[Bug 1189611] Review Request: fedpkg-minimal - Script to allow fedpkg fetch to work
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189611 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- fedpkg-minimal-1.0.0-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1189611] Review Request: fedpkg-minimal - Script to allow fedpkg fetch to work
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189611 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- fedpkg-minimal-1.0.0-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 982588] Review Request: radicale - A simple CalDAV (calendar) and CardDAV (contact) server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982588 Juan Orti juan.o...@miceliux.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Juan Orti juan.o...@miceliux.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: radicale New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: pbiering jorti till InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1209366] New: Review Request: qmapshack - GPS mapping and management tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209366 Bug ID: 1209366 Summary: Review Request: qmapshack - GPS mapping and management tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: d...@danny.cz QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/qmapshack.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/qmapshack-1.1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: QMapShack provides a versatile tool for GPS maps in GeoTiff format as well as Garmin's img vector map format. You can also view and edit your GPX tracks. QMapShack is the successor of QLandkarteGT. Main features: - use of several work-spaces - use several maps on a work-space - handle data project-oriented - exchange data with the device by drag-n-drop Fedora Account System Username: sharkcz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206295] Review Request: python-curtsies - Curses-like terminal wrapper, with colored strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206295 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-curtsies-0.1.19-1.fc |python-curtsies-0.1.19-1.fc |21 |20 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-curtsies-0.1.19-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205793] Review Request: signon-kwallet-extension - KWallet integration for Sign-on framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205793 Daniel Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-04-07 04:39:31 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vondr...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- Raphael, Thanks for taking this for a review. I have never tried to push Double Commander through it, since I am not sure about its bundling. Nevertheless, if you are serious about this review, would you mind to adjust your spec to have actually doublecmd-gtk and doublecmd-qt subpackages? Doing just doublecmd-qt or doublecmd-gtk review would be missed opportunity IMO. 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 1199567] Review Request: ExchangeIR - Java infrared signals analysis and conversion library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199567 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199567] Review Request: ExchangeIR - Java infrared signals analysis and conversion library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199567 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ExchangeIR-0.0.8.2-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ExchangeIR-0.0.8.2-2.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 1208764] Review Request: vagrant-cachier - Vagrant plugin to cache packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208764 --- Comment #3 from Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/vagrant-cachier.spec SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/vagrant-cachier-1.2.0-2.fc23.src.rpm I fixed the above + spelling[0] [0] https://github.com/fgrehm/vagrant-cachier/pull/141 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199567] Review Request: ExchangeIR - Java infrared signals analysis and conversion library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199567 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ExchangeIR-0.0.8.2-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ExchangeIR-0.0.8.2-2.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206295] Review Request: python-curtsies - Curses-like terminal wrapper, with colored strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206295 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-curtsies-0.1.19-1.fc ||21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-04-07 03:25:44 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-curtsies-0.1.19-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Okay, very simple package * spec file clean * code contents (licensing) no problem * can be built (F-23, F-22, F-21) * rpmlint clean * can be installed (tried F-21) * at least the following works $ ruby EOF require 'nenv' puts Nenv::VERSION puts ENV['FOO'] Nenv.foo = 3 puts ENV['FOO'] EOF 0.2.0 3 No problem. --- This package (rubygem-nenv) is APPROVED by mtasaka --- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208821] Review Request: rubygem-gtksourceview3 - Ruby binding of gtksourceview-3.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208821 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Thank you! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-gtksourceview3 Short Description: Ruby binding of gtksourceview-3.x Upstream URL: http://ruby-gnome2.sourceforge.jp/ Owners: mtasaka Branches: f22 f21 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com --- I have looked a bit more closely at the Makefile included with the project (which is a bit of a mess). Really, I think the best way to set CFLAGS reliably is to break the build vala compilation down into two steps - first run valac with the -c option to produce the c code, and then call gcc to compile the c-code. You'll need to patch the makefile to do this. Presently the way CFLAGS is used to provide options to the vala compiler is sub-optimal. I would urge you to work with the upstream maintainer to move to a sensible build system (autotools or cmake) rather than this handcrafted and buggy Makefile. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-04-07 05:44:23 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.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 1182358] New package request: clufter - Tool for transforming/analyzing cluster configuration formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182358 Radek Steiger rstei...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||TestBlocker CC||rstei...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1165354] Review Request: voms-clients-java - Virtual Organization Membership Service Java clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165354 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch --- Comment #13 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch --- I guessing there is a reason there is no .el6 version? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1165354] Review Request: voms-clients-java - Virtual Organization Membership Service Java clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165354 --- Comment #14 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch --- I'm guessing there is a reason there is no .el6 version? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #14 from Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com --- Thanks Ralf! I've fixed the warning due to %check inside changelog. I've also included all directories for -docs package to clean properly. I guess I also should put sysconfdir there too (?). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #13 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- * Please fix the %-warnings - These warnings are not supposed to be ignored. * Check your *-docs package. It contains a number of unowned subdirectories = The package does not uninstall cleanly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1209446] New: Review Request: carbonate - Utilities for managing graphite clusters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209446 Bug ID: 1209446 Summary: Review Request: carbonate - Utilities for managing graphite clusters Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: piotr1...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/carbonate.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/carbonate-0.2.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Utilities for managing graphite clusters Fedora Account System Username: piotrp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.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 1186501] Review Request: libticables2 - Texas Instruments link cables library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186501
Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
Package 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 COPYING in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (v2 or later), GPL (v2 or later), LGPL (v2 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address), Unknown or generated. 7 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1186501-libticables2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev,
/usr/share/doc/libticables2, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: 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.
= 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
[Bug 1196957] Review Request: python-XStatic-Angular-lrdragndrop - Angular-lrdragndrop (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196957 --- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Updated SPEC and SRPM: SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-XStatic-Angular-lrdragndrop.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-XStatic-Angular-lrdragndrop-1.0.2.2-1.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com --- Comment #19 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- ihrachyshka, actually when you use '%' character in spec changelog, you should use it twice '%%' to silent the rpmlint warning. You can follow this next time you use % in changelog. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-nenv Short Description: Convenience wrapper for Ruby's ENV Upstream URL: https://github.com/e2/nenv Owners: valtri Branches: f21 f22 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1165354] Review Request: voms-clients-java - Virtual Organization Membership Service Java clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165354 --- Comment #15 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se --- (In reply to Steve Traylen from comment #14) I'm guessing there is a reason there is no .el6 version? There is no bouncycastle-mail package in epel 6. There is a maintainer, and there were some build attempted in koji a long time ago, but nothing seems to ever have been pushed. Also, building Java packages in epel 6 is a bit of a pain since there is no maven. But it can be done using the maven-ant-plugin (as was done for the voms-api-java and jglobus packages) so this is not a blocker. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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] Review Request: python-jenkins-job-builder - Manage Jenkins jobs with YAML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208904 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Hi Colin, would you be ok with me renaming this to simply jenkins-job-builder ? I noticed dcaro's package was named this way, and I think it makes more sense. If you indicate your approval for this change, I'll rename the bug title and put in the SCM admin request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208821] Review Request: rubygem-gtksourceview3 - Ruby binding of gtksourceview-3.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208821 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208821] Review Request: rubygem-gtksourceview3 - Ruby binding of gtksourceview-3.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208821 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200157] Review Request: rubygem-nenv - Convenience wrapper for Ruby's ENV
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200157 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200157] Review Request: rubygem-nenv - Convenience wrapper for Ruby's ENV
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200157 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057874] Review Request: libspf2 - Implementation of the Sender Policy Framework for SMTP authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874 --- Comment #23 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Please use FAS in InitialCC, not email. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057874] Review Request: libspf2 - Implementation of the Sender Policy Framework for SMTP authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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=989792 --- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Hi Vit. Sure, we can add the gtk2 build. In past, there were those two separate requests that never got more feedback. Therefore I continued to do so with the separation. What bundling are you talking about? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989792] Review Request: doublecmd-gtk2 - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager(Gtk2)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989792 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1208911 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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] Review Request: python-jenkins-job-builder - Manage Jenkins jobs with YAML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208904 Ari LiVigni alivi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alivi...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Ari LiVigni alivi...@redhat.com --- What is the reason to not follow the same naming of other Python packages like python-nose or python-unittest2? (In reply to Colin Walters from comment #3) (In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #2) Hi Colin, would you be ok with me renaming this to simply jenkins-job-builder ? I noticed dcaro's package was named this way, and I think it makes more sense. This actually leads to a question I had - right now this package includes both a Python library *and* a binary. Are there any other packages that might depend on the library code? If not, that would argue for moving the library into a private directory (e.g. /usr/lib/jenkins-job-builder), and setting PYTHONPATH (or changing sys.path) inside the binary script. I realize this approach isn't common among Python programs, but I believe that making a shared library shouldn't be the default - only libraries which are stable should be public. If you indicate your approval for this change, I'll rename the bug title and put in the SCM admin request. The above all said...I'm not opposed to a rename. You'll find Python packages whose primary interface is an executable in Fedora that go both ways. What is the reason to not follow the same naming of other Python packages like python-nose or python-unittest2? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 982588] Review Request: radicale - A simple CalDAV (calendar) and CardDAV (contact) server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982588 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 982588] Review Request: radicale - A simple CalDAV (calendar) and CardDAV (contact) server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982588 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208904] Review Request: python-jenkins-job-builder - Manage Jenkins jobs with YAML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208904 --- Comment #3 from Colin Walters walt...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #2) Hi Colin, would you be ok with me renaming this to simply jenkins-job-builder ? I noticed dcaro's package was named this way, and I think it makes more sense. This actually leads to a question I had - right now this package includes both a Python library *and* a binary. Are there any other packages that might depend on the library code? If not, that would argue for moving the library into a private directory (e.g. /usr/lib/jenkins-job-builder), and setting PYTHONPATH (or changing sys.path) inside the binary script. I realize this approach isn't common among Python programs, but I believe that making a shared library shouldn't be the default - only libraries which are stable should be public. If you indicate your approval for this change, I'll rename the bug title and put in the SCM admin request. The above all said...I'm not opposed to a rename. You'll find Python packages whose primary interface is an executable in Fedora that go both ways. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738
--- Comment #13 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
(In reply to Taylor Braun-Jones from comment #12)
…
I'm not able to reproduce the rawhide error that you're are seeing. Since
what you were seeing was an internal compiler error, I wonder if it was a
buggy gcc-c++ package that has already been updated in the last 5 hours.
That's odd. I am using fedora-review in a f21 system, with general use case as
mock in a chroot for rawhide.
I did however hit a couple failing unit tests due to incompatibility with Lua
5.3. I have simply disabled Lua support on Fedora 22 for now. Upstream bug
report:
https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/issue/74/vera-segfaults-when-built-with-
lua-53#comment-17202574
You could use BR: compat-lua-devel as like for compat-lua / compat-lua-libs
packages instead, they have 5.1.5 as version.
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_1_0.txt in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
== Ignore, we use %license since this is a new guideline but still
fedora-review without patch.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
BSL (v1.0), Unknown or generated. 45 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-
review/1208738-vera++/licensecheck.txt
== Please fix or clarify for the bundled cpptcl.
Maybe you should unbundle into a separate package.
See
http://cpptcl.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/cpptcl/src/LICENSE?revision=1.1view=markup
The test sources should be okay without any license text.
vera.ctest : Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (see
inside the file for the complete license and copyright)
== Please add ASL 2.0 to License: and mention it in comment for the tests.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
== See above for bundled cpptcl. Currently, there's no package available for
cpptcl.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set
[Bug 1057874] Review Request: libspf2 - Implementation of the Sender Policy Framework for SMTP authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874 Matt Domsch matt_dom...@dell.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RELEASE_PENDING Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #24 from Matt Domsch matt_dom...@dell.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: libspf2 New Branches: f22 Owners: mdomsch 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 1124111] Review Request: python-spec - Specification-style output for python2-nose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124111 Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu --- Approuved! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196289] Review Request: nodejs-defaults - A simple one level options merge utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196289 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zsvet...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(zsvetlik@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #11 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- What's the status of this? Has the package been imported? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738 --- Comment #14 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Created attachment 1011857 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1011857action=edit licensecheck.txt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1124111] Review Request: python-spec - Specification-style output for python2-nose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124111 --- Comment #8 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com --- Spec URL: https://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/python-spec.spec SRPM URL: https://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/python-spec-1.0.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057874] Review Request: libspf2 - Implementation of the Sender Policy Framework for SMTP authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874 --- Comment #25 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199567] Review Request: ExchangeIR - Java infrared signals analysis and conversion library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199567 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ExchangeIR-0.0.8.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205587] Review Request: perl-Net-OpenID-Server - Library for building your own OpenID server/provider
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205587 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package perl-Net-OpenID-Server-1.09-1.fc22: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing perl-Net-OpenID-Server-1.09-1.fc22' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-5687/perl-Net-OpenID-Server-1.09-1.fc22 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057874] Review Request: libspf2 - Implementation of the Sender Policy Framework for SMTP authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1124111] Review Request: python-spec - Specification-style output for python2-nose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124111 --- Comment #7 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu --- You made a small mistake in the changelog: you forgot the release number. Everything else looks fine. Once you have corrected the changelog, I will approve this 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 1124111] Review Request: python-spec - Specification-style output for python2-nose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124111 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1124111] Review Request: python-spec - Specification-style output for python2-nose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124111 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186501] Review Request: libticables2 - Texas Instruments link cables library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186501 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186501] Review Request: libticables2 - Texas Instruments link cables library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186501 --- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200157] Review Request: rubygem-nenv - Convenience wrapper for Ruby's ENV
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200157 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-nenv-0.2.0-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-nenv-0.2.0-2.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 1186501] Review Request: libticables2 - Texas Instruments link cables library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186501 Ben Rosser rosser@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Ben Rosser rosser@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libticables2 Short Description: Texas Instruments link cables library Upstream URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticables2.spec Owners: tc01 Branches: f20 f21 f22 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1124111] Review Request: python-spec - Specification-style output for python2-nose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124111 Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-spec Short Description: Specification-style output for python2-nose Upstream URL: https://github.com/bitprophet/spec Owners: mayorga Branches: f22 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200157] Review Request: rubygem-nenv - Convenience wrapper for Ruby's ENV
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200157 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200157] Review Request: rubygem-nenv - Convenience wrapper for Ruby's ENV
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200157 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-nenv-0.2.0-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-nenv-0.2.0-2.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 1200157] Review Request: rubygem-nenv - Convenience wrapper for Ruby's ENV
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200157 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-nenv-0.2.0-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-nenv-0.2.0-2.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1204445] Review Request: python-email_reply_parser - Email reply parser library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204445
Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|e...@mayorgalinux.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable
Issues:
===
- Requires: python3 must be after you define the subpackage for Python 3. If
you do not, this require applies to both the main package and the py3
subpackage, which is incorrect.
- Drop the .1 at the end of Version. It's not needed here.
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Minor_release_bumps_for_old_branches
- Will you branch to EPEL? In that case, you need to define the %license macro.
- I'd remove the conditional for versions for Fedora older than 12. You do not
need to define versioned %{__python2} macros for supported Fedoras. This is
needed only if you branch to EPEL.
- You can be more specific about the Python version the package is for in
Summary, ie. for Python could be for Python 2, but that's up to you.
- Cosmetic: leave a blank line between the main package's description and the
conditional for the py3 subpackage. The same for %file sections.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/makerpm/reviews/1054394-python-django-admin-
bootstrapped/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: 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 %license.
[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.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg
[Bug 1209645] New: Review Request: bbcp - Securely and quickly copy data from source to target
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209645 Bug ID: 1209645 Summary: Review Request: bbcp - Securely and quickly copy data from source to target Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pa...@hubbitus.info QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/6ebdf6a35e02c6bd2a4119183754c3a1a6c0fae7/SPECS/bbcp.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.hubbitus.info/Fedora21/bbcp/bbcp-15.02.03.00.1-1.git.a29d6e9.fc21.src.rpm Description: Fast copying tools over network. Replacement for scp, rsync for big amount of transfer with numerous optimizations and tuning capability. Fedora Account System Username: hubbitus -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203067] Review Request: rubygem-em-worker - Provides a simple task worker, with a task concurrency limit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203067 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-em-worker-0.0.2-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-em-worker-0.0.2-2.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 1208904] Review Request: python-jenkins-job-builder - Manage Jenkins jobs with YAML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208904 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Ok, let's just keep it as python-jenkins-job-builder :) New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-jenkins-job-builder Short Description: Manage Jenkins jobs with YAML Upstream URL: http://ci.openstack.org/jenkins-job-builder/ Owners: ktdreyer Branches: f21 f22 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1190269] Review Request: openstack-barbican - Secrets as a Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190269 Greg Swift gregsw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #6 from Greg Swift gregsw...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Haïkel Guémar from comment #5) The main difference is likely to be that I used mock to rebuild the package so in a minimal chrooted environment. I had built it in a mock environment (specifically via a local mockchain as well as in copr). I thought i had run installs off of it. Looking back now that package is not clean, so i'm not sure what happened with that testing. I should have realized this when asking the question before. Sorry. Remains few issues reported by rpmlint. * Summary of python-barbican ends with a dot, drop it done * logrotate file should be marked as %config done * why barbican-api.conf is in openstack-barbican-worker subpackage ? the worker uses this config file right now. refactoring to where it just requires the -api. which is annoying but less obtuse. * I would create a barbican-api subpackage done, but still leaves barbican-api.conf in worker subpackage until they can separate that out. * the pbr patch is still there but not needed since there's a requirement on pbr you said post-juno. Its still there, for juno. There are several juno specific bits in there. When one part goes, it all does. * no version in changelog. done URL for the item in my git repo: https://github.com/gregswift/barbican-spec/blob/juno/openstack-barbican.spec Updated info: Spec URL: http://nytefyre.net/rpms/openstack-barbican.spec SRPM URL: http://nytefyre.net/rpms/openstack-barbican-2014.2-3.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1204445] Review Request: python-email_reply_parser - Email reply parser library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204445 --- Comment #2 from William Moreno williamjmore...@gmail.com --- I an lookiing for how to define the %license macro for Epel 6 and 7 branch, can you help me to find this to update the spec. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975259] Review Request: grizzly-npn - Grizzly Next Protocol Negotiation API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975259 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/grizzly-npn.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/grizzly-npn-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm - use system JVM jsse apis - fix felix plugin configuration Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9433467 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
