[Bug 1208217] Review Request: swig2 - Connects C/C++/Objective C to some high-level programming languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208217 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- swig2-2.0.12-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/swig2-2.0.12-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208217] Review Request: swig2 - Connects C/C++/Objective C to some high-level programming languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208217 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- swig2-2.0.12-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/swig2-2.0.12-1.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208217] Review Request: swig2 - Connects C/C++/Objective C to some high-level programming languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208217 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208764] New: Review Request: vagrant-cachier - Vagrant plugin to cache packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208764 Bug ID: 1208764 Summary: Review Request: vagrant-cachier - Vagrant plugin to cache packages Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jstri...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/vagrant-cachier.spec SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/vagrant-cachier-1.2.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: A Vagrant plugin that helps you reduce the amount of coffee you drink while waiting for boxes to be provisioned by sharing a common package cache among similiar VM instances. Kinda like vagrant-apt_cache or this magical snippet but targetting multiple package managers and Linux distros. Fedora Account System Username: jstribny -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208217] Review Request: swig2 - Connects C/C++/Objective C to some high-level programming languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208217 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- swig2-2.0.12-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/swig2-2.0.12-1.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 1208217] Review Request: swig2 - Connects C/C++/Objective C to some high-level programming languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208217 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- swig2-2.0.12-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/swig2-2.0.12-1.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 1208217] Review Request: swig2 - Connects C/C++/Objective C to some high-level programming languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208217 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- swig2-2.0.12-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/swig2-2.0.12-1.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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hobbes1...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208816] Review Request: ebay-cors-filter - eBay CORS filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208816 Sandro Bonazzola sbona...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1186777 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208821] New: Review Request: rubygem-gtksourceview3 - Ruby binding of gtksourceview-3.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208821 Bug ID: 1208821 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-gtksourceview3 - Ruby binding of gtksourceview-3.x Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mtas...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/ruby-gnome2-suite/rubygem-gtksourceview3.spec SRPM URL: https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/ruby-gnome2-suite/rubygem-gtksourceview3-2.2.4-1.fc.src.rpm Description: Ruby/GtkSourceView3 is a Ruby binding of gtksourceview-3.x. Fedora Account System Username: 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 1167076] Review Request: jlibrtp - Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167076 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jlibrtp Short Description: Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Upstream URL: http://sf.net/projects/jlibrtp Owners: raphgro Branches: el7 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 1208830] New: Review Request: gdouros-aegean-fonts - A font for ancient scripts in the greater Aegean vicinity
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208830 Bug ID: 1208830 Summary: Review Request: gdouros-aegean-fonts - A font for ancient scripts in the greater Aegean vicinity Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: alex.ploumis...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-aegean-fonts/gdouros-aegean-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-aegean-fonts/gdouros-aegean-fonts-7.45-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Aegean covers the following scripts and symbols: Basic Latin, Greek and Coptic, Greek Extended, some Punctuation and other Symbols, Linear B Syllabary, Linear B Ideograms, Aegean Numbers, Ancient Greek Numbers, Ancient Symbols, Phaistos Disc, Lycian, Carian, Old Italic, Ugaritic, Old Persian, Cypriot Syllabary, Phoenician, Lydian, Archaic Greek Musical Notation, Cretan Hieroglyphs, Cypro-Minoan, Linear A, the Arkalochori Axe, Ancient Greek and Old Italic variant alphabets. Those of the above that are not supported by the Unicode Standard 7.0, they are allocated in the Supplementary Private Use Plane 15. It was created by George Douros. Fedora Account System Username: alexpl Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9402677 The font is already in fedora, but the current maintainer has been non-responsive for quite some time, so this is the last step of the relevant policy - a takeover request. I have cleaned up the spec files from deprecated commands, added AppStream metadata and I have included a sample file provided by upstream in a separate doc package. Following a brief discussion on devel ML and after having contacted upstream for clarifications, I have decided not to include the hinted font in the source package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208842] New: Review Request: gdouros-symbola-fonts - A symbol font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208842 Bug ID: 1208842 Summary: Review Request: gdouros-symbola-fonts - A symbol font Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: alex.ploumis...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-symbola-fonts/gdouros-symbola-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-symbola-fonts/gdouros-symbola-fonts-7.21-2.fc21.src.rpm Description: Symbola covers many scripts and symbols supported by Unicode. These include those in Basic Latin, Latin-1 Supplement, Latin Extended-A, IPA Extensions, Spacing Modifier Letters, Greek and Coptic, Cyrillic, Cyrillic Supplementary, General Punctuation, Superscripts and Subscripts, and many others. It was created by George Douros. Fedora Account System Username: alexpl Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9402912 The font is already in fedora, but the current maintainer has been non-responsive for quite some time, so this is the last step of the relevant policy - a takeover request. I have included a sample file provided by upstream in a separate doc package. Following a brief discussion on devel ML and after having contacted upstream for clarifications, I have decided not to include the hinted font in the source package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167076] Review Request: jlibrtp - Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167076 Michael Simacek msima...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Michael Simacek msima...@redhat.com --- Looks ok now. 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 1200157] Review Request: rubygem-nenv - Convenience wrapper for Ruby's ENV
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200157 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@fedoraproject.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Assiging. I would appreciate it if you would review my review request (bug 1046749) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208835] New: Review Request: gdouros-akkadian-fonts - A font for Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208835 Bug ID: 1208835 Summary: Review Request: gdouros-akkadian-fonts - A font for Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: alex.ploumis...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-akkadian-fonts/gdouros-akkadian-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-akkadian-fonts/gdouros-akkadian-fonts-7.15-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Akkadian covers the following scripts and symbols supported by The Unicode Standard 5.2: Basic Latin, Greek and Coptic, some Punctuation and other Symbols, Cuneiform, Cuneiform Numbers and Punctuation. It was created by George Douros. Fedora Account System Username: alexpl Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9402789 The font is already in fedora, but the current maintainer has been non-responsive for quite some time, so this is the last step of the relevant policy - a takeover request. I have cleaned up the spec files from deprecated commands, added AppStream metadata and I have included a sample file provided by upstream in a separate doc package. Following a brief discussion on devel ML and after having contacted upstream for clarifications, I have decided not to include the hinted font in the source package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208838] New: Review Request: gdouros-alexander-fonts - A Greek typeface inspired by Alexander Wilson
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208838 Bug ID: 1208838 Summary: Review Request: gdouros-alexander-fonts - A Greek typeface inspired by Alexander Wilson Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: alex.ploumis...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-alexander-fonts/gdouros-alexander-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-alexander-fonts/gdouros-alexander-fonts-5.01-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: A text typeface using the Greek letters designed by Alexander Wilson (1714-1786), a Scottish doctor, astronomer, and type founder, who established a type foundry in Glasgow in 1744. The type was especially designed for an edition of Homer’s epics, published in 1756-8 by Andrew and Robert Foulis, printers to the University of Glasgow. A modern revival, Wilson Greek, was designed by Matthew Carter in 1995. Peter S. Baker is also using Wilson’s Greek type in his Junicode font for medieval scholars (2007). Latin and Cyrillic are based on a Garamond typeface. The font covers the Windows Glyph List, IPA Extensions, Greek Extended, Ancient Greek Numbers, Byzantine and Ancient Greek Musical Notation, various typographic extras and several Open Type features (Case-Sensitive Forms, Small Capitals, Subscript, Superscript, Numerators, Denominators, Fractions, Old Style Figures, Historical Forms, Stylistic Alternates, Ligatures). It was created by George Douros. Fedora Account System Username: alexpl Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9402802 The font is already in fedora, but the current maintainer has been non-responsive for quite some time, so this is the last step of the relevant policy - a takeover request. I have cleaned up the spec files from deprecated commands, added AppStream metadata and I have included a sample file provided by upstream in a separate doc package. Following a brief discussion on devel ML and after having contacted upstream for clarifications, I have decided not to include the hinted font in the source package. Upstream ships Alexander as part of the TextFonts package, a small collection of old-style, greek, serif typefaces. Perhaps we should package them all together going forward and obsolete gdouros-alexander-fonts by providing a gdouros-textfonts-fonts collective package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208816] New: Review Request: ebay-cors-filter - eBay CORS filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208816 Bug ID: 1208816 Summary: Review Request: ebay-cors-filter - eBay CORS filter Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sbona...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://resources.ovirt.org/repos/staging/ebay-cors-filter.spec SRPM URL: http://resources.ovirt.org/repos/staging/ebay-cors-filter-1.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: CORS (Cross Origin Resource Sharing) is a mechanism supported by W3C to enable cross origin requests in web-browsers. CORS requires support from both browser and server to work. This is a Java servlet filter implementation of server-side CORS for web containers such as Apache Tomcat. Fedora Account System Username: sbonazzo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208816] Review Request: ebay-cors-filter - eBay CORS filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208816 Sandro Bonazzola sbona...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1186751, 1168605 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168605 [Bug 1168605] [RFE] change ovirt-engine packaging to adhere to fedora java packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186751 [Bug 1186751] New package request: ebay-cors-filter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167076] Review Request: jlibrtp - Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167076 Michael Simacek msima...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208839] New: Review Request: gdouros-analecta-fonts - An ecclesiastic scripts font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208839 Bug ID: 1208839 Summary: Review Request: gdouros-analecta-fonts - An ecclesiastic scripts font Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: alex.ploumis...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-analecta-fonts/gdouros-analecta-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-analecta-fonts/gdouros-analecta-fonts-4.02-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Analecta is an ecclesiastic scripts font, covering Basic Latin, Greek and Coptic, some Punctuation and other Symbols, Coptic, typographica varia, Specials, Gothic and Deseret. It was created by George Douros. Fedora Account System Username: alexpl Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9402844 The font is already in fedora, but the current maintainer has been non-responsive for quite some time, so this is the last step of the relevant policy - a takeover request. I have cleaned up the spec files from deprecated commands, added AppStream metadata and I have included a sample file provided by upstream in a separate doc package. Following a brief discussion on devel ML and after having contacted upstream for clarifications, I have decided not to include the hinted font in the source package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208840] New: Review Request: gdouros-musica-fonts - A font for musical symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208840 Bug ID: 1208840 Summary: Review Request: gdouros-musica-fonts - A font for musical symbols Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: alex.ploumis...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-musica-fonts/gdouros-musica-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-musica-fonts/gdouros-musica-fonts-3.12-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Musica is a work-font for Ancient Greek, Byzantine and Western musical symbols. The font also covers basic Latin, along with a few common symbols. Besides musical notation glyphs supported by the Unicode Standard 7.0, Musica provides extra symbols in Plane 15. It was created by George Douros. Fedora Account System Username: alexpl Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9402881 The font is already in fedora, but the current maintainer has been non-responsive for quite some time, so this is the last step of the relevant policy - a takeover request. I have cleaned up the spec files from deprecated commands, added AppStream metadata and I have included a sample file provided by upstream in a separate doc package. Following a brief discussion on devel ML and after having contacted upstream for clarifications, I have decided not to include the hinted font in the source package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: dibbler Short Description: Portable DHCPv6 implementation Upstream URL: http://klub.com.pl/dhcpv6 Owners: ihrachyshka Branches: f20 f21 f22 epel7 InitialCC: ihrachyshka -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
Patrick Laimbock patr...@laimbock.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(patrick@laimbock. |
|com)|
--- Comment #140 from Patrick Laimbock patr...@laimbock.com ---
(In reply to Steve Jenkins from comment #133)
(In reply to Patrick Laimbock from comment #27)
Changelog from the spec file for easier browsing:
- add policycoreutils{-python} to Requires for semanage in post
policycoreutils-python isn't available in EL5 (though policycoreutils is).
Not knowing a lot about it, is this package truly required for opendmarc to
function properly?
The policycoreutils (on EL5) and policycoreutils-python (on EL6/EL7) packages
contain semanage which was needed to set the proper SELinux labels in %post.
A while back I filed a BZ regarding SELinux and OpenDMARC on EL6 and it was
resolved:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=983551
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2013-1598.html
I did some digging and AFAICT EL5 does not have OpenDMARC support in the
milter.pp policy while EL6 and EL7 do.
Both policycoreutils and policycoreutils-python seem to be available in all
current Fedora builds, as well as EL6 and EL7, so is it worth conditionally
including for those builds only?
It seems the semanage code in %post is still required for EL5 so how about
leaving the Requires: policycoreutils and associated code in %post in within
an if-its-EL5 condition and remove the policycoreutils-python requirement?
--
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 1167076] Review Request: jlibrtp - Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167076 --- Comment #14 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Build fails for EPEL7 … http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9406168 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208816] Review Request: ebay-cors-filter - eBay CORS filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208816 Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr ||a...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- I will review the package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 738590] Review request: rubygem-gettext_i18n_rails - Simple FastGettext Rails integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738590 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.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 738590] Review request: rubygem-gettext_i18n_rails - Simple FastGettext Rails integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738590 --- Comment #12 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). The current package PoC, vondruch, is in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #8 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.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 1208844] New: Review Request: inkscape-psd - Inkscape PSD Importer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208844 Bug ID: 1208844 Summary: Review Request: inkscape-psd - Inkscape PSD Importer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: moc...@hotmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/test/inkscape-psd.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/test/inkscape-psd-0.1.1-1.oj35.src.rpm Description: This Inkscape extension allows you to load Photoshop PSD files. Fedora Account System Username: moceap -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1068710] Review Request: hda-verb - HD-Audio codecs Commander
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1068710 Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CANTFIX Last Closed||2015-04-03 08:00:16 --- Comment #8 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Ok, It conflicts. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167076] Review Request: jlibrtp - Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167076 --- Comment #15 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.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 1167076] Review Request: jlibrtp - Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167076 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.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 1208821] Review Request: rubygem-gtksourceview3 - Ruby binding of gtksourceview-3.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208821 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||val...@civ.zcu.cz Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|val...@civ.zcu.cz 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 1208816] Review Request: ebay-cors-filter - eBay CORS filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208816
--- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
Please change in %files the line:
%{_javadir}/%{name}
to have a %dir prefix. It is usually a good idea to
also add a '/' suffix to make it easier to spot it
is a directory, but with %dir that is redundant.
I do not see much of a reason to also add the LICENSE
file to the javadoc package. Sure there may be cases
where one installs only the javadoc packages, but those
should be quite uncommon. But removing it is optional.
The LICENSE and README.md file have DOS style line
endings, please correct it, for example:
for doc in README.md LICENSE; do
sed s|\r||g $doc $doc.new \
touch -r $doc $doc.new \
mv $doc.new $doc
done
I think cors-flowchart.png is more useful than README.md
in %doc.
Now the bad news :) For the first package it is asking
a lot to have the package approved, without running
any tests:
# Tests don't compile with servlet 3.x, as the mock objects miss some of the
# required methods:
Please explain why it cannot be adjusted to run tests.
Note that tests is the best way to know the package
is at least partially functional.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200157] Review Request: rubygem-nenv - Convenience wrapper for Ruby's ENV
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200157 --- Comment #2 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to Mamoru TASAKA from comment #1) Assiging. I would appreciate it if you would review my review request (bug 1046749) Oops... it's bug 1208821 . -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208833] New: Review Request: gdouros-aegyptus-fonts - A font for Egyptian hieroglyphs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208833 Bug ID: 1208833 Summary: Review Request: gdouros-aegyptus-fonts - A font for Egyptian hieroglyphs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: alex.ploumis...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-aegyptus-fonts/gdouros-aegyptus-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-aegyptus-fonts/gdouros-aegyptus-fonts-5.03-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This packages provides 3 fonts: -Aegyptus, an Extended List of 7062 Egyptian Hieroglyphs, in regular and bold font weights. -Nilus, which covers Coptic, Meroitic, Hieratic Alphabet and Transliteration Characters. -Gardiner, extracted from Aegyptus Bold, which covers the Gardiner set of 1071 Egyptian Hieroglyphs, supported by The Unicode Standard since version 5.2 in the SMP block 13000 - 1342F. There is no standard for Egyptian Hieroglyphs or Meroitic, so they are allocated in the Supplementary Private Use Plane 15. The fonts also cover Basic Latin and some Punctuation and other Symbols. They were created by George Douros, mainly based on the book Hieroglyphica, PIREI I², 2000 and the work of Alan Gardiner. Fedora Account System Username: alexpl Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9402749 The font is already in fedora, but the current maintainer has been non-responsive for quite some time, so this is the last step of the relevant policy - a takeover request. I have cleaned up the spec files from deprecated commands, added AppStream metadata and I have included sample files provided by upstream in a separate doc package. Following a brief discussion on devel ML and after having contacted upstream for clarifications, I have decided not to include the hinted fonts in the source package. At some point, upstream decided to split the Aegyptus font into three: Aegyptus, Gardiner and Nilus. Given that all their glyphs are contained in the font package that we already have as gdouros-aegyptus-fonts and that they are complimentary to each other, I took the liberty to package them all together. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208873] Review Request: libskindesignerapi - Library which provides the Skindesigner API to other VDR Plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208873
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Alias||libskindesignerapi
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9408136
Some comments:
License texts are no longer in %doc, please move COPYING to %license.
%files -n devel
This produces a package named devel instead of %{name}-devel. Please omit
the -n switch to get the latter.
%dir %{_includedir}/%{name}/
%{_includedir}/%{name}/osdelements.h
%{_includedir}/%{name}/skindesignerapi.h
%{_includedir}/%{name}/skindesignerosdbase.h
This can be shrinked as long as you don't have to exclude anything from this
directory:
%{_includedir}/%{name}/
However, it is your choice.
And here is what rpmlint says:
$ rpmlint -i -v *
devel.x86_64: I: checking
devel.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://projects.vdr-developer.org/projects/plg-skindesigner (timeout 10
seconds)
devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
devel.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/libskindesignerapi/skindesignerosdbase.h
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
devel.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libskindesignerapi.so
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
devel.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/libskindesignerapi/osdelements.h
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
devel.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libskindesignerapi.pc
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
devel.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/libskindesignerapi/skindesignerapi.h
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
libskindesignerapi.src: I: checking
libskindesignerapi.src: E: description-line-too-long C Library which provides
the Skindesigner API to other VDR Plugins. VDR Plugins using
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.
libskindesignerapi.src: I: checking-url
http://projects.vdr-developer.org/projects/plg-skindesigner (timeout 10
seconds)
libskindesignerapi.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
libskindesignerapi-0.0.1.tar.bz2
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
libskindesignerapi.x86_64: I: checking
libskindesignerapi.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Library which
provides the Skindesigner API to other VDR Plugins. VDR Plugins using
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.
libskindesignerapi.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://projects.vdr-developer.org/projects/plg-skindesigner (timeout 10
seconds)
libskindesignerapi-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
libskindesignerapi-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://projects.vdr-developer.org/projects/plg-skindesigner (timeout 10
seconds)
libskindesignerapi.spec: I: checking
libskindesignerapi.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
libskindesignerapi-0.0.1.tar.bz2
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings.
Well, rpmlint doesn't detect the devel package as such, so the appropriate
issues can be ignored. There only remain the too long description lines.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199212] Review Request: tomcat-taglibs-standard - Apache Standard Taglib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199212 Mat Booth mat.bo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||tomcat-taglibs-standard-1.2 ||.3-2.fc23 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-04-03 12:44:02 --- Comment #5 from Mat Booth mat.bo...@redhat.com --- Closing since this is built in all requested branches: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=20073 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 921797] Review Request: pypolicyd-spf - SPF Policy Server for Postfix (Python implementation)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921797 George Notaras g...@g-loaded.eu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||g...@g-loaded.eu --- Comment #58 from George Notaras g...@g-loaded.eu --- (In reply to Trever Adams from comment #14) Correct. Header_Type = AR is what causes it. = SPF is fine. I will look into packaging it. Have you been able to find a sponsor for the package? Hello, what is the progress of python-authres packaging? -- 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 1208454] Review Request: python-barbicanclient - Client Library for OpenStack Barbican Key Management API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208454 Chandan Kumar chkumar...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Chandan Kumar chkumar...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-barbicanclient Short Description: Client Library for OpenStack Barbican Key Management API Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-barbicanclient Owners: chandankumar jruzicka Branches: f22 InitialCC: jruzicka -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1168017] Review Request: rabbitmq-java-client - Java Advanced Message Queue Protocol client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168017 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rabbitmq-java-client-3.5.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rabbitmq-java-client-3.5.1-1.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 1208454] Review Request: python-barbicanclient - Client Library for OpenStack Barbican Key Management API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208454 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | --- Comment #6 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- I unset the cvs-flag, please add jruzicka in the Owners line or he will receive notifications without commit access. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167076] Review Request: jlibrtp - Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167076 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rabbitmq-java-client-3.5.1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rabbitmq-java-client-3.5.1-1.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 907261] Review Request: poly2tri - A 2D constrained Delaunay triangulation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907261 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #28 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: poly2tri New Branches: epel7 Owners: churchyard -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208873] Review Request: libskindesignerapi - Library which provides the Skindesigner API to other VDR Plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208873 MartinKG mgans...@alice.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de --- @Mario Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libskindesignerapi Short Description: Library which provides the Skindesigner API to other VDR Plugins Owners: martinkg Branches: f21 f22 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199842] Review Request: jackson-module-jsonSchema - Jackson JSON Schema Module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199842
Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
APPROVED
Issues:
===
- 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
Ignore this, %license not yet supported in fedora-review on f21
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
This will need all jackson packages updated
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
License requested and committed in newest upstream
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated. 58 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1199842-jackson-
module-jsonSchema/licensecheck.txt
[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 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being
[Bug 1208873] Review Request: libskindesignerapi - Library which provides the Skindesigner API to other VDR Plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208873
--- Comment #2 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de ---
Spec URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/libskindesignerapi.spec
SRPM URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/libskindesignerapi-0.0.1-2.fc21.src.rpm
%changelog
* Fri Apr 03 2015 Martin Gansser marti...@fedoraproject.org - 0.0.1-2
- Mark license files as %%license where available
- omitted the -n switch on %%files sectuib
- shrinked %%{_includedir} path
- truncated description lines
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #27 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- That would be helpful, thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208911] Review Request: doublecmd-qt - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager (Qt4)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208911 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||928937 (qt-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928937 [Bug 928937] Qt-related package review tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 905304] Review Request: OpenDMARC - Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting Conformance (DMARC) milter and library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905304
--- Comment #142 from Steve Jenkins st...@stevejenkins.com ---
Patrick:
Would changing:
%if (0%{?fedora} 0%{?fedora} = 18) || (0%{?rhel} 0%{?rhel} = 6)
Requires (post): policycoreutils, policycoreutils-python
%endif
to:
%if 0%{?rhel} 0%{?rhel} == 5
Requires (post): policycoreutils
%endif
do the trick?
--
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 1208816] Review Request: ebay-cors-filter - eBay CORS filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208816
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #2)
Please change in %files the line:
%{_javadir}/%{name}
to have a %dir prefix. It is usually a good idea to
also add a '/' suffix to make it easier to spot it
is a directory, but with %dir that is redundant.
with the newer javapackages-tools/maven-local
%dir %{_javadir}/%{name}
is no more required (for F22, and rawhide is redundant)
I do not see much of a reason to also add the LICENSE
file to the javadoc package. Sure there may be cases
where one installs only the javadoc packages, but those
should be quite uncommon. But removing it is optional.
License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing
a javadoc sub package should be consider as independent of any base package
and then include the license files
other issues NOTICE file is part of the license and must be installe in both
packages with macro %license
e.g.
%license LICENSE NOTICE
java guideline is available here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
https://fedorahosted.org/released/javapackages/doc/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989791] Review Request: doublecmd-qt4 - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager(Qt4)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989791 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1208911 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208911 [Bug 1208911] Review Request: doublecmd-qt - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager (Qt4) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199738] Review Request: nodejs-doctrine - A JSDoc parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199738
Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
APPROVED
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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.BSD in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
= 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:
BSD (2 clause), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1199738-nodejs-
doctrine/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should
[Bug 1199842] Review Request: jackson-module-jsonSchema - Jackson JSON Schema Module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199842 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jackson-module-jsonSchema Short Description: Jackson JSON Schema Module Upstream URL: https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-module-jsonSchema Owners: gil Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208904] New: Review Request: python-jenkins-job-builder - Manage Jenkins jobs with YAML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208904 Bug ID: 1208904 Summary: Review Request: python-jenkins-job-builder - Manage Jenkins jobs with YAML Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ktdre...@ktdreyer.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/ktdreyer/public_git/python-jenkins-job-builder.git/plain/python-jenkins-job-builder.spec SRPM URL: https://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-jenkins-job-builder-1.1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Jenkins Job Builder takes simple descriptions of Jenkins jobs in YAML format and uses them to configure Jenkins. You can keep your job descriptions in human readable text format in a version control system to make changes and auditing easier. It also has a flexible template system, so creating many similarly configured jobs is easy. Fedora Account System Username: ktdreyer Rawhide (F23) scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9408332 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208873] Review Request: libskindesignerapi - Library which provides the Skindesigner API to other VDR Plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208873
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9408515
$ rpmlint -i -v *
libskindesignerapi.src: I: checking
libskindesignerapi.src: I: checking-url
http://projects.vdr-developer.org/projects/plg-skindesigner (timeout 10
seconds)
libskindesignerapi.src:65: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1,
tab: line 65)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic
annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
libskindesignerapi.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
libskindesignerapi-0.0.1.tar.bz2
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
libskindesignerapi.x86_64: I: checking
libskindesignerapi.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://projects.vdr-developer.org/projects/plg-skindesigner (timeout 10
seconds)
libskindesignerapi-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
libskindesignerapi-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://projects.vdr-developer.org/projects/plg-skindesigner (timeout 10
seconds)
libskindesignerapi-devel.x86_64: I: checking
libskindesignerapi-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://projects.vdr-developer.org/projects/plg-skindesigner (timeout 10
seconds)
libskindesignerapi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
libskindesignerapi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
libskindesignerapi.spec: I: checking
libskindesignerapi.spec:65: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1,
tab: line 65)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic
annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
libskindesignerapi.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
libskindesignerapi-0.0.1.tar.bz2
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
One ugly issue, the mixed use of space and tabs... It is no blocker, but don't
forget to remove to stray tab tab in line 65 when importing your package into
the Git repo.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv2+
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %license.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
40f84bf737406e2b1ff14bde63eda5c08f95ead0f7944d0e637bc43cd1209aaf
libskindesignerapi-0.0.1.tar.bz2
40f84bf737406e2b1ff14bde63eda5c08f95ead0f7944d0e637bc43cd1209aaf
libskindesignerapi-0.0.1.tar.bz2.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST:
[Bug 1208911] New: Review Request: doublecmd-qt - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager (Qt4)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208911 Bug ID: 1208911 Summary: Review Request: doublecmd-qt - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager (Qt4) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: projects...@smart.ms QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: extras...@fedoraproject.org, i...@cicku.me, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org, pa...@hubbitus.info, projects...@smart.ms Depends On: 989791 Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/doublecmd-qt/doublecmd-qt.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/doublecmd-qt/doublecmd-qt-0.6.1-1.20150402svn5941.fc21.src.rpm Description: Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager (Qt4) Fedora Account System Username: raphgro rawhide scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9408616 == ERROR: Broken dependency: KASComp 1.8KASComp 1.8 f22 scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9408636 == OK As a base doublecmd-gtk.spec from vondruch is used cause the links in the original request (bug #989791) are dead. There are some rpmlint errors about the plugin binaries. Not sure how to fix, help would be very appreciated. +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #989791 +++ Spec URL: http://cicku.me/doublecmd-qt4.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/doublecmd-qt4-0.5.6-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Double Commander is a cross platform open source file manager with two panels side by side. It is inspired by Total Commander and features some new ideas. Here are some key features of Double Commander: - Unicode support - All operations working in background - Multi-rename tool - Tabbed interface - Custom columns - Internal text editor (F4) with syntax hightlighting - Built in file viewer (F3) to view files of in hex, binary or text format - Archives are handled like subdirectories. You can easily copy files to and from archives. Supported archive types: ZIP, TAR GZ, TGZ, LZMA and also BZ2, RPM, CPIO, DEB, RAR. - Extended search function with full text search in any files - Configurable button bar to start external programs or internal menu commands - Total Commander WCX, WDX and WLX plug-ins support - File operations logging Fedora Account System Username: cicku --- Additional comment from Mario Blättermann on 2013-08-04 21:58:56 CEST --- A *.desktop file needs to be installed explicitely or validated: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage Besides that, desktop-file-utils are needed as a build requirement. The package contains the file /usr/bin/doublecmd. The same file is in the package doublecmd-gtk2 (bug #989792), which would cause a package conflict. You have added a Conflicts: tag to both packages, but I wouldn't recommend this really. You should try to package both from the same source rpm instead and rename the files appropriately. If you would do so, you could move the files shared between the two versions to a -common subpackage (noarch), such as docs, icons, man pages, wherever possible. --- Additional comment from Christopher Meng on 2013-08-05 03:21:50 CEST --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #1) A *.desktop file needs to be installed explicitely or validated: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage Fixed. The package contains the file /usr/bin/doublecmd. The same file is in the package doublecmd-gtk2 (bug #989792), which would cause a package conflict. You have added a Conflicts: tag to both packages, but I wouldn't recommend this really. You should try to package both from the same source rpm instead and rename the files appropriately. If you would do so, you could move the files shared between the two versions to a -common subpackage (noarch), such as docs, icons, man pages, wherever possible. I understand your meaning, but the fact is that Lazarus only supports one widgetset(gtk2 or qt) in one time, so I cannot build them in one src rpm, ./build.sh beta qt if then I run ./build.sh beta gtk2, the newly built things will override the generated qt files. This also happen in another package I haven't submitted. --- Additional comment from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) on 2013-08-05 10:23:18 CEST --- At the end of %prep you could copy the builddir contents to a second builddir. --- Additional comment from Christopher Meng on 2013-08-05 11:11:30 CEST --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #3) At the end of %prep you could copy the builddir contents to a second builddir. After consulting with upstream, they said that I can use another way: ./build.sh beta gtk2 ./build.sh save gtk2 and ./build.sh beta qt ./build.sh save qt then install/linux/install.sh
[Bug 989791] Review Request: doublecmd-qt4 - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager(Qt4)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989791 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) | Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|fedora-review? | |needinfo?(extras-qa@fedorap | |roject.org) | Last Closed||2015-04-03 16:34:08 --- Comment #15 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Taking over here. Closing. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208911] Review Request: doublecmd-qt - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager (Qt4)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208911 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1203118 Alias||doublecmd-qt Whiteboard|NotReady| -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208816] Review Request: ebay-cors-filter - eBay CORS filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208816 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- tomcat-servlet-3.0-api no more exist in rawhide, the new tomcat-servlet-3.1-api don't provides anymore this alias. you must use: BuildRequires: mvn(javax.servlet:servlet-api) the proper name (groupId:artifactId) of the BR is the pom file or the proper servlet-api version BuildRequires: mvn(org.jboss.spec.javax.servlet:jboss-servlet-api_2.5_spec) using %pom_remove_dep javax.servlet:servlet-api %pom_add_dep org.jboss.spec.javax.servlet:jboss-servlet-api_2.5_spec:1.0.1.Final:provided seem you have omit also this BR BuildRequires: mvn(org.sonatype.oss:oss-parent:pom:) sorry for the noise -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 --- Comment #15 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- We can't build this for EL6 or 5: their PHP versions are too old. That's also why there's no mediawiki119 for EL5 (anymore. I tried to until someone pointed out the version issue). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1202337] Review request: nodejs-github-url-from-username-repo - Create urls from username/repo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202337 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||piotr1...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- some comments: - not latest version, please update to latest version if possible, if not please explain why. - spec in srpm differs from specfile, please rebuild srpm and upload new version - license incorrect, should just be BSD, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing for correct license short names. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #143 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opendmarc-1.3.1-10.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/opendmarc-1.3.1-10.fc21 -- 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 --- Comment #144 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opendmarc-1.3.1-10.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/opendmarc-1.3.1-10.el6 -- 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 --- Comment #146 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opendmarc-1.3.1-10.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/opendmarc-1.3.1-10.fc20 -- 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 --- Comment #147 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opendmarc-1.3.1-10.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/opendmarc-1.3.1-10.fc22 -- 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 --- Comment #145 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opendmarc-1.3.1-10.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/opendmarc-1.3.1-10.el7 -- 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 --- Comment #148 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- opendmarc-1.3.1-10.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/opendmarc-1.3.1-10.el5 -- 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 1199738] Review Request: nodejs-doctrine - A JSDoc parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199738 Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt --- Thanks for the review Piotr! I won't have a chance to look at any of your reviews until at least next weekend, but I'll try to find some time then! I've submitted the SCM request for this package using the new mechanism in pkgdb. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Steve Jenkins st...@stevejenkins.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA -- 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 1207280] Review Request: python-semantic_version - A library implementing the 'SemVer' scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207280 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ape...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(ape...@gmail.com) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1189269] Review Request: qparted - Visual partition editor based on Qt framework [a fork of qtparted]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189269 --- Comment #12 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- USB storage is currently not supported. That is a show stopper for this review. https://github.com/ZZYZX/qparted/issues/4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167076] Review Request: jlibrtp - Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167076 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167076] Review Request: jlibrtp - Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167076 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- jlibrtp-0.2.3-0.4.20141215svn258.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jlibrtp-0.2.3-0.4.20141215svn258.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 905304] Review Request: OpenDMARC - Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting Conformance (DMARC) milter and library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905304 --- Comment #141 from Steve Jenkins st...@stevejenkins.com --- Good call, Patrick. Thanks. That's exactly what I'll do. -- 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 1208764] Review Request: vagrant-cachier - Vagrant plugin to cache packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208764 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- I'll take this for 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 1167076] Review Request: jlibrtp - Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167076 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- jlibrtp-0.2.3-0.4.20141215svn258.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jlibrtp-0.2.3-0.4.20141215svn258.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 1208582] Review Request: trojita - IMAP e-mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208582 --- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- test_Html_formatting and manpage should be fixed. * Wed Apr 01 2015 Raphael Groner - 0.5-4 - reenable html formatting testcase, should work cause of a special patch in Qt - do not ship Doxyfile - fix help2man to not request Xorg SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/trojita/trojita.spec SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/trojita/trojita-0.5-4.fc21.src.rpm rawhide scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9406470 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208454] Review Request: python-barbicanclient - Client Library for OpenStack Barbican Key Management API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208454
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
Please drop the line sphinx-build -b man source man
It's neither installed in the package, nor the generated man page useful (it
has almost no content)
Except that minor point, everything else, so I'll let you do the cleanup at
import time.
Therefore, I hereby approve this package into Fedora Packages Collection,
please
submit a SCM request.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated, *No copyright* Apache (v2.0).
3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/haikel/1208454-python-barbicanclient/licensecheck.txt
[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 5 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python-
barbicanclient-doc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate
[Bug 1208454] Review Request: python-barbicanclient - Client Library for OpenStack Barbican Key Management API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208454 --- Comment #4 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- btw, don't forget to add jruzicka as co-owner in your SCM request as he is the main maintainer of OpenStack clients. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208582] New: Review Request: trojita - IMAP e-mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208582
Bug ID: 1208582
Summary: Review Request: trojita - IMAP e-mail client
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: projects...@smart.ms
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: bjoern.es...@gmail.com, extras...@fedoraproject.org,
i...@cicku.me, j...@flaska.net, ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org,
kvo...@redhat.com, lupi...@mailbox.org,
mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org,
projects...@smart.ms, rdie...@math.unl.edu,
zbys...@in.waw.pl
Depends On: 1080411 (trojita)
Blocks: 928937 (qt-reviews)
External Bug ID: KDE Software Compilation 345739
External Bug ID: KDE Software Compilation 345739
SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/trojita/trojita.spec
SRPM:
https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/trojita/trojita-0.5-3.fc21.src.rpm
rawhide scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9393885
Open issues:
- original requester is lost
- generation of a manpage fails (with help2man)
- reported a failed testcase of html formatting to upstream
See below for more details taken from the original review request.
**
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1080411 +++
Spec URL: http://kvolny.fedorapeople.org/trojita.spec
SRPM URL: http://kvolny.fedorapeople.org/trojita-0.4.1-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description:
Trojitá is a Qt IMAP e-mail client which:
* Enables you to access your mail anytime, anywhere.
* Does not slow you down. If we can improve the productivity of an e-mail
user, we better do.
* Respects open standards and facilitates modern technologies. We value
the vendor-neutrality that IMAP provides and are committed to be as
interoperable as possible.
* Is efficient — be it at conserving the network bandwidth, keeping memory
use at a reasonable level or not hogging the system's CPU.
* Can be used on many platforms. One UI is not enough for everyone, but our
IMAP core works fine on anything from desktop computers to cell phones
and big ERP systems.
* Plays well with the rest of the ecosystem. We don't like reinventing
wheels,
but when the existing wheels quite don't fit the tracks, we're not afraid
of making them work.
Fedora Account System Username: kvolny
Koji scratch builds:
F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6671258
EPEL7: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6671502
Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6671309
--- Additional comment from Karel Volný on 2014-03-25 13:00:07 CET ---
note that I've filed some bugs upstream for the things I've workarounded in
spec:
Bug 332578 - superfluous x-test language
[https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=332578]
Bug 332579 - unversioned plugins library (rpmlint invalid-soname issue)
[https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=332579]
--- Additional comment from Rex Dieter on 2014-04-13 23:18:12 CEST ---
Offhand looks like a good start, some initial suggestions (SHOULD are just
recommendations and/or a matter of taste, MUST are required):
1. SHOULD add
Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
instead of:
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*
2. MUST add some icon scriptlets, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
3. SHOULD include .spec comments clearly identifying items that are
workarounds for the bugs referenced in comment #1
Oh, just noticed the bug is assigned, but no review flag set, Christopher, was
that just an oversight?
--- Additional comment from Christopher Meng on 2014-04-14 05:07:58 CEST ---
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #2)
Oh, just noticed the bug is assigned, but no review flag set, Christopher,
was that just an oversight?
Sorry, it's not an omission. I'm busy recently, I will review this later in the
afternoon today.
--- Additional comment from Karel Volný on 2014-04-14 13:30:20 CEST ---
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #2)
Offhand looks like a good start, some initial suggestions (SHOULD are just
recommendations and/or a matter of taste, MUST are required):
thanks
1. SHOULD add
Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
instead of:
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*
I prefer not to add dependencies that are not really needed ... multiple
ownership of a directory seems to me less evil
2. MUST add some icon scriptlets, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
shame on me, I've completely forgotten about this gnomish stuff
(hm, now I wonder if I've overlooked it in the review, or such checkpoint is
missing? - RFE material? - but I'm not in the mood
[Bug 1208873] New: Review Request: libskindesignerapi - Library which provides the Skindesigner API to other VDR Plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208873 Bug ID: 1208873 Summary: Review Request: libskindesignerapi - Library which provides the Skindesigner API to other VDR Plugins Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mgans...@alice.de QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/libskindesignerapi.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/libskindesignerapi-0.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Library which provides the Skindesigner API to other VDR Plugins. VDR Plugins using this API are able to use all Skindesigner facilities to display their OSD representation Fedora Account System Username: martinkg Rpmlint --- Checking: libskindesignerapi-0.0.1-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm devel-0.0.1-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm libskindesignerapi-0.0.1-1.fc23.src.rpm devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation devel.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/libskindesignerapi/skindesignerosdbase.h devel.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libskindesignerapi.so devel.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/libskindesignerapi/osdelements.h devel.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libskindesignerapi.pc devel.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/libskindesignerapi/skindesignerapi.h libskindesignerapi.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libskindesignerapi-0.0.1.tar.bz2 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208764] Review Request: vagrant-cachier - Vagrant plugin to cache packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208764
--- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
* Don't create vagrant group
- I don't think that the vagrant group has any meaning for this plugin, so
the lines:
Requires(pre): shadow-utils
getent group vagrant /dev/null || groupadd -r vagrant
can be removed.
* rpmlint complains
./vagrant-cachier.spec:57: W: macro-in-comment %{gem_instdir}
vagrant-cachier-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/vagrant
/gems/gems/vagrant-cachier-1.2.0/spec/acceptance/sanity_check.bats 0644L
/usr/bin/env
vagrant-cachier-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/vagrant
/gems/gems/vagrant-cachier-1.2.0/development/Cheffile 0644L /usr/bin/env
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208454] Review Request: python-barbicanclient - Client Library for OpenStack Barbican Key Management API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208454 Chandan Kumar chkumar...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Chandan Kumar chkumar...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-barbicanclient Short Description: Client Library for OpenStack Barbican Key Management API Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-barbicanclient Owners: chandankumar Branches: f22 InitialCC: jruzicka -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
