to run? Is it going to be packaged for F21? Is the answer the same for both F23 and F22 and F21? Preupgrade-assistant is going to be used only for F22 and later. Not F21. Some data points: - in F22 pykickstart is at 1.99.66 and does *not* provide a python 3 version I know that. Therefore in SPEC file is mentioned if fedora is bigger then 23 then include python3-kickstart. But you cannot use pykickstart (a Python2-only package) with a program running under Python 3. If preupgrade-assistant is Python3-only, then any Requires:pykickstart or BuildRequires:pykickstart can to be removed. Can pykickstart version in F22 be updated to the same version as F23? This would solve the problem with missing dependency for you. - in F23 pykickstart is at 2.0 and does provide python3-kickstart - the version in F21 is even older and does Python 2 only No F21. OK. - the code in ./preuputils/oscap_group_xml.py is atm Python2 only I have forgot that. I am going to change that in the next version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197132] Review Request: reflections - a Java runtime metadata analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197132 --- Comment #2 from Sandro Bonazzola sbona...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Mat Booth from comment #1) Couple of items from a quick glance at the spec: * BuildRoot tag and %clean section is not necessary unless you plan to maintain this package in EPEL5 too, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean * You have nothing specified in your %doc tags When making changes to your spec, don't forget to bump the release number (rpmdev-bumpspec command can do this for you) and re-upload a new spec file and source rpm. Done Spec URL: http://resources.ovirt.org/repos/staging/reflections.spec SRPM URL: http://resources.ovirt.org/repos/staging/reflections-0.9.9-2.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1194798] Review Request: GeoIP-GeoLite-data - Free GeoLite IP geolocation country database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194798 --- Comment #4 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- Philip, do you have any objection to this approach? Would you consider reviewing the package? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195573] Review Request: dropbox-api-command - Dropbox API wrapper command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195573 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- I'll do the rest of the review :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195279] Review Request: preupgrade-assistant - Preupgrade assistant a tool for assess system before an upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195279 --- Comment #14 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- from the pykickstart point of view I am not a maintainer but I can ask. But I think that it won't be updated. Tests are going to be turn on definitelly. Also in F22. In F22 can be used only pykickstart In F23 python3-pykickstart is enough. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196763] Review Request: perl-Tie-Cache - LRU Cache in Memory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196763 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Tie-Cache-0.21-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Tie-Cache-0.21-1.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 1196763] Review Request: perl-Tie-Cache - LRU Cache in Memory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196763 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Tie-Cache-0.21-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Tie-Cache-0.21-1.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections-0.9.9-1.fc20.src.rpm - update to 0.9.9 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9094432 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1129677] Review Request: gstreamer1-rtsp-server - gstreamer rtsp server version 1.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129677 --- Comment #18 from Stefan Ringel m...@stefanringel.de --- new specs and srpm: Spec URL: http://stefanringel.de/pub/gstreamer1-rtsp-server.spec SRPM URL: http://stefanringel.de/pub/gstreamer1-rtsp-server-1.4.0-2.fc23.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9094347 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1073014] Review Request: parquet-format - Columnar file format for Hadoop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073014 --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Will Benton from comment #6) Thanks for your work (and patience), Gil! LGTM. Thanks to 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 1196763] Review Request: perl-Tie-Cache - LRU Cache in Memory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196763 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Tie-Cache-0.21-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Tie-Cache-0.21-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830869] Review Request: hpl - A Portable Implementation of the High-Performance Linpack Benchmark
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830869 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #23 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Is HPL.dat really different between the two mpi versions of hpl? I.e. - does it really belong in $MPI_SYSCONFIG? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 221039] Review Request: aria2 - High speed download utility with resuming and segmented downloading.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=221039 Athmane Madjoudj athma...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||athma...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Athmane Madjoudj athma...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: aria2 New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: athmane -- 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 1196763] Review Request: perl-Tie-Cache - LRU Cache in Memory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196763 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Tie-Cache-0.21-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Tie-Cache-0.21-1.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196763] Review Request: perl-Tie-Cache - LRU Cache in Memory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196763 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196763] Review Request: perl-Tie-Cache - LRU Cache in Memory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196763 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Tie-Cache-0.21-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Tie-Cache-0.21-1.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 1196763] Review Request: perl-Tie-Cache - LRU Cache in Memory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196763 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Tie-Cache-0.21-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Tie-Cache-0.21-1.el7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1073014] Review Request: parquet-format - Columnar file format for Hadoop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073014 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: parquet-format Short Description: Columnar file format for Hadoop Upstream URL: http://parquet.io/ Owners: gil Branches: f21 f22 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196347] Review Request: f22-backgrounds – Fedora 22 default desktop background
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196347 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- desktop-backgrounds-22.0.0-0.fc22, f22-backgrounds-21.91.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1188576] Review Request: nodejs-create-class - A simple approach to create classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188576 --- Comment #4 from anish apa...@redhat.com --- Hi Piotr, Thank you for your comments, please find new spec and srpm on Spec URL: https://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-create-class.spec SRPM URL: https://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-create-class-1.0.1-3.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 1187944] Review Request: nodejs-tern-cordovajs - A Tern plugin adding support for CordovaJS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187944
Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
APPROVED
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1187944-nodejs-tern-
cordovajs/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on
[Bug 1197229] New: Review Request: oflb-coval-fonts - Derivation of other free of charge fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197229 Bug ID: 1197229 Summary: Review Request: oflb-coval-fonts - Derivation of other free of charge fonts Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ipomo...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ipomoeba.fedorapeople.org/_fonts/coval/oflb-coval-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://ipomoeba.fedorapeople.org/_fonts/coval/oflb-coval-fonts-1.000-4.20150122.fc21.src.rpm Description: Coval font is a derivated of sans serif with OFL license Fedora Account System Username: ipomoeba -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1193730] Review Request: apache-jena - Java framework for building Semantic Web and Linked Data applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193730 --- Comment #7 from Donald Pellegrino dapellegr...@dow.com --- The Java Packaging HOWTO has relevant information on packaging this maven project: https://fedorahosted.org/released/javapackages/doc/. I was also able to get some help from gil on #fedora-bigdata. Unfortunately, there are two dependencies I was unable to resolve when building from the apache jena source: BuildRequires: mvn(com.github.jsonld-java:jsonld-java) BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient-cache In addition, BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-csv) is resolved by apache-commons-csv-0:1.0-0.11.svn1071189.fc21.noarch, however installing that package locally leads to compile-time errors. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196551] Review Request: golang-github-shurcooL-sanitized_anchor_name - Package sanitized_anchor_name provides a func to create sanitized anchor names
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196551 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-shurcooL-sanitized_anchor_name-0-0.1.git8e87604.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-shurcooL-sanitized_anchor_name-0-0.1.git8e87604.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
