[Bug 1228024] Review Request: bundling-detection-java - Bundling detection tool for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228024 Michal Srb changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228024] New: Review Request: bundling-detection-java - Bundling detection tool for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228024 Bug ID: 1228024 Summary: Review Request: bundling-detection-java - Bundling detection tool for Java Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://msrb.fedorapeople.org/bundling-detection-java.spec SRPM URL: https://msrb.fedorapeople.org/bundling-detection-java-0.1-0.1.20150604git.fc23.src.rpm Description: This package contains bundling detection tool for Java archives (JARs). Fedora Account System Username: msrb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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] Review Request: pcp2pdf - Utility to create PDF reports from PCP archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227061 Michele Baldessari changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Michele Baldessari --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pcp2pdf Short Description: Utility to create PDF reports from PCP archives Upstream URL: https://github.com/performancecopilot/pcp2pdf Owners: mbaldessari Branches: 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 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 Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Michele Baldessari --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-jellyfish Short Description: A python library for doing approximate and phonetic matching of strings Upstream URL: https://github.com/sunlightlabs/jellyfish Owners: mbaldessari Branches: f22 f23 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 1224028] Review Request: rubygem-rmail-sup - A lightweight mail library written in ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224028 Praveen Kumar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Praveen Kumar --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-rmail-sup Short Description: A lightweight mail library written in ruby Upstream URL: http://sup.rubyforge.org/ Owners: kumarpraveen Branches: f21 f22 InitialCC: shreyankg -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1227981] Review Request: budget - Your own personal financial assistant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227981 --- Comment #1 from William Moreno --- Track issue with upstream: https://github.com/mthxx/Budget/issues/40 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1227981] New: Review Request: budget - Your own personal financial assistant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227981 Bug ID: 1227981 Summary: Review Request: budget - Your own personal financial assistant 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: http://rmsconsultoresnicaragua.com/rpmdev/budget.spec SRPM URL: http://rmsconsultoresnicaragua.com/rpmdev/budget-0.0.4-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Your own personal financial assistant 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 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 #23 from Dennis Payne --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dulsi/btbuilder/master/btbuilder.spec SRPM URL: http://identicalsoftware.com/btbuilder/btbuilder-0.5.3-1.fc22.src.rpm These are the same files as the last update. The SDL_mng review request is created. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227972 I've put in the changes you mentioned. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1227972] Review Request: SDL_mng - Library to load MNG files for SDL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227972 Dennis Payne 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 1227972] New: Review Request: SDL_mng - Library to load MNG files for SDL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227972 Bug ID: 1227972 Summary: Review Request: SDL_mng - Library to load MNG files for SDL Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: du...@identicalsoftware.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dulsi/SDL_mng/master/SDL_mng.spec SRPM URL: http://identicalsoftware.com/btbuilder/SDL_mng-0.2.2-3.fc22.src.rpm Description: This is a simple library to load mng animations as SDL surfaces. Fedora Account System Username:dulsi This package is needed for btbuilder. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693 Nathan Scott changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brol...@redhat.com, ||lb...@redhat.com Doc Type|Bug Fix |Enhancement Flags||fedora-review+ --- Doc Text *updated* --- Feature: New C++ API for Performance Co-Pilot PMDAs Reason: Object oriented interfaces augmenting the underlying C libraries providing more options for PCP PMDA developers. Result: Increased language coverage and features for PCP PMDA developers. --- Comment #25 from Nathan Scott --- Marking reviewed (by myself and Michael Schwendt) - no further follow ups received and all earlier recommendations incorporated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1146181] Review Request: sqliteodbc - SQLite ODBC Driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146181
Jan Holcapek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jan Holcapek ---
No blockers, just a few questions/suggestions.
- rpmlint on both source and binary rpms looks good.
- Great idea of providing a sample config odbc.ini.sample!
- Any special reason to require files (%{_bindir}/iconv, %{_bindir}/odbcinst})
rather than packages (glibc-common, unixODBC, respectively)?
- Ad "correct EOL" in %prep: wouldn't dos2unix do the work more easily?
- Ad checking executable odbcinst in %post and %preun is not required, since
there is a dependency to %{_bindir}/odbcinst, right? (And thus "true" at the
end of %post and %preun is not necessary, too.)
- The upstream src rpm comes with quite old libtool; shouldn't we consider
using the one from the distribution? That would require setting a new
build-time dependency and patching Makefile.
Anyway, good job!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 #21 from Fedora Update System --- python-num2words-0.5.2-6.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-num2words-0.5.2-6.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 1224082] Review Request: vagrant-atomic - Project Atomic guest for Vagrant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224082
Florian "der-flo" Lehner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Florian "der-flo" Lehner ---
Hi Josef!
It looks good :)
Cheers,
Florian
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/vagrant/gems/doc,
/usr/share/vagrant/gems, /usr/share/vagrant
[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]: 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 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]: 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:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
Lato-*.ttf and SourceCodePro-*.ttf are both under Public domain and GPL
and are part of the doc-subpackage
[-]: 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 vagrant-
atomic-doc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9935026
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to
[Bug 1223623] Review Request: python-num2words - Modules to convert numbers to words
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223623 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- python-num2words-0.5.2-6.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-num2words-0.5.2-6.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 1223623] Review Request: python-num2words - Modules to convert numbers to words
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223623 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 1227334] Review Request: libgudev - GObject-based wrapper library for libudev
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227334
Michele Baldessari changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mich...@acksyn.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mich...@acksyn.org
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Michele Baldessari ---
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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/michele/Fedora/Packages/libgudev/review-
libgudev/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gtk-doc, /usr/share
/gtk-doc/html, /usr/lib64/girepository-1.0, /usr/share/gir-1.0
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gtk-
doc/html/gudev(libgudev1-devel),
/usr/include/gudev-1.0/gudev(libgudev1-devel),
/usr/include/gudev-1.0(libgudev1-devel)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream,
[Bug 1223623] Review Request: python-num2words - Modules to convert numbers to words
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223623 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 1223623] Review Request: python-num2words - Modules to convert numbers to words
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223623 Jon Ciesla 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 1223623] Review Request: python-num2words - Modules to convert numbers to words
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223623 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1226557] Review Request: amsynth - A classic synthesizer with dual oscillators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226557
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
Just a quick comment:
> all packages that provide a dssi plugin are named like %{name}-dssi.
Likely those packages predate the %parent-%child naming guidelines and have not
been renamed.
Technically, these plugins are based on the DSSI Plugin API -- they all install
into %{_libdir}/dssi/ -- and therefore can be seen as add-ons to the "dssi"
package. Like LADSPA, where all LADSPA based plugins begin with "ladspa-":
$ dnf -q list \*ladspa |grep -v ^Avail|wc -l
1
$ dnf -q list ladspa\* |grep -v ^Avail|wc -l
17
There's also packages named
dssi-calf-plugins : subpackage of "calf" -> review bug 492974 from 2009
dssi-vst
dssi-vst-wine
which follow the %parent-%child naming scheme.
Yes, sometimes this is not easy, and packagers/reviewers have come up with what
they found plausible during review. Possibly years ago.
Reading up on DSSI, it is said at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_Soft_Synth_Interface
that it is old and that LV2 is considered a successor that reunites DSSI and
LADSPA.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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] Review Request: pcp2pdf - Utility to create PDF reports from PCP archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227061 --- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Oh, if you feel like doing a review, I have one outstanding: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227334. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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] Review Request: pcp2pdf - Utility to create PDF reports from PCP archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227061
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
= 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.
GPLv2+.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/pcp2pdf
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/pcp2pdf
[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 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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
Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
Rpmlint
---
Checking: pcp2pdf-0.3-2.fc23.noarch.rpm
pcp2pdf-0.3-2.fc23.src.rpm
pcp2pdf.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-matplotlib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
OK.
Requires
pcp2pdf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python3
config(pcp2pdf)
python(abi)
python3-matplotlib
python3-pcp
python3-reportlab
Provides
pcp2pdf:
config(pcp2pdf)
pcp2pdf
Please add the dir to %files. No issues otherwise. 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 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
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1227022-python-
jellyfish/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 40960 bytes in 10 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
Rpmlint
---
Checking: python-jellyfish-0.5.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm
python3-jellyfish-0.5.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm
python-jellyfish-0.5.0-2.fc23.src.rpm
python-jellyfish.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Levenshtein ->
Liechtenstein
python-jellyfish.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encodings ->
encoding, encoding s, recordings
python3-jellyfish.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Levenshtein
-> Liechtenstein
python3-jellyfish.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encodings ->
encoding, encoding s, recordings
python-jellyfish.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Levenshtein ->
Liechtenstein
python-jellyfish.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encodings ->
encoding, encoding s, recordings
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
python-jellyfish.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Levenshtein -
[Bug 1227061] Review Request: pcp2pdf - Utility to create PDF reports from PCP archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227061
--- Comment #2 from Michele Baldessari ---
Hi Zbigniew,
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1)
> - BuildRoot and defattr can be removed [1] (unless you're packaging for
> EPEL5 too).
Done as EPEL5 is out of scope.
> - This is a preference thing, but the guidelines say that macros should be
> used *for directories* [2]. There's no specification to use e.g.
> %{__install} instead of install. I personally think that this makes reading
> the spec file much harder for not gain.
Ok, I have changed this. I am running "install" instead of /usr/bin/install
and am assuming that the PATH will be set correctly in the buildroots.
> - Note for the future: bash completion file should go in
> %{_datadir}/bash-completion/completions/, not in /etc/bash_completions.d.
> The latter is a legacy location.
Thanks, I have added a comment in the spec file for future reference
> Requires
>
> pcp2pdf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> /usr/bin/python
> /usr/bin/python3
> config(pcp2pdf)
>
> The dependency on python looks wrong. Maybe there's a file header with
> #!/usr/bin/python somewhere?
Indeed there was a spurious line, which I removed.
> pcp2pdf.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Utility to creates PDF
> reports from Performance Co-Pilot archives. It allows to choose
>
> Also "s" in "creates" is unnecessary.
>
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
> [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros
Fixed.
Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/pcp2pdf/pcp2pdf.spec
SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/pcp2pdf/pcp2pdf-0.3-2.fc22.src.rpm
Thanks again,
Michele
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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
--- Comment #2 from Michele Baldessari ---
Hi Zbigniew,
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1)
> - %defattr is not needed
Done
> - I'd suggest adding %global _docdir_fmt %{name} to share license and doc
> dirs between subpackages
Makes sense, done
> - Afaics, the source is python 2/3 compatible, and 2to3 is not used. This
> means that most likely everything can be built from the same directory. So
> the whole thing with %{py3dir} can be removed.
I have done this as well. I have tested both packages and they work okay.
Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/python-jellyfish/python-jellyfish.spec
SRPM URL:
http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/python-jellyfish/python-jellyfish-0.5.0-2.fc22.src.rpm
Thanks for the review, much appreciated.
Michele
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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] Review Request: pcp2pdf - Utility to create PDF reports from PCP archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227061
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
- BuildRoot and defattr can be removed [1] (unless you're packaging for EPEL5
too).
- This is a preference thing, but the guidelines say that macros should be used
*for directories* [2]. There's no specification to use e.g. %{__install}
instead of install. I personally think that this makes reading the spec file
much harder for not gain.
- Note for the future: bash completion file should go in
%{_datadir}/bash-completion/completions/, not in /etc/bash_completions.d. The
latter is a legacy location.
Requires
pcp2pdf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python
/usr/bin/python3
config(pcp2pdf)
The dependency on python looks wrong. Maybe there's a file header with
#!/usr/bin/python somewhere?
pcp2pdf.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Utility to creates PDF reports
from Performance Co-Pilot archives. It allows to choose
Also "s" in "creates" is unnecessary.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1227701] Review Request: eclipse-launchbar - Alternative launcher toolbar for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227701 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 1227701] Review Request: eclipse-launchbar - Alternative launcher toolbar for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227701 Jon Ciesla 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 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
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
- %defattr is not needed
- I'd suggest adding %global _docdir_fmt %{name} to share license and doc dirs
between subpackages
- Afaics, the source is python 2/3 compatible, and 2to3 is not used. This means
that most likely everything can be built from the same directory. So the whole
thing with %{py3dir} can be removed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 826037] Review Request: prefuse - Visualization Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826037 --- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/prefuse.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/prefuse-20071021-0.2.beta.fc20.src.rpm - fix java8doc task Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9932861 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1227701] Review Request: eclipse-launchbar - Alternative launcher toolbar for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227701 Sopot Cela changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Sopot Cela --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: eclipse-launchbar Short Description: Alternative launcher toolbar for Eclipse Upstream URL: https://wiki.eclipse.org/CDT/LaunchBar Owners: sopotc Branches: f22 InitialCC: eclipse-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 1227701] Review Request: eclipse-launchbar - Alternative launcher toolbar for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227701 --- Comment #5 from Mat Booth --- Excellent, thanks. Please go ahead and submit the scm request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1222709] Review Request: memkind - User Extensible Heap Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222709 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.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 1227701] Review Request: eclipse-launchbar - Alternative launcher toolbar for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227701 --- Comment #4 from Sopot Cela --- Thanks for the review. I uploaded a new set of artifacts. I made the change on git_tag. I thought to keep the pom.xml there as it helps me being explicit at this stage. Spec URL:https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-launchbar/eclipse-launchbar.spec SRPM URL:https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-launchbar/eclipse-launchbar-1.0.0-0.2.gite1ac200.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 826037] Review Request: prefuse - Visualization Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826037 Cleber Rosa changed: What|Removed |Added CC|cr...@redhat.com| --- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/prefuse.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/prefuse-20071021-0.1.beta.fc20.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9931958 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1218025] Review Request: cashe - program and libraries for accessing a CAS cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218025
--- Comment #9 from Pavel Odvody ---
Further notes:
* the new spec doesn't make use of the %{?_smp_mflags}
* change %{dist} to %{?dist}
* replace %define with %global
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1227701] Review Request: eclipse-launchbar - Alternative launcher toolbar for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227701
Mat Booth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Mat Booth ---
I have just two stylistic suggestions:
First, may I suggest you use a macro to avoid repeating the git tag. For
example, at the top of the spec file:
%global git_tag e1ac2000de46fad83b39edc6a0d16103df4f8889
And everywhere else, do:
%{git_tag}
Then in the future when you update the package, you only have to change it in
one place.
Second, it should not be necessary to specify "-- -f pom.xml" since maven will
automatically use the pom.xml file in the current working directory.
This package is otherwise APPROVED
Review Report
=
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]: 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
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Maven:
[-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is pres
[Bug 1224028] Review Request: rubygem-rmail-sup - A lightweight mail library written in ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224028 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1224028] Review Request: rubygem-rmail-sup - A lightweight mail library written in ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224028 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- f20 is no longer accepting new packages, and InitialCC needs a FAS account name, not an email address. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619395] Review Request: mozc - Opensourced Google Japanese Input
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619395 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619395] Review Request: mozc - Opensourced Google Japanese Input
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619395 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1227701] Review Request: eclipse-launchbar - Alternative launcher toolbar for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227701 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |eclipse-launcher - |eclipse-launchbar - |Alternative launcher|Alternative launcher |toolbar for Eclipse |toolbar for Eclipse --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov --- Fix summary to match the spec/srpm name. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-06-03 08:16:36 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1227701] Review Request: eclipse-launcher - Alternative launcher toolbar for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227701 Mat Booth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mat.bo...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mat.bo...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mat Booth --- Taking -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223887] Review Request: atomicapp - Reference implementation of the Nulecule container application Specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223887 --- Comment #2 from Jan Chaloupka --- Thanks. Spec file updated. Also updated to version 0.1.1. Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/atomicapp/atomicapp.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/atomicapp/atomicapp-0.1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9928748 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 619395] Review Request: mozc - Opensourced Google Japanese Input
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619395 Akira TAGOH changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Akira TAGOH --- Package Change Request == Package Name: mozc New Branches: epel7 Owners: tagoh InitialCC: i18n-team -- 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 1227701] New: Review Request: eclipse-launcher - Alternative launcher toolbar for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227701 Bug ID: 1227701 Summary: Review Request: eclipse-launcher - Alternative launcher toolbar for Eclipse Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: 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-launcher/eclipse-launchbar.spec SRPM URL: https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-launcher/eclipse-launchbar-1.0.0-0.1.gite1ac200.fc22.src.rpm Description: This plugin provides an alternative to the default launcher toolbar in Eclipse 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 1094351] Review Request: kf5-sonnet - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 1 solution for spell checking
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094351 Jalal Ahmed changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jalal...@yahoo.com --- Comment #9 from Jalal Ahmed --- The problem is come again with Fedora 22: Spell checking with all qt5 and plasma 5 applications not working, as well as highlighting under misspell words. I am using Fedora 22, with KDE Plasma 5. GTK apps and qt4 apps work just fine with spell checking with them. Some apps which not working with spell checking, kwrite, konversation and kate. kate-15.04.0-1.fc22.x86_64 I have these packages installed: aspell-0.60.6.1-10.fc22.x86_64 aspell-en-7.1-8.fc22.x86_64 hunspell-1.3.3-4.fc22.x86_64 hunspell-en-GB-0.20140811.1-1.fc22.noarch hunspell-en-US-0.20140811.1-1.fc22.noarch hunspell-en-0.20140811.1-1.fc22.noarch gtkspell-2.0.16-9.fc22.x86_64 gtkspell3-3.0.7-1.fc22.x86_64 hunspell-ar-3.5-1.fc22.noarch aspell-ar-1.2-13.fc22.x86_64 When I run kate for example from the terminal it says: No language dictionaries for the language: "en" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821917] Review Request: mu - maildir utility with Emacs support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821917 Jonathan Underwood changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m Flags||needinfo?(maciek.borzecki@g ||mail.com) --- Comment #26 from Jonathan Underwood --- Hi Maciek, Are you still wanting to include this in Fedora? If so, I'll review it for you. 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 1223887] Review Request: atomicapp - Reference implementation of the Nulecule container application Specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223887 Petr Viktorin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pvikt...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Petr Viktorin --- Hi, You probably meant Requires rather than BuildRequires for python-anymarkup. Also, use %license on Fedora too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210356] Review Request: drumgizmo - a drum kit renderer (cli and lv2 plugin)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210356
--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
As fedora-review prints excerpts from the guidelines, those can be out-of-date.
More relevant are the printed links to the guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
It's only since the last edit of that Wiki page (January 2015) that %license is
mentioned in that section.
> %dir %{_libdir}/lv2/drumgizmo.lv2/
Without an explicit dependency on package "lv2", directory %{_libdir}/lv2/
would be without owner:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
AFAIR, LV2 still is not a shared lib that would result in an automatic
dependency.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1224082] Review Request: vagrant-atomic - Project Atomic guest for Vagrant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224082 --- Comment #2 from Josef Stribny --- Thanks, fixed in: Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/vagrant-atomic.spec SRPM: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/vagrant-atomic-0.1.0-2.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 1227446] Review Request: eclipse-tm-terminal - Terminal plugin for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227446 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-06-03 03:12:50 --- Comment #6 from Alexander Kurtakov --- Built in 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
