[Bug 1196373] Review Request: stockfish - Powerful open source chess engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196373 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: stockfish Short Description: Powerful open source chess engine Upstream URL: http://www.stockfishchess.com Owners: raphgro Branches: f21 f22 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 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 1197898] New: Review Request: dconf-editor - Configuration editor for dconf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197898 Bug ID: 1197898 Summary: Review Request: dconf-editor - Configuration editor for dconf Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: kalevlem...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/dconf-editor.spec SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/dconf-editor-3.15.91-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Graphical tool for editing the dconf configuration database. Fedora Account System Username: kalev Note that this is a package split; the code used to live in the dconf-editor subpackage in the dconf source 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 1045676] Review Request: sunwait - Calculate sunrise, sunset, twilight
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045676 Eric Smith space...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Eric Smith space...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sunwait Short Description: Calculate sunrise, sunset, twilight Upstream URL: https://www.risacher.org/sunwait/ Owners: brouhaha Branches: f21 f22 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 894603] Review Request: coin-or-FlopC++ - Algebraic modelling language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894603 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package coin-or-Cbc-2.9.2-5.fc22, coin-or-Ipopt-3.12.1-4.fc22, coin-or-Bonmin-1.8.1-3.fc22, coin-or-SYMPHONY-5.6.8-1.fc22, coin-or-FlopC++-1.1.7-4.fc22, coin-or-Couenne-0.5.2-3.fc22: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing coin-or-Cbc-2.9.2-5.fc22 coin-or-Ipopt-3.12.1-4.fc22 coin-or-Bonmin-1.8.1-3.fc22 coin-or-SYMPHONY-5.6.8-1.fc22 coin-or-FlopC++-1.1.7-4.fc22 coin-or-Couenne-0.5.2-3.fc22' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2915/coin-or-Cbc-2.9.2-5.fc22,coin-or-Ipopt-3.12.1-4.fc22,coin-or-Bonmin-1.8.1-3.fc22,coin-or-SYMPHONY-5.6.8-1.fc22,coin-or-FlopC++-1.1.7-4.fc22,coin-or-Couenne-0.5.2-3.fc22 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1170664] Review Request: python-mistune - Markdown parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170664 --- Comment #17 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196373] Review Request: stockfish - Powerful open source chess engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196373 Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org --- Approved! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1170664] Review Request: python-mistune - Markdown parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170664 Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-mistune New Branches: epel7 Owners: lupinix -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197898] Review Request: dconf-editor - Configuration editor for dconf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197898 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mcla...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com --- rpmlint ~/Downloads/dconf-editor-3.15.91-1.fc22.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/dconf-editor-3.15.91-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm dconf-editor.x86_64: W: no-documentation dconf-editor.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dconf-editor dconf-editor.x86_64: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/ca.desrt.dconf-editor.appdata.xml 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196373] Review Request: stockfish - Powerful open source chess engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196373 --- Comment #14 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/chess/stockfish/stockfish.spec SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/chess/stockfish/stockfish-6-4.20150228git1e6d21d.fc21.src.rpm rawhide scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9122664 * Mon Mar 02 2015 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms - 6-4.20150228git1e6d21d - fix Release dist extension - fix ownership of etc/ - add Suggests: polyglot-chess (rhbz#1197333) Christian, thanks for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1194188] Review Request: fastd - Fast and secure tunneling daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194188 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- fastd-17-2.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 1197265] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-requirejs - Optimize RequireJS projects using r.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197265 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-grunt-contrib-requirejs-0.4.4-1.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 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- reflections-0.9.9-3.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 1177702] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin - Minify HTML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177702 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin-0.4.0-1.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 1196289] Review Request: nodejs-defaults - Merge single level defaults over a config object
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196289 --- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- Also, there seems to be a test included, but the package lacks a %check section. Please add 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 1170664] Review Request: python-mistune - Markdown parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170664 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #15 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Christian - We need this in EPEL7 for iPython. Would you mind branching and building it there? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1194189] Review Request: ecdsautils - Tiny collection of programs used for ECDSA (keygen, sign, verify)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194189 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.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 894606] Review Request: coin-or-Couenne - An exact solver for nonconvex MINLPs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894606 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package coin-or-Cbc-2.9.2-5.fc22, coin-or-Ipopt-3.12.1-4.fc22, coin-or-Bonmin-1.8.1-3.fc22, coin-or-SYMPHONY-5.6.8-1.fc22, coin-or-FlopC++-1.1.7-4.fc22, coin-or-Couenne-0.5.2-3.fc22: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing coin-or-Cbc-2.9.2-5.fc22 coin-or-Ipopt-3.12.1-4.fc22 coin-or-Bonmin-1.8.1-3.fc22 coin-or-SYMPHONY-5.6.8-1.fc22 coin-or-FlopC++-1.1.7-4.fc22 coin-or-Couenne-0.5.2-3.fc22' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2915/coin-or-Cbc-2.9.2-5.fc22,coin-or-Ipopt-3.12.1-4.fc22,coin-or-Bonmin-1.8.1-3.fc22,coin-or-SYMPHONY-5.6.8-1.fc22,coin-or-FlopC++-1.1.7-4.fc22,coin-or-Couenne-0.5.2-3.fc22 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #12 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-1.17-5.fc23.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 1195573] Review Request: dropbox-api-command - Dropbox API wrapper command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195573 --- Comment #13 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com --- As I hit Save Changes, I realized I forgot to add BR: perl. Added locally. I can upload again if you want or import it with the change. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197337] Review Request: ghc-polyparse - A variety of alternative parser combinator libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197337 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-polyparse Short Description: Alternative parser combinators Upstream URL: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/polyparse Owners: petersen Branches: f22 f21 f20 el7 InitialCC: haskell-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 1197639] Review Request: ghc-STMonadTrans - A monad transformer version of the ST monad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197639
Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||maths...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|maths...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[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.
[?]: 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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 204800 bytes in 20 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package
[Bug 1197641] Review Request: ghc-boxes - 2D text pretty-printing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||maths...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|maths...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com ---
Adding CHANGES to %doc would be nice.
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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[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.
[?]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 215040 bytes in 18 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test
[Bug 1197639] Review Request: ghc-STMonadTrans - A monad transformer version of the ST monad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197639 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-STMonadTrans Short Description: Monad transformer version of the ST monad Upstream URL: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/STMonadTrans Owners: petersen Branches: f22 f21 f20 epel7 InitialCC: haskell-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 974725] Review Request: ghc-pretty-show - Tools for working with derived Show instances and generic inspection of values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974725 --- Comment #10 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://mathstuf.fedorapeople.org//ghc-pretty-show.spec SRPM URL: http://mathstuf.fedorapeople.org//ghc-pretty-show-1.6.8.1-1.fc23.src.rpm -- 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 1197898] Review Request: dconf-editor - Configuration editor for dconf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197898 --- Comment #2 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com --- Package name: ok Spec file name: ok Packaging Guidelines: ok License: ok License field: ok License file: ok Spec language: ok Spec legibility: excellent Upstream sources: ok Buildable: yes Build deps: ok Locale handling: ok Shared libs: ok Bundled libs: ok Relocatable: no Directory ownership: ok Duplicate files: ok File permissions: ok Macro use: consistent permissible content: yes doc subpackage: not needed doc content: ok static libs: none development files: none libtool archives: none desktop file: present duplicate ownership: ok utf8 filenames: ok Summary: We should investigate why the appdata gets flagged as invalid, and fix it After that, looks fine -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197640] Review Request: ghc-equivalence - Equivalence relations implemented with union-find
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197640 Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||maths...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|maths...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1073017] Review Request: parquet - Java readers/writers for Parquet columnar file formats to use with Map-Reduce
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073017 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(msimacek@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- can we terminate? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197947] New: Review Request: khard - An address book for the Linux console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197947 Bug ID: 1197947 Summary: Review Request: khard - An address book for the Linux console Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: maths...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://mathstuf.fedorapeople.org//khard.spec SRPM URL: http://mathstuf.fedorapeople.org//khard-0.2.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Khard is an address book for the Linux console. It creates, reads, modifies and removes carddav address book entries at your local machine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197947] Review Request: khard - An address book for the Linux console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197947 --- Comment #1 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9126162 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196960] Review Request: ghc-tf-random - High-quality splittable pseudorandom number generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196960
Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||maths...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|maths...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com ---
Needs a License: update.
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
License should be Public Domain and (BSD or GPL). No version for the GPL
specified.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[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.
[?]: 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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 266240 bytes in 29 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original
[Bug 1197642] Review Request: ghc-data-hash - Combinators for building fast hashing functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197642
Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||maths...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|maths...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com ---
Would be nice to have AUTHORS in %doc.
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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[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.
[?]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 194560 bytes in 23 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[Bug 1197337] Review Request: ghc-polyparse - A variety of alternative parser combinator libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197337
Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||maths...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|maths...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[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.
[?]: 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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 194560 bytes in 23 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package
[Bug 1195553] Review Request: ghc-control-monad-free - Free monads and monad transformers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195553 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1195551] Review Request: ghc-prelude-extras - Haskell98 higher order versions of Prelude classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195551 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1195554] Review Request: ghc-wizards - High level, generic library for interrogative user interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195554 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1195555] Review Request: ghc-tabular - Two-dimensional data tables with rendering functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=119 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 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|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||desktop-backgrounds-22.0.0- ||0.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-03-02 23:19:47 --- Comment #10 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 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196960] Review Request: ghc-tf-random - High-quality splittable pseudorandom number generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196960 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Thanks for pointing out about the license. I have updated it to BSD and Public Domain and added a comment noting also about the GPL option for one header file. This also uses %license - though I had to rm LICENSE. (Maybe ghc-rpm-macros should configure with --docdir=/dev/null perhaps.) Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-tf-random/ghc-tf-random.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-tf-random/ghc-tf-random-0.5-2.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 1197801] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Atom - Parse and format Atom date-time strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197801 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-DateTime-Format-Atom Short Description: Parse and format Atom date-time strings Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/DateTime-Format-Atom/ 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 1197641] Review Request: ghc-boxes - 2D text pretty-printing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Thanks for reviewing. Okay good suggestion, I'll add CHANGES. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-boxes Short Description: 2D text pretty-printing Upstream URL: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/boxes Owners: petersen Branches: f22 f21 f20 epel7 InitialCC: haskell-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 1197066] Review Request: perl-Test-Run - Extensible and object-oriented test harness for TAP scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197066 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- You are right. Updated package is on the same 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 1197642] Review Request: ghc-data-hash - Combinators for building fast hashing functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197642 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-data-hash Short Description: Combinators for building fast hashing functions Upstream URL: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/data-hash Owners: petersen Branches: f22 f21 f20 epel7 InitialCC: haskell-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 1197793] Review Request: perl-ExtUtils-TBone - Skeleton for writing t/*.t Perl test files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197793 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-ExtUtils-TBone Short Description: Skeleton for writing t/*.t Perl test files Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/ExtUtils-TBone/ 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 1197346] Review Request: python-atomicwrites - Python Atomic file writes on POSIX
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197346 Michele Baldessari mich...@acksyn.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Michele Baldessari mich...@acksyn.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-atomicwrites Short Description: Python POSIX Atomic file writes Upstream URL: https://github.com/untitaker/python-atomicwrites Owners: mbaldessari Branches: f22 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 1196289] Review Request: nodejs-defaults - Merge single level defaults over a config object
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196289 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lkund...@v3.sk Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lkund...@v3.sk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
--- Comment #1 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk ---
Summary:A simple one level options merge utility
This is a pretty bad summary; there's no way a user would be able to tell if
they need this or not. It's also not an utility, its a library.
Group: Development/Languages/Other
No souch group exist. Please drop the tag altogether or pick a suitable
library from /usr/share/doc/rpm/GROUPS
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{pkg_name}-%{version}-build
Not needed anymore unless you're building for el5.
ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 %{arm} noarch
You can use %{nodejs_arches}, unless you're building for el5.
#%{nodejs_find_provides_and_requires}
This doesn't look right, is that intentional? Note that macro expansion happens
before parsing comments.
%description
Merge single level defaults over a config object.
This needs improvement, it seems to make very little sense.
%prep
%setup -q -n package
%build
Please keep spacing consistent (add a line break before %build).
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
Not needed for post-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 1197346] Review Request: python-atomicwrites - Python Atomic file writes on POSIX
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197346 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-atomicwrites-0.1.4-5.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-atomicwrites-0.1.4-5.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 1196289] Review Request: nodejs-defaults - Merge single level defaults over a config object
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196289 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- * Package named properly * Version correct - License? How can you tell it's MIT? There's no license text included altogether and MIT license specifically requires the source to be distributed with the copy of the license. Please contact upstream and ask them to fix the issue. * Builds fine in mock * Filelist sane * Requires sane * Provides sane - rpmlint unhappy Essentially complains about what has been pointed out above -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #14 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #12) Issues: === - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre- built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software'. Try: find \( -name '*.jar' -o -name '*.class' \) -delete contains a simple jar used only for test, if i remove this one so i should skip also the test suite - The package seems to contain a test suite. If possible, run this in %check (or put a motivation in spec why not) test suite is already executed, with maven no need to run it in %check - There are specific GL for packaging source url from github which not are followed. One result is a (too) anonymous source filename. Please adjust to follow these GL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/ SourceURL#Github this project do not provides again a tarball with the characteristics that request. and you can cosider this version as stable release. (latest unstable is 0.10-SNAPSHOT) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 458588] Review Request: qsstv - Qt-based slow-scan TV and fax
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458588 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197346] Review Request: python-atomicwrites - Python Atomic file writes on POSIX
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197346 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 1197346] Review Request: python-atomicwrites - Python Atomic file writes on POSIX
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197346 --- 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 1197766] Review Request: os-disk-config - Disk paritioning tool used for openstack tripleo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197766 --- Comment #1 from Ryan Hallisey rhall...@redhat.com --- mock build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9119378 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it --- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Donald Pellegrino from comment #7) 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) packaged jsonld-java src rpm and spec file are here https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jsonld-java.spec Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9119629 BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient-cache available only in Fedora = 22 as httpcomponents-client-cache -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197499] Review Request: java-wakeonline - Wake On Lan client and java library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197499 --- Comment #35 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #33) (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #31) as suggest the name: one install the file the other one check if everything is okay, as you want, if you want to remove it is to your discretion Actually, they both do the same validating. Many thanks for the review! I'm not really in the position to offer you a java review in return. That said, I owe you one, should you need to review something else. should be easily review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 block oVirt package, your discretion, thanks for the patience -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1179982] Review Request: docsis-config-encoder - Encode a DOCSIS binary configuration file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179982 --- Comment #16 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- (In reply to Simon Farnsworth from comment #15) There are two remaining complaints from rpmlint, then the package passes: 1. COPYING is only included in a %license tag, which means it doesn't appear in /usr/share/doc … You seem to be wrong in that point. There's a new guideline to use %license for all license texts, this was introduced some weeks ago. For F21, it's like a SHOULD currently but I think it will become a requirement in near future: 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 must be included in %license. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text 2. The binary's permissions are 0775, not 0755. Will be fixed in the next upload. With these two complaints fixed, the package passes review. Please do not forget to execute the fedora-review tool after the formal things got fixed. This tool found a lot of not obvious issues in my other packages. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #13 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Please note that the Packaging Source URL GL also means you need to apply the pre-release part of the Naming GL. I cannot see any release (or tag) in the github repo. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 458588] Review Request: qsstv - Qt-based slow-scan TV and fax
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458588 Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: qsstv New Branches: epel7 Owners: hobbes1069 InitialCC: lucilanga -- 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 1197445] Review Request: khal - CLI calendar application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197445 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 1197709] Review Request: f22-kde-theme - Fedora Twenty Two KDE Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197709 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1135100 (F22Blocker-kde) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135100 [Bug 1135100] Fedora 22 Blocker KDE Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197709] Review Request: f22-kde-theme - Fedora Twenty Two KDE Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197709 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jgrul...@redhat.com Alias||f22-kde-theme -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 458588] Review Request: qsstv - Qt-based slow-scan TV and fax
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458588 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197766] New: Review Request: os-disk-config - Disk paritioning tool used for openstack tripleo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197766 Bug ID: 1197766 Summary: Review Request: os-disk-config - Disk paritioning tool used for openstack tripleo Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rhall...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://github.com/rdo-management/os-disk-config-packaging/blob/packaging/os-disk-config.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9378/9119378/os-disk-config-0.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Os-disk-config is a project that is able to partition, format, and mount a disk based on requested input used by openstack tripleo. Fedora Account System Username: rhallisey -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #8 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com --- KDE theme review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197709 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197709] Review Request: f22-kde-theme - Fedora Twenty Two KDE Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197709 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997 [Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197756] New: Review Request: nuntius - Get notifications from the phone or tablet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197756 Bug ID: 1197756 Summary: Review Request: nuntius - Get notifications from the phone or tablet Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: kalevlem...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/nuntius.spec SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/nuntius-0.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Nuntius is a daemon that connects to another nuntius android app and proxies the notifications using bluetooth. Fedora Account System Username: kalev -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #15 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections-0.9.9-2.fc20.src.rpm - remove bundled jar (used only for testing) Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9119341 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197436] Review Request: vdirsyncer - Synchronize calendars and contacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197436 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 1197445] Review Request: khal - CLI calendar application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197445 --- 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 1197436] Review Request: vdirsyncer - Synchronize calendars and contacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197436 --- 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 1197642] Review Request: ghc-data-hash - Combinators for building fast hashing functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197642 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||haskell-devel@lists.fedorap ||roject.org Blocks||1164120 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164120 [Bug 1164120] Agda-2.4.2.2 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197499] Review Request: java-wakeonline - Wake On Lan client and java library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197499
--- Comment #25 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Issues:
java-wakeonlan.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/licenses/java-wakeonlan/COPYING
java-wakeonlan-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/licenses/java-wakeonlan-javadoc/COPYING
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
Suggestion:
use also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=996898
CMDResources_it.properties
fix icon name
is not %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps/%{name}-inspector.png but
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps/%{name}.png
if possible repackage the source archive and remove
./wakeonlan-1.0.0/lib/jsap.jar
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197499] Review Request: java-wakeonline - Wake On Lan client and java library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197499 --- Comment #31 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #30) BTW: Using both desktop-file-install and desktop-file-validate is redundant, isn't it? see http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/desktop-file-utils/ as suggest the name: one install the file the other one check if everything is okay, as you want, if you want to remove it is to your discretion BuildRequires: jpackage-utils is unnecessary, but should prevent some rpmlint warning -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197499] Review Request: java-wakeonline - Wake On Lan client and java library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197499 --- Comment #21 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Last-minute changes introduced an error in the launcher script. I'm re-generating release 3, same links -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197641] Review Request: ghc-boxes - 2D text pretty-printing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9117511 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197641] New: Review Request: ghc-boxes - 2D text pretty-printing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641 Bug ID: 1197641 Summary: Review Request: ghc-boxes - 2D text pretty-printing library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-boxes.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: A pretty-printing library for laying out text in two dimensions, using a simple box model. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197499] Review Request: java-wakeonline - Wake On Lan client and java library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197499
--- Comment #27 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Please fix
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
-
--- /home/gil/1197499-java-wakeonlan/srpm/java-wakeonlan.spec2015-03-02
11:41:18.803202312 +0100
+++ /home/gil/1197499-java-wakeonlan/srpm-unpacked/java-wakeonlan.spec
2015-03-02 09:08:52.0 +0100
@@ -11,7 +11,5 @@
# Build configuration, no need to upstream.
Patch1: 0001-Update-target-and-source-to-1.5.patch
-# Will upstream
-Patch2: 0002-Adding-Swedish-and-Italian-translations.patch
-
+Patch2: 0002-Adding-Swedich-and-Italian-translations.patch
BuildRequires: ant-junit
@@ -86,5 +84,5 @@
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps/
convert etc/javaws/wakeonlan64x64.gif -geometry 64x64 \
- %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps/%{name}.png
+ %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps/%{name}-inspector.png
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com Docs Contact||leamas.a...@gmail.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 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Docs Contact|leamas.a...@gmail.com | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|leamas.a...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1188524] Review Request: nodejs-date-tokens - Convenient date formatting for templates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188524 --- Comment #6 from anish apa...@redhat.com --- Hi Piotr, Thank you!! Please find updated rpms and sprms on Spec URL: https://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-date-tokens.spec SRPM URL: https://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-date-tokens-0.0.2-4.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 1188564] Review Request: nodejs-keygrip- Key signing and verification for rotated credentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188564 --- Comment #6 from anish apa...@redhat.com --- Hi Piotr, Thank you for your review comments, please find new rpms and sprms on Spec URL: https://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-keygrip.spec SRPM URL: https://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-keygrip-1.0.1-3.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 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Issues: === - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre- built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software'. Try: find \( -name '*.jar' -o -name '*.class' \) -delete - The package seems to contain a test suite. If possible, run this in %check (or put a motivation in spec why not) - There are specific GL for packaging source url from github which not are followed. One result is a (too) anonymous source filename. Please adjust to follow these GL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Github -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1188552] Review Request: nodejs-propagate - Propagate events from one event emitter into another
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188552 --- Comment #7 from anish apa...@redhat.com --- Hi Piotr, Thank you for your review comments, please find Sepc and SRPM as follows:- Spec URL: https://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-propagate.spec SRPM URL: https://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-propagate-0.3.0-3.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 1045676] Review Request: sunwait - Calculate sunrise, sunset, twilight
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045676
František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses.
[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.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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.
Note: upstream not active anymore
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
No testsuite available.
[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]: Uses parallel
[Bug 1188576] Review Request: nodejs-create-class - A simple approach to create classes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188576 --- Comment #7 from anish apa...@redhat.com --- Hi Piotr, Thank you for your review comments, please find uodated files on Spec URL: https://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-create-class.spec SRPM URL: https://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-create-class-1.0.1-4.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 1156176] Review Request: golang-github-russross-blackfriday - Markdown processor implemented in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156176 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-russross-blackfriday-1.2-5.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-russross-blackfriday-1.2-5.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156176] Review Request: golang-github-russross-blackfriday - Markdown processor implemented in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156176 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-russross-blackfriday-1.2-5.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-russross-blackfriday-1.2-5.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156176] Review Request: golang-github-russross-blackfriday - Markdown processor implemented in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156176 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-russross-blackfriday-1.2-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-russross-blackfriday-1.2-5.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 1197709] New: Review Request: f22-kde-theme - Fedora Twenty Two KDE Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197709 Bug ID: 1197709 Summary: Review Request: f22-kde-theme - Fedora Twenty Two KDE Theme Product: Fedora Version: 22 Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: t...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://than.fedorapeople.org/f22/f22-kde-theme.spec SRPM URL: https://than.fedorapeople.org/f22/f22-kde-theme-21.90-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This is Fedora Twenty Two KDE Theme Artwork containing KDM theme, KSplash theme and Plasma Workspaces theme. Fedora Account System Username: than -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195153] Review Request: python-lmiwbem - package rename
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195153 Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #6 from Peter Hatina phat...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-lmiwbem Short Description: Python WBEM Client Upstream URL: https://github.com/phatina/python-lmiwbem/ Owners: phatina Branches: f21 f22 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 1197499] Review Request: java-wakeonline - Wake On Lan client and java library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197499 --- Comment #23 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- the patch (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #19) In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8) if you do not hurry I could translate the properties files in Italian resources/*.properties I'm in no hurry, If you add the Italian stuff I'll fix the Swedish :) - Added Italian and Swedish translations. don't use CMDResources_it.properties -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197499] Review Request: java-wakeonline - Wake On Lan client and java library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197499
--- Comment #26 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #25)
java-wakeonlan.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/licenses/java-wakeonlan/COPYING
I have informed upstream about this (comment #1)
Suggestion:
use also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=996898
CMDResources_it.properties
Of course, sorry I missed that. It was certainly not on purpose. Fixed.
fix icon name
is not %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps/%{name}-inspector.png but
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps/%{name}.png
Fixed
if possible repackage the source archive and remove
./wakeonlan-1.0.0/lib/jsap.jar
Certainly possible, but is it a good idea? The GL [1] requires us to remove the
jars in %prep, but there is nothing about repacking the source in such cases.
And as one of the fedora-review maintainers I can confirm that the message
just is a heads up that there is jars to deal with.
Still on release 3, new changelog entry , same links:
spec: https://leamas.fedorapeople.org/harctoolbox/java-wakeonlan.spec
srpm:
https://leamas.fedorapeople.org/harctoolbox/java-wakeonlan-1.0.0-3.fc21.src.rpm
[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197499] Review Request: java-wakeonline - Wake On Lan client and java library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197499 --- Comment #30 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- BTW: Using both desktop-file-install and desktop-file-validate is redundant, isn't 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 1197499] Review Request: java-wakeonline - Wake On Lan client and java library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197499 --- Comment #22 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #21) Last-minute changes introduced an error in the launcher script. I'm re-generating release 3, same links in the spec file should be corretedt the name of the icon/s -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197641] Review Request: ghc-boxes - 2D text pretty-printing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||haskell-devel@lists.fedorap ||roject.org Blocks||1164120 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164120 [Bug 1164120] Agda-2.4.2.2 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197499] Review Request: java-wakeonline - Wake On Lan client and java library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197499
--- Comment #24 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
IGNORE
- 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.
Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
IGNORE
- Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Note: Jar files in source (see attachment)
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-
built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software'
IGNORE
= 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. 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/gil/1197499-java-wakeonlan/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-metadata, /usr/share/licenses
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
/usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/maven-metadata
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in java-wakeonlan
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
[Bug 1197445] Review Request: khal - CLI calendar application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197445 Michele Baldessari mich...@acksyn.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Michele Baldessari mich...@acksyn.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: khal Short Description: CLI calendar application Upstream URL: https://github.com/geier/khal Owners: mbaldessari Branches: f22 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 1197639] New: Review Request: ghc-STMonadTrans - A monad transformer version of the ST monad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197639 Bug ID: 1197639 Summary: Review Request: ghc-STMonadTrans - A monad transformer version of the ST monad Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-STMonadTrans.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-STMonadTrans-0.3.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: A monad transformer version of the ST monad. This monad transformer should not be used with monads that can contain multiple answers, like the list monad. The reason being that it will be duplicated across the different answers and this causes Bad Things to happen (such as loss of referential transparency). Safe monads include the monads State, Reader, Writer, Maybe and combinations of their corresponding monad transformers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197640] New: Review Request: ghc-equivalence - Maintaining an equivalence relation implemented as union-find using STT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197640 Bug ID: 1197640 Summary: Review Request: ghc-equivalence - Maintaining an equivalence relation implemented as union-find using STT Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-equivalence.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-equivalence-0.2.5-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This is an implementation of Tarjan's Union-Find algorithm (Robert E. Tarjan. Efficiency of a Good But Not Linear Set Union Algorithm, JACM 22(2), 1975) in order to maintain an equivalence relation. This implementation is a port of the /union-find/ package using the ST monad transformer (instead of the IO monad). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
