[Bug 1210828] Review Request: rubygem-semantic - Utility class for parsing, storing, and comparing versions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210828 --- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- * Sun Apr 12 2015 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com - 1.4.0-2 - Fix license - Add BR rubygem(rspec) http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/rubygem-semantic-1.4.0-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1207570] Review Request: adobe-source-han-sans-tw-fonts - Adobe font family for Traditional Chinese
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207570 --- Comment #2 from Peng Wu p...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts/adobe-source-han-sans-tw-fonts/adobe-source-han-sans-tw-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts/adobe-source-han-sans-tw-fonts/adobe-source-han-sans-tw-fonts-1.001-2.fc21.src.rpm Please review it again, 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 1194798] Review Request: GeoIP-GeoLite-data - Free GeoLite IP geolocation country database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194798
Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #19 from Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/GeoIP(geoipupdate-
cron6, GeoIP-data)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Invalid buildroot found:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(id -nu)
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of
[Bug 1194798] Review Request: GeoIP-GeoLite-data - Free GeoLite IP geolocation country database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194798
--- Comment #20 from Philip Prindeville phil...@redfish-solutions.com ---
One suggestion I'd make is to clearly identify the EPEL5 related stuff with:
%if %{?el5}
to bracket the %prep and %clean sections that are EL5-specific.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 #17 from Taylor Braun-Jones tay...@braun-jones.org --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #16) Still some open issues I would like to see fixed in the final package: - ASL 2.0 is meant for vera.ctest but not for vera.cmake (there's no such named file!) as you mention it in the comment, though I am not sure if this license includes then also the full source for the tests. Please be careful here and better ask upstream if in doubt. That can be pointless since it is valid only for the tests and they do not go into the compiled RPM. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/ FAQ#Multiple_licensing_situations Sounds good. I've emailed le...@lists.fedoraproject.org to get it figured out. - You can add BuildArch: noarch and Requires: cmake (or cmake28 respectively) to the devel subpackage because it does not include by itself any arch dependent binaries and is useful only with cmake at hand. Makes sense. Fixed. APPROVED Thanks for your help, Raphael. Do you mind if I add you as a co-maintainer? If so, what is your Fedora Account username? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210826] Review Request: rubygem-pathspec - Use to match path patterns such as gitignore
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210826 --- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- This is a little different, but seems to work: * Fri Apr 10 2015 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com - 0.0.2-2 - Fix files - Doc subpackage - Run tests http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/rubygem-pathspec-0.0.2-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1193878] Review Request: qmasterpassword - Stateless Master Password Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193878
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Requires: qt5-qtbase = 5.2.0
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
%{_datadir}/appdata/%{project_name}.appdata.xml
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#AppData_files
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210969] Review Request: python-munch - A dot-accessible dictionary (a la JavaScript objects)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210969 Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr --- OK, this package is 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 1210972] Review Request: libkgeomap - A wrapper around different world-map components, to browse and arrange photos over a map
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210972 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libkgeomap Short Description: A wrapper around different world-map components, to browse and arrange photos over a map Upstream URL: https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdegraphics/libs/libkgeomap Owners: group::kde-sig Branches: f20 f21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1211086] New: Review Request: publican-ERPNext - Common documentation files for ERPNext
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1211086 Bug ID: 1211086 Summary: Review Request: publican-ERPNext - Common documentation files for ERPNext Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: williamjmore...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/publican-ERPNext.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/publican-ERPNext-0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Common documentation files for ERPNext Fedora Account System Username: williamjmorenor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1180378] Review Request: rubygem-sigdump - ruby signal handler which dumps backtrace of running threads and number of allocated objects per class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180378 Graeme Gillies ggill...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #2 from Graeme Gillies ggill...@redhat.com --- Hi, I have removed the group tag and added in an extra conditional needed to add a Provides: for epel 7 https://fedorapeople.org/~ggillies/for_review/rubygem-sigdump/rubygem-sigdump.spec https://fedorapeople.org/~ggillies/for_review/rubygem-sigdump/rubygem-sigdump-0.2.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Thanks, Graeme -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210430] Review Request: yumex-dnf - graphical package manager powered by dnf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210430 --- Comment #7 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk --- Thanks a lot, your you have any packages needing review now or in the future, then just let me know. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210993] Review Request: boost157 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210993 --- Comment #3 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org --- Successful builds on all the architectures: EPEL 6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9463323 EPEL 7: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9463310 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1161483] Review Request: o3dgc - an open 3D graphics compression library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161483 --- Comment #6 from David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #5) The latest link to the spec file still points to the one from 0-2, not the one in your source rpm and the scripts will whine about that. I did the exact same thing a few days ago, that's why I checked :) No, you did not. Otherwise you would see that the spec had been updated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196925] Review Request: jsemver - A Java implementation of the Semantic Versioning Specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196925
--- Comment #11 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
MIT/X11 (BSD like). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mk/tmp/1196925-jsemver/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.
[-]: 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]: 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 used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jsemver-
javadoc
[?]: 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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is
[Bug 1196925] Review Request: jsemver - A Java implementation of the Semantic Versioning Specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196925 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- All blockers fixed. *** 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 1161483] Review Request: o3dgc - an open 3D graphics compression library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161483 --- Comment #7 from Alexander Ploumistos alex.ploumis...@gmail.com --- Sorry, browser cache... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210993] Review Request: boost157 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210993 --- Comment #2 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org --- Successful builds: EPEL 6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9463308 EPEL 7: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9463310 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 921134] Review Request: boost148 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921134 --- Comment #25 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org --- Successful builds on EPEL 6 for all the architectures: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9463313 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210430] Review Request: yumex-dnf - graphical package manager powered by dnf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210430 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: yumex-dnf Short Description: Graphical package tool for maintain packages on the system Upstream URL: https://github.com/timlau/yumex-dnf Owners: timlau 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 1196925] Review Request: jsemver - A Java implementation of the Semantic Versioning Specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196925 --- Comment #10 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- This might work for some reviewers, but I wouldn't count in it. The normal albeit undocumented (?) workflow is to provide new links besides very minor changes. However, For now, it works with this reviewer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1202265] Review Request: python-grabserial - Reads a serial port and writes data to standard output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202265 --- Comment #3 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- Thank you for reviewing this package. Have one concern- 1.According to LICENSE file, License should be GPLv2+ but inside source tar ball, garbserial file says This program is provided under the Gnu General Public License (GPL) version 2 ONLY. So, I am confused what License I should use whether GPLv2 or GPLv2+. I asked same to Grabserial maintainer and waiting for response. I have made needed changes as per your suggestion. Also, emailed maintainer to make modification needed for running it with python 3. Will send new SPEC and SRPM once License issue is resolved. 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 1211031] New: Review Request: libkeduvoddocument - Library to parse, convert, and manipulate KVTML files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1211031 Bug ID: 1211031 Summary: Review Request: libkeduvoddocument - Library to parse, convert, and manipulate KVTML files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rdie...@math.unl.edu QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kf5/libkeduvocdocument.spec SRPM URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kf5/libkeduvocdocument-15.03.97-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Library to parse, convert, and manipulate KVTML files Fedora Account System Username: rdieter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1211031] Review Request: libkeduvoddocument - Library to parse, convert, and manipulate KVTML files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1211031 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews) Alias||libkeduvoddocument Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997 [Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1202140] Review Request: python-rarfile - A RAR archive reader for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202140 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-rarfile-2.7-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-rarfile-2.7-1.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 1194798] Review Request: GeoIP-GeoLite-data - Free GeoLite IP geolocation country database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194798 --- Comment #18 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- Updated to April databases. Also added %preun script to remove the GeoIP.dat symlink if the package is uninstalled and GeoIP.dat is still a symlink pointing to the Country database. This will allow rpm to cleanly remove /usr/share/GeoIP, which it wouldn't be able to do if we left the symlink there. Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/GeoIP-GeoLite-data/trunk/GeoIP-GeoLite-data.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/GeoIP-GeoLite-data/GeoIP-GeoLite-data-2015.04-1.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1207570] Review Request: adobe-source-han-sans-tw-fonts - Adobe font family for Traditional Chinese
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207570
Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com ---
Review:
+ Package built fine in mock F23 x86_64
+ rpmlint on generated rpms gave output
adobe-source-han-sans-tw-fonts.noarch: W: self-obsoletion
adobe-source-han-sans-twhk-fonts obsoletes adobe-source-han-sans-twhk-fonts
adobe-source-han-sans-tw-fonts.src:24: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
adobe-source-han-sans-twhk-fonts
adobe-source-han-sans-tw-fonts.src:25: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes
adobe-source-han-sans-twhk-fonts
adobe-source-han-sans-tw-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
SourceHanSansTW-1.001.zip
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
== These new to be fixed as suggested below
+ Source verified with upstream source as (sha256sum)
tarball in srpm:
d9df92206902eb7942823e82360609f06cbee23056689a7d9c5c98aff394c8ce
tarball generated:
5e71a0aef865971086abea34c8ce7717393a8a9cb96b95ad74dae5d3aa0909d3
= Though both have different hash value but same files its because of binary
files archiving.
+ License is ASL 2.0 which is correct and its text is in LICENSE.txt file
+ fontconfig file is carried from old package adobe-source-han-sans-twhk-fonts
Suggestions:
1) Package renames requires a clean upgrade path. Please read
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
your package need to have following changes
=
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
Name: adobe-source-han-sans-tw-fonts
Version:1.001
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:Adobe OpenType Pan-CJK font family for Traditional Chinese
License:ASL 2.0
@@ -21,8 +21,8 @@
BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel
Requires: fontpackages-filesystem
-Provides: adobe-source-han-sans-twhk-fonts
-Obsoletes: adobe-source-han-sans-twhk-fonts
+Provides: adobe-source-han-sans-twhk-fonts = %{version}-%{release}
+Obsoletes: adobe-source-han-sans-twhk-fonts = 1.001-2
%description
Source Han Sans is a sans serif Pan-CJK font family
@@ -62,8 +62,7 @@
%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf
-
-%doc LICENSE.txt
+%license LICENSE.txt
%changelog
===
Submit these changes in new srpm.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1202140] Review Request: python-rarfile - A RAR archive reader for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202140 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-rarfile-2.7-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-rarfile-2.7-1.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 1202140] Review Request: python-rarfile - A RAR archive reader for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202140 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 1202140] Review Request: python-rarfile - A RAR archive reader for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202140 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-rarfile-2.7-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-rarfile-2.7-1.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 1202140] Review Request: python-rarfile - A RAR archive reader for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202140 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-rarfile-2.7-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-rarfile-2.7-1.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 1211031] Review Request: libkeduvoddocument - Library to parse, convert, and manipulate KVTML files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1211031 --- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9463644 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1191498] Review Request: safelease - legacy locking mechanism for VDSM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498 --- Comment #11 from Yaniv Bronhaim ybron...@redhat.com --- Added %license macro usage to spec: Spec URL: http://bronhaim.fedorapeople.org/safelease.spec SRPM URL: http://bronhaim.fedorapeople.org/safelease-1.0-4.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205662] Review Request: fastnetmon - DDoS monitoring tool with sFLOW/NetFLOW/mirror support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205662 --- Comment #1 from Pavel Y Odintsov pavel.odint...@gmail.com --- Hello, folks! Could anybody look at my spec's? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #40 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #39) Correct me if I am wrong but I see your total package submission is 2. Your informal package reviews are 2 which includes a single full package review yet. Yes, you are right. Did another review of package drumgizmo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210356 . 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 1210356] Review Request: drumgizmo - a drum kit renderer (cli and lv2 plugin)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210356
Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ksi...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com ---
This is un-official review of the package
Issues
---
1. License field should be GPLv3+ instead of GPLv3 because COPYING file says
either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. Also,
source code mention same
2. %license macro should be used instead of %doc for License files
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
%license COPYING
3. Source tar ball also contains test directory. I think if test works then it
should be added in %check section in order to catch issues.
Other than that package looks good to me.
Complete review of package using fedora-review tool
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[ ]: 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:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), ISC, GPL (v2 or
later), Unknown or generated, zlib/libpng. 3 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/skumari/fedora-
review/drumgizmo/review-drumgizmo/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/lv2
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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 102400 bytes in 8 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.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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
[Bug 1210939] Review Request: vdr-skindesigner - A VDR skinning engine that displays XML based Skins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210939 --- Comment #1 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de --- Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/vdr-skindesigner.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/vdr-skindesigner-0.4.3-1.fc21.src.rpm %changelog * Sun Apr 12 2015 Martin Gansser marti...@fedoraproject.org - 0.4.3-1 - Update to 0.4.3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210971] Review Request: libkface - A face recognition and detection library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210971
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9464328
$ rpmlint -i -v *
libkface.src: I: checking
libkface.src: I: checking-url
https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdegraphics/libs/libkface (timeout 10
seconds)
libkface.src: I: checking-url
http://download.kde.org/unstable/applications/15.03.97/src/libkface-15.03.97.tar.xz
(timeout 10 seconds)
libkface.x86_64: I: checking
libkface.x86_64: I: checking-url
https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdegraphics/libs/libkface (timeout 10
seconds)
libkface-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
libkface-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url
https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdegraphics/libs/libkface (timeout 10
seconds)
libkface-devel.x86_64: I: checking
libkface-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url
https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdegraphics/libs/libkface (timeout 10
seconds)
libkface-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.
libkface-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
libkface.spec: I: checking
libkface.spec: I: checking-url
http://download.kde.org/unstable/applications/15.03.97/src/libkface-15.03.97.tar.xz
(timeout 10 seconds)
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Nothing of interest so far.
-
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 *
d28d04dbe3e9b96d4ce149d03da69b99c23ba9fb01b4b62c44e865d65f0aa7bd
libkface-15.03.97.tar.xz
d28d04dbe3e9b96d4ce149d03da69b99c23ba9fb01b4b62c44e865d65f0aa7bd
libkface-15.03.97.tar.xz.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: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a
[Bug 1193878] Review Request: qmasterpassword - Stateless Master Password Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193878 Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ksi...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- This is unofficial review of the package- Packaging looks good to me. Building package for Fedora rawhide is failing http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9464365 . I think this should be fixed first. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858085] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns - Qt5 for Windows - QtXmlPatterns component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858085 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4. |mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4. |1-1.fc20|1-1.el7 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.el7, mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 1205459] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebSockets component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205459 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4. |mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4. |1-1.fc20|1-1.el7 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets-5.4.1-1.el7, mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 921134] Review Request: boost148 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921134 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 921134] Review Request: boost148 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921134 --- Comment #26 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 1210990] Review Request: qt5-qtwebchannel - Qt5 WebChannel component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210990 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 1210430] Review Request: yumex-dnf - graphical package manager powered by dnf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210430 --- Comment #9 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 1210430] Review Request: yumex-dnf - graphical package manager powered by dnf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210430 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 894600] Review Request: coin-or-cppad - A Package for Differentiation of C++ Algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894600
Bug 894600 depends on bug 1197488, which changed state.
Bug 1197488 Summary: RFE: Please add Provides: coin-or-cppad =
%{version}-%{release} and Provides: coin-or-cppad-devel =
%{version}-%{release}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197488
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154
Bug 505154 depends on bug 1197488, which changed state.
Bug 1197488 Summary: RFE: Please add Provides: coin-or-cppad =
%{version}-%{release} and Provides: coin-or-cppad-devel =
%{version}-%{release}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197488
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
--
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 894609] Review Request: coin-or-OS - Optimization Services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894609
Bug 894609 depends on bug 1197488, which changed state.
Bug 1197488 Summary: RFE: Please add Provides: coin-or-cppad =
%{version}-%{release} and Provides: coin-or-cppad-devel =
%{version}-%{release}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197488
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Still some open issues I would like to see fixed in the final package: - ASL 2.0 is meant for vera.ctest but not for vera.cmake (there's no such named file!) as you mention it in the comment, though I am not sure if this license includes then also the full source for the tests. Please be careful here and better ask upstream if in doubt. That can be pointless since it is valid only for the tests and they do not go into the compiled RPM. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#Multiple_licensing_situations - You can add BuildArch: noarch and Requires: cmake (or cmake28 respectively) to the devel subpackage because it does not include by itself any arch dependent binaries and is useful only with cmake at hand. 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 1202063] Review Request: Classified ads - Internet messaging done right
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063 --- Comment #15 from Antti Järvinen antti.jarvi...@katiska.org --- Spec URL: http://katiska.org/classified_ads/srpm/classified-ads.spec SRPM URL: http://katiska.org/classified_ads/srpm/classified-ads-0.07-1.fc21.src.rpm Updated to latest upstream release, packaging is the same. Changes are mostly about how build-system handles intermediate bitmaps, resulting functionality has not changed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1202140] Review Request: python-rarfile - A RAR archive reader for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202140 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package python-rarfile-2.7-1.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 python-rarfile-2.7-1.fc22' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6045/python-rarfile-2.7-1.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 1211031] Review Request: libkeduvoddocument - Library to parse, convert, and manipulate KVTML files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1211031
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
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
$ rpmlint -i -v *
libkeduvocdocument.src: I: checking
libkeduvocdocument.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csv - cs, cs
v, CST
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
libkeduvocdocument.src: I: checking-url
https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdeedu/libkeduvocdocument (timeout 10
seconds)
libkeduvocdocument.src: I: checking-url
http://download.kde.org/unstable/applications/15.03.97/src/libkeduvocdocument-15.03.97.tar.xz
(timeout 10 seconds)
libkeduvocdocument.x86_64: I: checking
libkeduvocdocument.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csv - cs,
cs v, CST
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
libkeduvocdocument.x86_64: I: checking-url
https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdeedu/libkeduvocdocument (timeout 10
seconds)
libkeduvocdocument-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
libkeduvocdocument-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url
https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdeedu/libkeduvocdocument (timeout 10
seconds)
libkeduvocdocument-devel.x86_64: I: checking
libkeduvocdocument-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url
https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdeedu/libkeduvocdocument (timeout 10
seconds)
libkeduvocdocument-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.
libkeduvocdocument-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
libkeduvocdocument.spec: I: checking
libkeduvocdocument.spec: I: checking-url
http://download.kde.org/unstable/applications/15.03.97/src/libkeduvocdocument-15.03.97.tar.xz
(timeout 10 seconds)
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Some ignorable messages, no more.
-
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 *
21ebf2e0b54ae9cfb7e4832d26fedc65e22a5f947700de9d7a50f41b2f695ee9
libkeduvocdocument-15.03.97.tar.xz
21ebf2e0b54ae9cfb7e4832d26fedc65e22a5f947700de9d7a50f41b2f695ee9
libkeduvocdocument-15.03.97.tar.xz.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: Every binary RPM package (or
[Bug 1177805] Review Request: rubygem-uuid - UUID generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177805 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-uuid-2.3.7-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 1210990] Review Request: qt5-qtwebchannel - Qt5 WebChannel component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210990 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208904] Review Request: python-jenkins-job-builder - Manage Jenkins jobs with YAML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208904 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-jenkins-job-builder-1.1.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #41 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- Done couple of more package reviews- 1. qmasterpassword - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193878 2. GBall - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 921134] Review Request: boost148 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921134 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 1210993] Review Request: boost157 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210993 --- Comment #4 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org --- Re-used the same packaging techniques as for Boost148 (see #921134), around the source code of Boost-1.57 for Fedora 22 (http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/boost.git/tree/?h=f22). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210972] Review Request: libkgeomap - A wrapper around different world-map components, to browse and arrange photos over a map
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210972
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
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9464548
$ rpmlint -i -v *
libkgeomap.src: I: checking
libkgeomap.src: E: summary-too-long C A wrapper around different world-map
components, to browse and arrange photos over a map
The Summary: must not exceed 80 characters.
libkgeomap.src: E: description-line-too-long C A wrapper around different
world-map components, to browse and arrange photos over a map.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.
libkgeomap.src: I: checking-url
https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdegraphics/libs/libkgeomap (timeout 10
seconds)
libkgeomap.src: I: checking-url
http://download.kde.org/unstable/applications/15.03.97/src/libkgeomap-15.03.97.tar.xz
(timeout 10 seconds)
libkgeomap.x86_64: I: checking
libkgeomap.x86_64: E: summary-too-long C A wrapper around different world-map
components, to browse and arrange photos over a map
The Summary: must not exceed 80 characters.
libkgeomap.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C A wrapper around different
world-map components, to browse and arrange photos over a map.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.
libkgeomap.x86_64: I: checking-url
https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdegraphics/libs/libkgeomap (timeout 10
seconds)
libkgeomap-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
libkgeomap-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url
https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdegraphics/libs/libkgeomap (timeout 10
seconds)
libkgeomap-devel.x86_64: I: checking
libkgeomap-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url
https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdegraphics/libs/libkgeomap (timeout 10
seconds)
libkgeomap-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.
libkgeomap-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
libkgeomap.spec: I: checking
libkgeomap.spec: I: checking-url
http://download.kde.org/unstable/applications/15.03.97/src/libkgeomap-15.03.97.tar.xz
(timeout 10 seconds)
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings.
See below regarding %description.
-
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 *
1c3022550a1d6a683d4a146325fe25903d44fefeda1dee3b241b4d061d2c0413
libkgeomap-15.03.97.tar.xz
1c3022550a1d6a683d4a146325fe25903d44fefeda1dee3b241b4d061d2c0413
libkgeomap-15.03.97.tar.xz.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
[Bug 1173846] Review Request: GBall - The Console Ball and Racket Game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846
Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ksi...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com ---
This is unofficial package review -
Issues
--
* Use %make_install macro instead of make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25install_section
* %license macro should be used to include License
%license COPYING
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Result of fedora-review tool output looks good and pasted below for reference.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: gball-1.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
gball-1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
gball.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US highscore - high score,
high-score, highs core
gball.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US highscore - high score,
high-score, highs core
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires
gball (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
gnudos
info
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgnudos.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
gball:
gball
gball(x86-64)
Source checksums
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/gball-1.0.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
00cd806f65b301c481ae77a37a7c11e12176c495f5f4c9652c3f7dfe12f4ebe6
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
00cd806f65b301c481ae77a37a7c11e12176c495f5f4c9652c3f7dfe12f4ebe6
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -n gball
Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always
[Bug 921134] Review Request: boost148 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921134 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- boost148-1.48.0-5.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/boost148-1.48.0-5.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 1210993] Review Request: boost157 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210993 Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org changed: What|Removed |Added 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 921134] Review Request: boost148 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921134 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- boost148-1.48.0-6.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/boost148-1.48.0-6.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 1193730] Review Request: apache-jena - Java framework for building Semantic Web and Linked Data applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193730 Bug 1193730 depends on bug 1210958, which changed state. Bug 1210958 Summary: apache-commons-csv-1.1 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210958 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 921134] Review Request: boost148 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921134 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- boost148-1.48.0-6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/boost148-1.48.0-6.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 1173846] Review Request: GBall - The Console Ball and Racket Game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846 --- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Requires libgnudos.so.1()(64bit) Requires: gnudos https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210969] Review Request: python-munch - A dot-accessible dictionary (a la JavaScript objects)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210969 --- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Done. Removed shebang to make rpmlint happy. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SPECS/python-munch.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SRPMS/python-munch-2.0.2-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1211031] Review Request: libkeduvocdocument - Library to parse, convert, and manipulate KVTML files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1211031 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |libkeduvoddocument -|libkeduvocdocument - |Library to parse, convert, |Library to parse, convert, |and manipulate KVTML files |and manipulate KVTML files Alias|libkeduvoddocument |libkeduvocdocument Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libkeduvocdocument Short Description: Library to parse, convert, and manipulate KVTML files Upstream URL: https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdeedu/libkeduvocdocument Owners: group::kde-sig Branches: f20 f21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210971] Review Request: libkface - A face recognition and detection library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210971 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libkface Short Description: A face recognition and detection library Upstream URL: https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdegraphics/libs/libkface Owners: group::kde-sig Branches: f20 f21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
