[Bug 1135700] Review Request: antlr4 - parser generator tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135700 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|1153934 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153934 [Bug 1153934] checkstyle-6.3 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 1203749] Review Request: dssp - Protein secondary structure assignment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203749
--- Comment #6 from Dave Love d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk ---
(In reply to Antti Järvinen from comment #3)
Ehh, sorry for my failure to read my own comments, there is also a failing
check-list item due to usage of rm -rf %{buildroot} in install.
That's in the template we're told to use, and we have an EPEL5 cluster.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1204770] Review Request: antlr4 - ANother Tool for Language Recognition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204770 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1204770] Review Request: antlr4 - ANother Tool for Language Recognition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204770 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2015-03-26 06:22:53 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1158109] Review Request: xfce4-hamster-plugin - Clone of the gnome extension for xfce4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1158109 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nonamed...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #22 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Package Change Request == Package Name: xfce4-hamster-plugin New Branches: epel7 Owners: raphgro 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 1142491] Review Request: rubygem-ox - Fast XML parser and object serializer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142491 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Okay, I would recommend to add some comments on the spec file for license clarification until the next version. * spec file clean * source contents no problem * builds on F-23/22/21 * can be installed * at least the following works $ ruby -e require 'ox' ; p Ox::VERSION 2.1.8 --- This package (rubygem-ox) is APPROVED by mtasaka -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1204176] Review Request: perl-Authen-SCRAM - Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (RFC 5802)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204176 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com --- Source file is ok Summary is ok License is ok Description is ok URL and Source0 are ok All tests passed BuildRequires are ok $ rpm -qp --requires perl-Authen-SCRAM-0.005-1.fc23.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl = 0:5.008 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.20.2) 1 perl(Authen::SASL::SASLprep) 1 perl(Carp) 1 perl(Crypt::URandom) 1 perl(Encode) 1 perl(MIME::Base64) 1 perl(Moo) = 1.001000 1 perl(Moo::Role) = 1.001000 1 perl(PBKDF2::Tiny) = 0.003 1 perl(Try::Tiny) 1 perl(Types::Standard) 1 perl(namespace::clean) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(warnings) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1 Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -qp --provides perl-Authen-SCRAM-0.005-1.fc23.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(Authen::SCRAM) = 0.005 1 perl(Authen::SCRAM::Client) = 0.005 1 perl(Authen::SCRAM::Role::Common) = 0.005 1 perl(Authen::SCRAM::Server) = 0.005 1 perl-Authen-SCRAM = 0.005-1.fc23 Binary provides are Ok. $ rpmlint ./perl-Authen-SCRAM* 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint is ok The package looks good. APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1204176] Review Request: perl-Authen-SCRAM - Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (RFC 5802)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204176 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-Authen-SCRAM Short Description: Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (RFC 5802) Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Authen-SCRAM/ 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 1204176] Review Request: perl-Authen-SCRAM - Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (RFC 5802)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204176 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jples...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] New: Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 Bug ID: 1206080 Summary: Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mizde...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/antlr4/antlr4.spec SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/antlr4/antlr4-4.5-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: ANTLR (ANother Tool for Language Recognition) is a powerful parser generator for reading, processing, executing, or translating structured text or binary files. It's widely used to build languages, tools, and frameworks. From a grammar, ANTLR generates a parser that can build and walk parse trees. Fedora Account System Username: mizdebsk Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1197395 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197395 [Bug 1197395] checkstyle-6.4.1 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 1135700] Review Request: antlr4 - parser generator tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135700 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|1197395 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197395 [Bug 1197395] checkstyle-6.4.1 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 1204770] Review Request: antlr4 - ANother Tool for Language Recognition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204770 --- Comment #16 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- I have packaged antlr4 myself. Review request is in bug #1206080. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203749] Review Request: dssp - Protein secondary structure assignment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203749 --- Comment #5 from Dave Love d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk --- (In reply to Antti Järvinen from comment #2) Only obvious minus is due to lack of %check portion in .spec but I don't know if it really is applicable to your sw. There are clearly no tests in the distribution, and I know of no regression test, though I made an example for the original version long ago. I'd include one if someone else knows and will actually do a 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 1203749] Review Request: dssp - Protein secondary structure assignment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203749 --- Comment #7 from Dave Love d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4) @Dave Why Make destination directory is $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr ? It saved re-writing the makefile which doesn't use DESTDIR as normal. I didn't think a comment was necessary, but maybe it is. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1202431] Review Request: libical-glib - GObject wrapper for libical library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202431 --- Comment #6 from Milan Crha mc...@redhat.com --- I've only now uploaded new .spec and .src.rpm to the website, there were more occurrences of %define instead of %global. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206067] New: Review Request: python-oslo-log - OpenStack Oslo Log library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206067 Bug ID: 1206067 Summary: Review Request: python-oslo-log - OpenStack Oslo Log library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: karlthe...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-oslo-log.spec SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-oslo-log-1.0.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: The OpenStack Oslo Log library. Fedora Account System Username:hguemar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206086] New: Review Request: python-oslo-versionedobjects - OpenStack common versionedobjects library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206086 Bug ID: 1206086 Summary: Review Request: python-oslo-versionedobjects - OpenStack common versionedobjects library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: karlthe...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-oslo-versionedobjects.spec SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-oslo-versionedobjects-0.1.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Oslo versionedobjects library deals with DB schema being at different versions than the code expects, allowing services to be operated safely during upgrades. Fedora Account System Username:hguemar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1202431] Review Request: libical-glib - GObject wrapper for libical library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202431 Milan Crha mc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Milan Crha mc...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libical-glib Short Description: GObject wrapper for libical library Upstream URL: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/libical-glib Owners: mcrha 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 1204777] Review Request: python3-pkgversion-macros - Convenience macros for Fedora/EPEL Python 3 packages building
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204777 --- Comment #8 from Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Aurelien Bompard from comment #7) Ah, mid-air collision. I was doing the review on my computer, here's a summary of what I found: - mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (Source1 is indented with spaces) - Adding Requires: rpm would make sense and fix a directory ownership problem. - (minor) Please also escape the %python3_other_pkgversion macro in the commented lines, even comments are interpreted by RPM and may create a (harmless) error message. Thanks you! Good points, I'll fix these. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1116028] Review Request: rubygem-elasticsearch-transport - Elasticsearch transport
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116028 --- Comment #21 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch --- EPEL 7 build blocked on lack of faraday https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206119 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772217] Review Request: libyuv - YUV conversion and scaling functionality library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772217 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: libyuv New Branches: epel7 Owners: peter 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 676930] Review Request: gmock - Google C++ Mocking Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676930 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- Terje, are you ok with adding a bit more branches for EPEL? I'm going to ask another one - this time for EL7. Package Change Request == Package Name: gmock New Branches: epel7 Owners: peter InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201662] Review Request: wiredtiger - WiredTiger data storage engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
The -java package should Require jpackage-utils (which owns
/usr/lib/java). See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
You currently have a BR for python-devel - this should be
python2-devel. Also, you might consider building a python3
sub-package if that is supported too - Fedora will eventually move to
python 3 as the default. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
BSD (3 clause), MIT/X11 (BSD like), *No copyright* GPL (v2 or
later), Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated. 663 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jgu/rpmbuild/1201662-wiredtiger/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses
Need to Require jpackage-utils in the -java package.
/usr/share/licenses is owned by the filsystem package, but I see no
other packages Requiring filesystem, so perhaps this is OK.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/java,
/usr/share/licenses
As above.
[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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
jpackage-utils
[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 92160 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 --- Comment #1 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- FPC bootstrap bundling exception: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/517 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203749] Review Request: dssp - Protein secondary structure assignment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203749
--- Comment #8 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Dave Love from comment #7)
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4)
@Dave
Why Make destination directory is $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr ?
It saved re-writing the makefile which doesn't use DESTDIR as normal.
I didn't think a comment was necessary, but maybe it is.
DEST_DIR?= /usr/local
LIB_DIR= $(BOOST_LIB_DIR)
INC_DIR= $(BOOST_INC_DIR)
BIN_DIR= $(DEST_DIR)/bin
MAN_DIR= $(DEST_DIR)/man/man1
It considers a manual local installation under /usr/local/ directory, but i
think it's better a Makefile patching in order to use right directories for the
packaging; so something like:
...
%build
# This changed somewhere between EPEL6 and Fedora 21.
## Set Boost's library directories
if [ -f %{_libdir}/libboost_thread-mt.so ]; then
echo BOOST_LIB_SUFFIX = -mt make.config
else
echo BOOST_LIB_SUFFIX = make.config
fi
echo BOOST_INC_DIR=%{_includedir}/boost make.config
echo BOOST_LIB_DIR=%{_libdir} make.config
## Set Make
sed -e 's|+= -O3|+= %{optflags}|g' -i makefile
sed -e 's|?= /usr/local|= $(DESTDIR)|g' -i makefile
sed -e 's|$(DEST_DIR)/bin|$(DEST_DIR)%{_bindir}|g' -i makefile
sed -e 's|$(DEST_DIR)/man/man1|$(DEST_DIR)%{_mandir}/man1|g' -i makefile
export DEBUG=0
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL='install -p'
...
Unless you want to package in EPEL5, you dont need %clean section.
Also, use %license for LICENSE_1_0.txt.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203749] Review Request: dssp - Protein secondary structure assignment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203749 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@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 1199842] Review Request: jackson-module-jsonSchema - Jackson JSON Schema Module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199842 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9341138 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199841] Review Request: jackson-dataformat-csv - Jackson extension for adding support for reading and writing CSV formatted data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199841 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9341193 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205459] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebSockets component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205459 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc21,mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc21,mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858085] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns - Qt5 for Windows - QtXmlPatterns component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858085 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc21,mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc21,mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858085] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns - Qt5 for Windows - QtXmlPatterns component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858085 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc20,mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc20,mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205459] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebSockets component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205459 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc20,mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc20,mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1204614] Review Request: gofed - Tool for development of golang devel packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204614
--- Comment #2 from Ondrej Oprala oopr...@redhat.com ---
=
fedora-review output with my comments, denoted by ''
=
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the [ ] Manual check required, you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- No %config files under /usr.
Note: %config /usr/share/gofed/config/gofed.conf
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/gofed/config/gofed.conf
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
OK - LICENSE file present in the project with a GPL License description
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 25 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/ooprala/.vim/gofed/licensecheck.txt
OK - Checks out
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
OK - go compiler
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
OK
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
FAILED - version doesn't match %global commit
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
OK
[ ]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /usr/share/gofed/config/gofed.conf
FAILED
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
OK
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
OK
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
OK
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names)
OK
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
FAILED - %postun and %preun
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
OK
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
OK
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
OK
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
OK
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
OK - none needed
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
OK - No debuginfo for golang stuff
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
OK - ExclusiveArch
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
OK - not applicable
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
OK
[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]: 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.
[Bug 1206295] New: Review Request: python-curtsies - Curses-like terminal wrapper, with colored strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206295 Bug ID: 1206295 Summary: Review Request: python-curtsies - Curses-like terminal wrapper, with colored strings Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: terje...@phys.ntnu.no QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org spec: https://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-curtsies/python-curtsies.spec srpm: https://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-curtsies/python-curtsies-0.1.19-1.fc23.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9336345 fas: terjeros desc: Curtsies is curses-like terminal wrapper, can be to annotate portions of strings with terminal colors and formatting. Most terminals will display text in color if you use ANSI escape codes - curtsies makes rendering such text to the terminal easy. Curtsies assumes use of an VT-100 compatible terminal: unlike curses, it has no compatibility layer for other types of terminals. Note: Package is needed by latest bpython release: http://www.bpython-interpreter.org/downloads.html Latest release of curtsies is 0.2, however bpython needs = 0.1.18, 0.2. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1204614] Review Request: gofed - Tool for development of golang devel packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204614 Ondrej Oprala oopr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oopr...@redhat.com Assignee|l...@redhat.com |oopr...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205459] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebSockets component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205459 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc22,mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc22,mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199284] Review request: nodejs-npm-install-checks - Install checks for NPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199284 Zuzana Svetlikova zsvet...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Zuzana Svetlikova zsvet...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-npm-install-checks Short Description: Install checks for NPM Upstream URL: https://github.com/npm/npm-install-checks Owners: zvetlik humaton Branches: f20 f21 f22 InitialCC: humaton -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205459] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebSockets component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205459 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858085] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns - Qt5 for Windows - QtXmlPatterns component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858085 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc22,mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.fc22,mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858085] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns - Qt5 for Windows - QtXmlPatterns component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858085 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055712] Review Request: docker - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055712 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- docker-1.5.0-25.git5ebfacd.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/docker-1.5.0-25.git5ebfacd.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 1205459] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebSockets component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205459 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.el7,mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.el7,mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.el7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858085] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns - Qt5 for Windows - QtXmlPatterns component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858085 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.el7,mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.el7,mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.el7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 707389] Review Request: libwebp - Library and tools for the WebP graphics format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707389 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #16 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Note that libwebp is in RHEL7 proper, so no epel branch should be made. But thanks! -- 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 1204614] Review Request: gofed - Tool for development of golang devel packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204614 Ondrej Oprala oopr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Ondrej Oprala oopr...@redhat.com --- [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. OK [ ]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config /usr/share/gofed/config/gofed.conf OK [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. OK gofed.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/share/gofed/parseGo also fixed :) fedora-review also ran the Python plugin this time: Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. OK [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. OK [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python OK [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Thanks, I don't see any further issue. 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 1199284] Review request: nodejs-npm-install-checks - Install checks for NPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199284 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199284] Review request: nodejs-npm-install-checks - Install checks for NPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199284 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 1204614] Review Request: gofed - Tool for development of golang devel packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204614 --- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Thanks Ondrej, I have uploaded updated srpm and spec file: Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gofed/gofed.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/gofed/gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc20.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9336752 $ rpmlint gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc20.src.rpm gofed-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc20.x86_64.rpm gofed-debuginfo-0-0.1.gitcab0f0b.fc20.x86_64.rpm gofed.spec gofed.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) devel - delve, devil, revel gofed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automize - atomize, automatize gofed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel - delve, devil, revel gofed.src:4: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 4) gofed.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) golang - Angolan, Golan, Angola gofed.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) devel - delve, devil, revel gofed.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automize - atomize, automatize gofed.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US golang - Angolan, Golan, Angola gofed.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel - delve, devil, revel gofed.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/gofed/parseGo gofed.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/share/gofed/parseGo gofed.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/gofed/config/gofed.conf gofed.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/gofed gofed-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources gofed.spec:4: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 4) 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 12 warnings. I have completely removed %postun and %preun sections and fixed commit in changelog and added config(noreplace). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1143032] Review Request: python-gssapi - GSSAPI bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1143032 Solly Ross sr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(abokovoy@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #12 from Solly Ross sr...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~sross/python-gssapi/python-gssapi.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~sross/python-gssapi/python-gssapi-1.1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Python Bindings for GSSAPI (RFC 2743/2744 and extensions) Fedora Account System Username: simo I updated the spec file (fixes for permissions, new version, new Source0) and uploaded a new SRPM. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206295] Review Request: python-curtsies - Curses-like terminal wrapper, with colored strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206295
Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||d...@der-flo.net
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@der-flo.net
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 78 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-curtsies
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
---
[Bug 1206295] Review Request: python-curtsies - Curses-like terminal wrapper, with colored strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206295 Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-curtsies Short Description: Curses-like terminal wrapper, with colored strings Upstream URL: https://github.com/thomasballinger/curtsies Owners: terjeros Branches: f20 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 1142491] Review Request: rubygem-ox - Fast XML parser and object serializer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142491 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-ox Short Description: Fast XML parser and object serializer Upstream URL: http://www.ohler.com/ox Owners: valtri Branches: f20 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 707389] Review Request: libwebp - Library and tools for the WebP graphics format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707389 Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manisan...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: libwebp New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: smani InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847571] Review Request: python-tbgrep - Extract Python Tracebacks from text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847571 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-tbgrep New Branches: epel7 Owners: ralph lmacken -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196957] Review Request: python-XStatic-Angular-lrdragndrop - Angular-lrdragndrop (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196957 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-XStatic-Angular-Irdr |python-XStatic-Angular-lrdr |agndrop - |agndrop - |Angular-Irdragndrop |Angular-lrdragndrop |(XStatic packaging |(XStatic packaging |standard) |standard) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196957] Review Request: python-XStatic-Angular-lrdragndrop - Angular-lrdragndrop (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196957 --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- The package is named incorrect. Unfortunately, there is no new source package on pypi yet. For reference, upper 'i' in the name should be lowercase 'l'. The mistake was made at packaging for pypi. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1170069] Review Request: python-django-database-url - Use Database URLs in your Django Application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170069 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-django-database-url-0.3.0-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1084397] Review Request: jdns - A simple DNS queries library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084397 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|iris-1.0.0-0.17.20140424git |jdns-2.0.1-1.fc20 |4dcc9f49.fc20 | --- Comment #54 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- jdns-2.0.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203610] Review Request: perl-GStreamer1 - Bindings for GStreamer 1.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203610 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-GStreamer1-0.003-2.fc2 ||2 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-03-26 17:47:35 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-GStreamer1-0.003-2.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 1180698] Review Request: sflphone - SIP/IAX2 compatible enterprise-class software phone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180698 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||sflphone-1.4.1-6.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-03-26 17:51:16 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sflphone-1.4.1-6.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1055712] Review Request: docker - Automates deployment of containerized applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055712 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package docker-1.5.0-24.git5ebfacd.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 docker-1.5.0-24.git5ebfacd.fc22' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4619/docker-1.5.0-24.git5ebfacd.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 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 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|parquet-1.5.0-4.fc21|parquet-1.5.0-4.fc22 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- parquet-1.5.0-4.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 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-1.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 1194950] Review Request: nodejs-window-size - Get the height and width of the terminal in a node.js environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194950 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-window-size-0.1.0-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1194950] Review Request: nodejs-window-size - Get the height and width of the terminal in a node.js environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194950 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-window-size-0.1.0-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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 707389] Review Request: libwebp - Library and tools for the WebP graphics format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707389 --- Comment #17 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com --- Oh, ok, thanks for pointing out! Package Change Request == Package Name: libwebp New Branches: el6 Owners: smani InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199839] Review Request: unbescape - Advanced yet easy to use escaping library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199839 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- unbescape-1.1.0-2.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 474603] Review Request: irrlicht - A high performance realtime 3D engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474603 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: irrlicht New Branches: epel7 Owners: orion InitialCC: spot -- 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 905304] Review Request: OpenDMARC - Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting Conformance (DMARC) milter and library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905304 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|opendmarc-1.3.1-4.fc22 |opendmarc-1.3.1-4.fc21 --- Comment #107 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opendmarc-1.3.1-4.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1189318] Review Request: cura-lulzbot - Cura LulzBot Edition, 3D printer control software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189318 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||cura-lulzbot-14.12-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-03-26 17:45:19 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- cura-lulzbot-14.12-1.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 1204812] Review Request: perl-Crypt-DH-GMP - Crypt::DH Using GMP Directly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204812 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package perl-Crypt-DH-GMP-0.00012-1.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 perl-Crypt-DH-GMP-0.00012-1.fc22' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4568/perl-Crypt-DH-GMP-0.00012-1.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 893399] Review Request: pcsc-lite-asekey - ASEKey USB token driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893399 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version|pcsc-lite-asekey-3.7-1.fc23 |pcsc-lite-asekey-3.7-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-03-26 17:46:10 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- pcsc-lite-asekey-3.7-1.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 1199268] Review Request: python-libdiscid - Python bindings for libdiscid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199268 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-libdiscid-0.4.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200885] Review Request: airline - Java annotation-based framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200885 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- airline-0.7-1.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 1200672] Review Request: python-keystoneclient-kerberos - Kerberos authentication for the OpenStack clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200672 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-keystoneclient-kerberos-0.1.3-2.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 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||bind99-9.9.7-3.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-03-26 17:52:41 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- bind99-9.9.7-3.fc22, bind-9.10.2-1.fc22, dhcp-4.3.2-2.fc22, dnsperf-2.0.0.0-15.fc22, bind-dyndb-ldap-7.0-4.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 1193175] Review Request: skylable-sx - Scalable public and private cloud storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193175 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||skylable-sx-1.0-7.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-03-26 17:57:59 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- skylable-sx-1.0-7.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 905304] Review Request: OpenDMARC - Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting Conformance (DMARC) milter and library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905304 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|opendmarc-1.3.1-4.fc21 |opendmarc-1.3.1-4.fc20 --- Comment #108 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opendmarc-1.3.1-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1180698] Review Request: sflphone - SIP/IAX2 compatible enterprise-class software phone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180698 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|sflphone-1.4.1-6.fc21 |sflphone-1.4.1-6.fc20 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sflphone-1.4.1-6.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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 872783] Review Request: Ray - Parallel genome assemblies for parallel DNA sequencing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872783 Sébastien Boisvert s...@boisvert.info changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #54 from Sébastien Boisvert s...@boisvert.info --- Package Change Request == Package Name: Ray New Branches: el6 Owners: sebhtml I would like to unretire the el6 branch. Thanks -- 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 1204614] Review Request: gofed - Tool for development of golang devel packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204614 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gofed Short Description: Tool for development of golang devel packages Upstream URL: https://github.com/fedora-cloud/gofed Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 f20 el6 InitialCC: golang-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203155] Review Request: plasma-pk-updates - Plasma applet for system updates using PackageKit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203155 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- plasma-pk-updates-0.1-3.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 1206367] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-radiroot - Compute radicals for roots of solvable rational polynomials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206367 Bug ID: 1206367 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-radiroot - Compute radicals for roots of solvable rational polynomials Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-radiroot/gap-pkg-radiroot.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-radiroot/gap-pkg-radiroot-2.7-1.fc23.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package can compute and display an expression by radicals for the roots of a solvable, rational polynomial. Related to this it is possible to create the Galois group and the splitting field of a rational polynomial. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205376] Review Request: spooky-c - C port of Bob Jenkins' spooky hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205376 Antti Järvinen antti.jarvi...@katiska.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||antti.jarvi...@katiska.org --- Comment #3 from Antti Järvinen antti.jarvi...@katiska.org --- Hello Jeff, I don't have permission to sponsor your package but I made a review anyway. I did not consider every item on the list below because I'm quite a newbie in the process and of those items where I was not sure, I simply left the item open - someone more experienced please fill the missing parts (and correct the ones that are clearly wrong :) -- Antti Järvinen Review report follows: Issues: === - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: spooky-c-devel. Does not provide -static: spooky-c-devel. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries - There is some discussion below about different licenses found in source - As this is a library, as a sw developer myself I'd love to see documentation of some kind, like a manual page in section 3 or something. - Rpmlint is taking person-names as spelling errors, maybe it is not good idea to ask those persons to correct their names to something that passes the dictionary-test. = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/review-1202063/1205376-spooky-c/licensecheck.txt Note: there is at least one file with LGPL boilerplate but the license given in spec file is PD ; I think it is required to list all licenses somehow, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines might be helpful. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Note: But I do not know how this applies to PD license that is not really a license. There is still the issue with LGPL file.. the LGPL file is not part of the binary rpm:s so [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. Note: supposing the license hassle is somehow solved, the content itself seems all permissible to me. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: 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 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it
[Bug 1015909] Review Request: treelayout - Efficient and customizable Tree Layout Algorithm in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015909 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- treelayout-1.0.2-1.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 812137] Review Request: polyclipping - Polygon clipping library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812137 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #15 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Miro/Volker - Would you mind maintaining this in EPEL7? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200064] Review Request: python-ly - Tool and library for manipulating LilyPond files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200064 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||frescobaldi-2.18-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-03-26 17:39:52 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- frescobaldi-2.18-1.fc22, python-ly-0.9.1-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907261] Review Request: poly2tri - A 2D constrained Delaunay triangulation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907261 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #25 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Miro - would you mind maintaining this in EPEL7? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206367] Review Request: gap-pkg-radiroot - Compute radicals for roots of solvable rational polynomials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206367 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1205905 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205905 [Bug 1205905] Review Request: gap-pkg-alnuth - Algebraic number theory for GAP -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205905] Review Request: gap-pkg-alnuth - Algebraic number theory for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205905 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1206367 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206367 [Bug 1206367] Review Request: gap-pkg-radiroot - Compute radicals for roots of solvable rational polynomials -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1202063] Review Request: Classified ads - Internet messaging done right
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063 --- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Antti Järvinen from comment #12) - 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 LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - The binary rpm does install /usr/share/licenses/classified-ads/LICENSE and in spec that is done using %license keyword - is the tool failing to detect that or what? No change done due to this reported issue. fedora-review hasn't been adapted yet to the relatively new %license macro. I think a patch is in review to fix that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196957] Review Request: python-XStatic-Angular-lrdragndrop - Angular-lrdragndrop (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196957 Alan Pevec ape...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ape...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Alan Pevec ape...@redhat.com --- So the problem is that wrong name is now in-the-wild e.g. in openstack/horizon reqirements.txt: XStatic-Angular-Irdragndrop=1.0.2.1 Last release on pypi is more than month old[1] so it seems pypi owner does not intend to fix this any time soon. Why not create RPM with the proper package name python-XStatic-Angular-lrdragndrop using sources from pypi as-is and with virtual Provide: python-XStatic-Angular-Irdragndrop ? [1] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/XStatic-Angular-Irdragndrop/1.0.2.1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205376] Review Request: spooky-c - C port of Bob Jenkins' spooky hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205376 --- Comment #4 from Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net --- Thanks for the review! - I'll remove the static lib for the Fedora package. - I'm pretty sure the license is public domain as that's what all of the source files say, but I'll try to verify that with Andi. The GPL stuff you're seeing is likely stuff that has been generated by autoconf/automake. Worst case, I can just ship what's in the git repo and we can rely on the koji build host to run autoreconf or something if that's a problem. I wouldn't think that it is though. - I'll also plan to roll up a manpage. It shouldn't be too difficult. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 688408] Review Request: xfce4-cpufreq-plugin - CPU frequency scaling plugin for the Xfce4 panel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688408 Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nonamed...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: xfce4-cpufreq-plugin New Branches: epel7 Owners: nonamedotc hicham InitialCC: nonamedotc -- 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 1199840] Review Request: thymeleaf - XML/XHTML/HTML5 template engine for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199840 --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5) Bundling exception for Thymeleaf (DTDs) @ https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/516 was accepted -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1174974] Review Request: python-mox3 - Mock object framework for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174974 --- Comment #7 from Alan Pevec ape...@redhat.com --- I'm trying to clarify upstream status of mox3, seems to be neglect-ware: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/060054.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1204770] Review Request: antlr4 - ANother Tool for Language Recognition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204770 --- Comment #9 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Are you saying that 4.5 requires 4.4 to build and won't build with itself? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1204770] Review Request: antlr4 - ANother Tool for Language Recognition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204770 --- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- because if you read the file bild.py see that to bootstrap serves the same version and our maven tool does not like ... also artifacts antlr4 4.4 are not available in the various sites that you usually use to download these artifacts -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1204770] Review Request: antlr4 - ANother Tool for Language Recognition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204770 --- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #9) Are you saying that 4.5 requires 4.4 to build and won't build with itself? require itself (4.5 requires 4.5) BOOTSTRAP_VERSION = 4.5 now if for you is the same i used the previous build (on my system) artifacts (4.4) for bootstrap 4.5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
