[Bug 651693] Review Request: libxkbcommon - X.Org X11 XKB parsing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651693 Peter Hutterer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Peter Hutterer --- Package Change Request == Package Name: libxkbcommon New Branches: epel7 Owners: -- 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 651693] Review Request: libxkbcommon - X.Org X11 XKB parsing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651693 Peter Hutterer changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1224591 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224591 [Bug 1224591] [RFE] EPEL7 branch of libxkbcommon -- 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 1178162] Review Request: springframework-data-commons - Interfaces between relational and non-relational data stores
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178162 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: springframework-data-commons Short Description: Interfaces between relational and non-relational data stores Upstream URL: http://projects.spring.io/spring-data/ Owners: gil Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1178162] Review Request: springframework-data-commons - Interfaces between relational and non-relational data stores
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178162 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |springframework-data-common |springframework-data-common |s - Interfaces and code |s - Interfaces between |shared between the various |relational and |datastore specific |non-relational data stores |implementations | --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #6) > There are a few small SHOULD issues, which do not block approval, namely: > - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. The comment "Port to querydsl 4.0.0" is not enough? Upstream is already aware of the problem. But for this release there is nothing to do > - The spec file in the link and the spec file in the source rpm differ, so > be sure to check in the right one. Fixed > - If you want to preserve timestamps on license.txt and notice.txt, replace > these two lines in %prep: Timestamps should be stored using the macros (%doc %license) ..., or not? > This package is APPROVED. Thanks for the review! Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-data-commons.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-data-commons-1.8.4-2.fc20.src.rpm - summary changed in "Interfaces between relational and non-relational data stores" - cleanup spec file - fix some rpmlint problems -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206367] Review Request: gap-pkg-radiroot - Compute radicals for roots of solvable rational polynomials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206367 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Jerry James --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gap-pkg-radiroot Short Description: Compute radicals for roots of solvable rational polynomials Upstream URL: http://www.icm.tu-bs.de/ag_algebra/software/radiroot/ Owners: jjames 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 1206367] Review Request: gap-pkg-radiroot - Compute radicals for roots of solvable rational polynomials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206367 --- Comment #6 from Jerry James --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5) > NON blocking issues found > > gap-pkg-radiroot.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-radiroot/GPL > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address > > Please, fix before import. informing upstream about this. I will inform upstream. Thank you 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 1178162] Review Request: springframework-data-commons - Interfaces and code shared between the various datastore specific implementations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178162 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jerry James --- There are a few small SHOULD issues, which do not block approval, namely: - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. - The spec file in the link and the spec file in the source rpm differ, so be sure to check in the right one. - If you want to preserve timestamps on license.txt and notice.txt, replace these two lines in %prep: cp -p src/main/resources/*.txt . sed -i 's/\r//' *.txt with these lines: cp -p src/main/resources/*.txt . sed -i.orig 's/\r//' *.txt touch -r license.txt.orig license.txt touch -r notice.txt.orig notice.txt 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 1223623] Review Request: python-num2words - Modules to convert numbers to words
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223623 --- Comment #5 from William Moreno --- Spec URL: http://rmsconsultoresnicaragua.com/rpmdev/python-num2words.spec SRPM URL: http://rmsconsultoresnicaragua.com/rpmdev/python-num2words-0.5.2-3.fc22.src.rpm - 0.5.2-3 - Add suport for Pyhton3 - Use %%license file from Github - Include test files in 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 1178162] Review Request: springframework-data-commons - Interfaces and code shared between the various datastore specific implementations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178162
--- Comment #5 from Jerry James ---
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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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 %license.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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 metadata) 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 .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
springframework-data-commons-javadoc
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
1.8.5 and 1.9.2 are available
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: Description and summary sectio
[Bug 1220779] Review Request: 7kaa - Seven Kingdoms: Ancient Adversaries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220779
--- Comment #9 from Ding-Yi Chen ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #8)
> Please use:
> Patch0: http://sf.net/p/skfans/bugs/4/attachment/%{name}-formatSecurity.patch
Done
Spec URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/7kaa.spec
SRPM URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/7kaa-2.14.5-3.fc22.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 1098965] Review Request: capstone - Multi-platform, multi-architecture disassembly framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098965 John Skeoch changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|falo...@redhat.com |bress...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1222709] Review Request: memkind - User Extensible Heap Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222709 Rafael Aquini changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Rafael Aquini --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: memkind Short Description: User Extensible Heap Manager Upstream URL: http://memkind.github.io/memkind Owners: aquini Branches: f21 f22 f23 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 1222709] Review Request: memkind - User Extensible Heap Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222709
Marcelo Barbosa "firemanxbr" changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(mr.marcelo.barbos |
|a...@gmail.com)|
--- Comment #5 from Marcelo Barbosa "firemanxbr"
---
Rafael,
Your package was approved, congrats! more informations about this process,
please learning this wiki:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated",
"BSD (2 clause)". 115 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/marcelo.barbosa/1222709-memkind/licensecheck.txt
[-]: 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.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{v
[Bug 1226557] Review Request: amsynth - A classic synthesizer with dual oscillators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226557
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
> amsynth.x86_64: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/amsynth.appdata.xml
"rpmlint -i …" is more verbose. The background is that rpmlint runs
"appdata-validate" on the file, not "appstream-util validate-relax".
A brief look at the package.
Build output says:
checking for ALSA... no
but OSS?
checking for LASH... no
checking for SNDFILE... no
checking for DSSI... no
|
| Build with OSS support : yes
| Build with ALSA support... : no
| Build with JACK support... : yes
| Build with JACK MIDI support.. : yes
| Build with JACK session support... : yes
| Build with LASH support... : no
| Build DSSI plugin. : no
| Build LV2 plugin.. : yes
|
| Use libsndfile for .wav output support : no
What's the reason why these are not enabled?
> %package lv2-plugin
As this plugin (based on the LV2 Plugin Standard) is an add-on to 'lv2' (sort
of a mother package), I would expect the subpackage name to be different and
follow Fedora's %{parent}-%{child} naming guidelines:
lv2-amsynth
(or lv2-amsynth-plugin if to be explicit that it's a plugin)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28General.29
# dnf list lv2\*|wc -l
40
The rationale is that the plugin doesn't extend "amsynth" itself but any other
program capable of loading LV2 based plugins.
The subpackage also needs to depend on a provider of %{_libdir}/lv2/ because it
stores files in there. Package "lv2" includes that dir.
> License:GPLv2
Please run "fedora-review -b 1226557" on this ticket.
Several amsynth source files I've checked briefly claim the licensing is
"GPLv2+" because of the "or later" clause.
> %doc COPYING AUTHORS README
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
> %{_datadir}/appdata/%{name}.metainfo.xml
This is included in the wrong package. It's for the LV2 plugin.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1227061] New: Review Request: pcp2pdf - Utility to create PDF reports from PCP archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227061 Bug ID: 1227061 Summary: Review Request: pcp2pdf - Utility to create PDF reports from PCP archives Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mich...@acksyn.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/pcp2pdf/pcp2pdf.spec SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/pcp2pdf/pcp2pdf-0.3-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Utility to creates PDF reports from Performance Co-Pilot archives. It allows to choose sampling rate, custom graphs, custom labels and selection of which metrics should appear in the report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1222709] Review Request: memkind - User Extensible Heap Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222709 Rafael Aquini changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mr.marcelo.barbos ||a...@gmail.com) --- Comment #4 from Rafael Aquini --- Howdy Marcelo, Is there any other lingering issue blocking this review going ahead? Please let me know so I can quickly address it. Cheers! -- Rafael -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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] Review Request: qmapshack - GPS mapping and management tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209366 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande --- Hi Dan, review swap with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1226664? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079064] Review Request: btbuilder - Role-playing game construction set in the style of the Bard's Tale Construction Set
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079064 --- Comment #22 from Jason Tibbitts --- Yeah, one package review per ticket. Let me know what it is and I'll take care of it as well. I can make a couple of comments now, though: If you've forked SDL_mng, I'm happy with that though it would be nice to document it. Maybe one day you can re-merge with upstream. You shouldn't need to use %defattr. You really shouldn't use %makeinstall unless you don't have much choice: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used If the proper way with DESTDIR doesn't work, at least document that in your spec. You shouldn't generally package libtool archives (.la files). As for mingw, I don't know much about it but there's a list at https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mingw and an IRC channel with a few people in at at #fedora-mingw on freenode. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1227022] Review Request: python-jeyllyfish - A python library for doing approximate and phonetic matching of strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227022 Michele Baldessari changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1222465 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222465 [Bug 1222465] 1.3.12 needs new package python-jellyfish -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1227022] New: Review Request: python-jeyllyfish - A python library for doing approximate and phonetic matching of strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227022 Bug ID: 1227022 Summary: Review Request: python-jeyllyfish - A python library for doing approximate and phonetic matching of strings Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mich...@acksyn.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/python-jellyfish/python-jellyfish.spec SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/python-jellyfish/python-jellyfish-0.5.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Jellyfish does approximate and phonetic string matching. It includes the following string comparison algorithms: Levenshtein Distance, Damerau-Levenshtein Distance, Jaro Distance, Jaro-Winkler Distance, Match Rating Approach Comparison and Hamming Distance And the following phonetic encodings: American Soundex, Metaphone, NYSIIS (New York State Identification and Intelligence System), Match Rating Codex -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1222267] Review Request: php-mtdowling-transducers - Composable algorithmic transformations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=167 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|php-mtdowling-transducers-0 |php-mtdowling-transducers-0 |.3.0-1.fc22 |.3.0-1.fc21 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- php-mtdowling-transducers-0.3.0-1.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 1176307] Review Request: torrent-file-editor - Qt based GUI tool designed to create and edit .torrent files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176307 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|torrent-file-editor-0.1.0-3 |torrent-file-editor-0.2.0-2 |.fc20 |.el7 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- torrent-file-editor-0.2.0-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1222265] Review Request: php-whitehat101-apr1-md5 - Apache's APR1-MD5 algorithm in pure PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=165 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|php-whitehat101-apr1-md5-1. |php-whitehat101-apr1-md5-1. |0.0-1.fc22 |0.0-1.fc21 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- php-whitehat101-apr1-md5-1.0.0-1.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 1057874] Review Request: libspf2 - Implementation of the Sender Policy Framework for SMTP authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|libspf2-1.2.10-5.20150405gi |libspf2-1.2.10-5.20150405gi |td57d79fd.el7 |td57d79fd.el6 --- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System --- libspf2-1.2.10-5.20150405gitd57d79fd.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1215046] Review Request: python-gear - Pure Python Async Gear Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215046 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- python-gear-0.5.7-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 1057874] Review Request: libspf2 - Implementation of the Sender Policy Framework for SMTP authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|libspf2-1.2.10-5.20150405gi |libspf2-1.2.10-5.20150405gi |td57d79fd.el5 |td57d79fd.el7 --- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System --- libspf2-1.2.10-5.20150405gitd57d79fd.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 1057874] Review Request: libspf2 - Implementation of the Sender Policy Framework for SMTP authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|libspf2-1.2.10-5.20150405gi |libspf2-1.2.10-5.20150405gi |td57d79fd.fc22 |td57d79fd.el5 --- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System --- libspf2-1.2.10-5.20150405gitd57d79fd.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 1224353] Review Request: php-d11wtq-boris - A tiny, but robust REPL (Read-Evaluate-Print-Loop) for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224353 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- php-d11wtq-boris-1.0.10-2.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 1178149] Review Request: springframework-hateoas - Representations for hyper-text driven REST web services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178149 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- springframework-hateoas-0.16.0-1.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 1222266] Review Request: php-mtdowling-jmespath-php - Declaratively specify how to extract elements from a JSON document
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=166 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|php-mtdowling-jmespath-php- |php-mtdowling-jmespath-php- |2.1.0-1.fc22|2.1.0-1.fc21 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- php-mtdowling-jmespath-php-2.1.0-1.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 1205777] Review Request: gap-pkg-autpgrp - Compute the automorphism group of a p-Group in GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205777 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- gap-pkg-autpgrp-1.6-1.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 1223627] Review Request: gap-pkg-edim - Elementary divisors of integer matrices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223627 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- gap-pkg-edim-1.3.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215080] Review Request: morphia - A type-safe java library for MongoDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215080 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- morphia-0.105-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1202303] Review Request: python-colour-runner - Colour formatting for unittest test output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202303 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-colour-runner-0.0.4- |python-colour-runner-0.0.4- |1.fc22 |1.fc21 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-colour-runner-0.0.4-1.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 1224352] Review Request: php-masterminds-html5 - An HTML5 parser and serializer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224352 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- php-masterminds-html5-2.1.1-1.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 1222690] Review Request: gap-pkg-fga - Free group algorithms for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222690 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- gap-pkg-fga-1.2.0-1.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 1222264] Review Request: php-ocramius-proxy-manager - OOP proxy wrappers utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=164 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- php-ocramius-proxy-manager-1.0.0-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1217857] Review Request: bandit - A framework for performing security analysis of Python source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217857 --- Comment #12 from Michael Scherer --- See https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6177 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1207280] Review Request: python-semantic_version - A library implementing the 'SemVer' scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207280 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-semantic_version-2.4.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-semantic_version-2.4.1-1.el7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1225249] Review Request: møte - a MeetBot log wrangler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225249 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean --- Looks good to me! Package Approved! At this point you'll need to follow the scm admin request process: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests Feel free to ping me with any questions. We can talk further about what to do about value01 later. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1207280] Review Request: python-semantic_version - A library implementing the 'SemVer' scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207280 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-semantic_version-2.4.1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-semantic_version-2.4.1-1.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1226926] Review Request: eclipse-e4-importer - Alternative importer of Eclipse projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226926 --- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo --- in this case "alphatag" should be SNAPSHOT. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1226926] Review Request: eclipse-e4-importer - Alternative importer of Eclipse projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226926 --- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo --- ^^^ see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1226926] Review Request: eclipse-e4-importer - Alternative importer of Eclipse projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226926
--- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo ---
Last question why you set version to 1.0.0 when in the pom file is
0.17.0-SNAPSHOT ? (now, i had a look in the src archive :) ). arbitrary
decision or makes sense?
in the first case you must use this notation:
Version:0.17.0
Release:0.1%{?dist}
* Mon Jun 01 2015 Sopot Cela - 0.17.0-0.1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1226926] Review Request: eclipse-e4-importer - Alternative importer of Eclipse projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226926
--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to Sopot Cela from comment #7)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Sopot Cela from comment #5)
> > > Thank you for the prompt suggestoins.
> > >
> > > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3)
> > > > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #1)
> > > > Seem you have duplicate tycho-maven-plugin entries in the main pom file
> > > > ...
> > > > is not a good idea ...
> > >
> > > Fixed:
> > > https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-e4-importer/eclipse-e4-importer.spec
> > Sorry but you maybe use '${tycho-version}' (with single quotation mark)
> > otherwise you must use ${tycho-version} as global variable, because the
> > version of this plugin maybe remain empty
>
> I tried initially as you suggested with single quotation marks but I got:
>
> [INFO] Scanning for projects...
> [ERROR] The build could not read 1 project -> [Help 1]
> [ERROR]
> [ERROR] The project org.eclipse.e4.ui:e4-ui-aggregator:0.17.0-SNAPSHOT
> (/home/rtest/rpmbuild/BUILD/org.eclipse.e4.ui-
> c0957a7a7d53655ecf9ae5047a94fe20de0e5d5d/pom.xml) has 1 error
> [ERROR] 'build.plugins.plugin.version' for
> org.eclipse.tycho:tycho-maven-plugin must be a valid version but is
> '${tycho-version}'. @ line 10, column 18
> [ERROR]
> [ERROR] To see the full stack trace of the errors, re-run Maven with the -e
> switch.
> [ERROR] Re-run Maven using the -X switch to enable full debug logging.
> [ERROR]
> [ERROR] For more information about the errors and possible solutions, please
> read the following articles:
> [ERROR] [Help 1]
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/ProjectBuildingException
>
> Shall I remove the version at all since it is optional? It builds fine like
> that.
Yes is normal if in the pom file "tycho-version" is not declared (in the
properties section)
Sorry, My fault i don't know how that is set pom file.
I have deceived your first draft of the modification on the same file.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1207280] Review Request: python-semantic_version - A library implementing the 'SemVer' scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207280 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-semantic_version-2.4.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-semantic_version-2.4.1-1.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1207280] Review Request: python-semantic_version - A library implementing the 'SemVer' scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207280 Fedora Update System 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 1226013] Review Request: fwupdate - firmware update utility and library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226013 Peter Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2015-06-01 11:25:07 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1226926] Review Request: eclipse-e4-importer - Alternative importer of Eclipse projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226926 --- Comment #8 from Sopot Cela --- Uploaded version with no version at all. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223843] Review Request: python-anymarkup - Parse or serialize any markup in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223843 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- python-anymarkup-0.4.2-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-anymarkup-0.4.2-1.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 1223843] Review Request: python-anymarkup - Parse or serialize any markup in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223843 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- python-anymarkup-0.4.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-anymarkup-0.4.2-1.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 1223843] Review Request: python-anymarkup - Parse or serialize any markup in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223843 Fedora Update System 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 1226926] Review Request: eclipse-e4-importer - Alternative importer of Eclipse projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226926
--- Comment #7 from Sopot Cela ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6)
> (In reply to Sopot Cela from comment #5)
> > Thank you for the prompt suggestoins.
> >
> > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3)
> > > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #1)
> > > Seem you have duplicate tycho-maven-plugin entries in the main pom file
> > > ...
> > > is not a good idea ...
> >
> > Fixed:
> > https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-e4-importer/eclipse-e4-importer.spec
> Sorry but you maybe use '${tycho-version}' (with single quotation mark)
> otherwise you must use ${tycho-version} as global variable, because the
> version of this plugin maybe remain empty
I tried initially as you suggested with single quotation marks but I got:
[INFO] Scanning for projects...
[ERROR] The build could not read 1 project -> [Help 1]
[ERROR]
[ERROR] The project org.eclipse.e4.ui:e4-ui-aggregator:0.17.0-SNAPSHOT
(/home/rtest/rpmbuild/BUILD/org.eclipse.e4.ui-c0957a7a7d53655ecf9ae5047a94fe20de0e5d5d/pom.xml)
has 1 error
[ERROR] 'build.plugins.plugin.version' for
org.eclipse.tycho:tycho-maven-plugin must be a valid version but is
'${tycho-version}'. @ line 10, column 18
[ERROR]
[ERROR] To see the full stack trace of the errors, re-run Maven with the -e
switch.
[ERROR] Re-run Maven using the -X switch to enable full debug logging.
[ERROR]
[ERROR] For more information about the errors and possible solutions, please
read the following articles:
[ERROR] [Help 1]
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/ProjectBuildingException
Shall I remove the version at all since it is optional? It builds fine like
that.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1226926] Review Request: eclipse-e4-importer - Alternative importer of Eclipse projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226926
--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to Sopot Cela from comment #5)
> Thank you for the prompt suggestoins.
>
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3)
> > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #1)
> > Seem you have duplicate tycho-maven-plugin entries in the main pom file ...
> > is not a good idea ...
>
> Fixed:
> https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-e4-importer/eclipse-e4-importer.spec
Sorry but you maybe use '${tycho-version}' (with single quotation mark)
otherwise you must use ${tycho-version} as global variable, because the version
of this plugin maybe remain empty
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1226926] Review Request: eclipse-e4-importer - Alternative importer of Eclipse projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226926 --- Comment #5 from Sopot Cela --- Thank you for the prompt suggestoins. (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3) > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #1) > Seem you have duplicate tycho-maven-plugin entries in the main pom file ... > is not a good idea ... Fixed: https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-e4-importer/eclipse-e4-importer.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 1133479] Review Request: vdsm-arch-dependencies - architecture specific dependencies for VDSM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133479 Dan Kenigsberg changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags|needinfo?(dan...@redhat.com | |) | Last Closed||2015-06-01 10:00:58 --- Comment #11 from Dan Kenigsberg --- We'll hide these requirement elsewhere. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1226926] Review Request: eclipse-e4-importer - Alternative importer of Eclipse projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226926 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov --- I'll take this one. Sopot would you please apply gil's suggestion. Regarding license - eclipse.org projects usually have license injected at build time in the builds via special feature developed for the purpose (as EPL is mandated ). So this is not an issue. Once gil's suggestion is applied I'll do full 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 1225231] Review Request: light-locker-settings - Just a simple settings dialog for light-locker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225231 --- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner --- Upstream has fixed the desktop file. https://github.com/the-cavalry/light-locker/issues/57 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1226926] Review Request: eclipse-e4-importer - Alternative importer of Eclipse projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226926 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #1) Seem you have duplicate tycho-maven-plugin entries in the main pom file ... is not a good idea ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1226926] Review Request: eclipse-e4-importer - Alternative importer of Eclipse projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226926
--- Comment #2 from Richard Shaw ---
I'm not familiar enough with eclipse to take this review but with a drive by
spec review it looks pretty good. The only thing I see missing in the files
section is a license file. Is one included in the source?
If so the license macro should be used for f21+ (and I think epel7). If you
plan to support older releases then you'll have to use a conditional.
Something like:
%if 0%{?rhel} || 0%{?fedora} < 21
%doc COPYING
%else
%license COPYING
%endif
And if epel7 does support the license macro then a "< 7" can be added to the
rhel portion.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1220779] Review Request: 7kaa - Seven Kingdoms: Ancient Adversaries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220779
--- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner ---
(In reply to Ding-Yi Chen from comment #7)
> (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #6)
> > Two more informal things to mention:
> >
> > > Patch0: %{name}-formatSecurity.patch
> > Where do you have this patch from? Did you try to send it to upstream? If it
> > can be found there, please provide a link, either directly the URL as value
> > or another link in the comment.
>
> This patch is to fix the compile error when -Werror=format-security is on.
> The bug report and the patch is at:
> https://sourceforge.net/p/skfans/bugs/4/
Please use:
Patch0: http://sf.net/p/skfans/bugs/4/attachment/%{name}-formatSecurity.patch
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1226926] Review Request: eclipse-e4-importer - Alternative importer of Eclipse projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226926
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||punto...@libero.it
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo ---
hi,
first of all welcome
Suggestion for spec file
you can use also
%pom_add_plugin org.eclipse.tycho:tycho-maven-plugin:'${tycho-version}' .
"true"
regards
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215046] Review Request: python-gear - Pure Python Async Gear Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215046 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- python-gear-0.5.7-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-gear-0.5.7-1.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 1215046] Review Request: python-gear - Pure Python Async Gear Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215046 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-gear-0.5.7-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-gear-0.5.7-1.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 1214840] Review Request: python-statsd - Python client for the statsd daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214840 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- python-statsd-2.1.2-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-statsd-2.1.2-2.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 1215046] Review Request: python-gear - Pure Python Async Gear Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215046 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-gear-0.5.7-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-gear-0.5.7-1.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 1215046] Review Request: python-gear - Pure Python Async Gear Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215046 Fedora Update System 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 1226926] Review Request: eclipse-e4-importer - Alternative importer of Eclipse projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226926 Sopot Cela changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1226926] New: Review Request: eclipse-e4-importer - Alternative importer of Eclipse projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226926 Bug ID: 1226926 Summary: Review Request: eclipse-e4-importer - Alternative importer of Eclipse projects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sc...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-e4-importer/eclipse-e4-importer-1.0.0-0.1.gitc0957a7.fc22.src.rpm SRPM URL: https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-e4-importer/eclipse-e4-importer.spec Description: The packaged Eclipse plugin provides UI entries to enable an alternative import mechanism, relying on discovery of projects (rather than user choice). More details at https://wiki.eclipse.org/E4/UI/Smart_Import . Fedora Account System Username: sopotc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1219411] Review Request: python34 - Version 3 of the Python programming language aka Python 3000
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219411 --- Comment #6 from Aurelien Bompard --- Oh one more thing, since you're using the python3_pkgversion macro, it would make sense to buildrequire the python3-pkgversion-macros package. I know it's supposed to be in the buildroot, but for those rebuilding the SRPM locally it would be helpful. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1213065] Review Request: hexer - ncurses-based binary editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1213065 --- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) --- Try pointing the fedora-review tool at this ticket: fedora-review -b 1213065 It evaluates the "Spec URL:" and "SRPM URL:" lines, downloads the latest packages, performs local test-builds and many checks related to the packaging guidelines. > please remove "_v1" postfix after download The better choice would have been to practice increasing "Release" for each package update: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes | Increase the "Release" tag every time you upload a new package to avoid | confusion. The reviewer and other interested parties probably still have | older versions of your SRPM lying around to check what has changed between | the old and new packages; those get confused when the revision didn't | change. > License: BSD A modified 3-clause BSD that adds a specific requirement for documenting changes in the README and the source files. Not really a hurdle for the current patch but can be easy to miss. > cc -O -DHEXER_VERSION=\"0.1.8\" -c -o buffer.o buffer.c https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags rpmlint: hexer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Patrik Hagara changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |VERIFIED -- 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 1206367] Review Request: gap-pkg-radiroot - Compute radicals for roots of solvable rational polynomials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206367 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo --- NON blocking issues found gap-pkg-radiroot.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-radiroot/GPL https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address Please, fix before import. informing upstream about this. 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 1206367] Review Request: gap-pkg-radiroot - Compute radicals for roots of solvable rational polynomials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206367 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |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 1206367] Review Request: gap-pkg-radiroot - Compute radicals for roots of solvable rational polynomials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206367
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
NOTE: manual review
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1206367-gap-pkg-radiroot/srpm
/review-gap-pkg-radiroot/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[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 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sb
[Bug 1206367] Review Request: gap-pkg-radiroot - Compute radicals for roots of solvable rational polynomials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206367 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075806] Review Request: fcgiwrap - Simple FastCGI wrapper for CGI scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075806 --- Comment #18 from Juan Orti --- I have no SELinux problems with the units shown below, just write the socket to /run/nginx or elsewhere already covered by the policy. Anyway, I agree that we should patch the provided units to work out of the box. # /etc/systemd/system/gitweb.socket [Unit] Description=GitWeb socket [Socket] SocketMode=0600 SocketUser=nginx SocketGroup=nginx ListenStream=/run/nginx/gitweb.sock [Install] WantedBy=sockets.target # /etc/systemd/system/gitweb.service [Unit] Description=GitWeb service [Service] ExecStart=/usr/sbin/fcgiwrap User=apache Group=apache -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1173625] Review Request: fcitx-qt5 - Fcitx IM module for Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173625 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- fcitx-qt5-1.0.2-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fcitx-qt5-1.0.2-2.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
