[Bug 1235422] Review Request: java-hll - Java library for the HyperLogLog algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1235422 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mizde...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mizde...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228090] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-graph - Zeta Graph Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228090 --- Comment #5 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Thanks, Fix: https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/4cfba970a6ce55e302258914c9b8dcfe9e8cab4d Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/4cfba970a6ce55e302258914c9b8dcfe9e8cab4d/php/zeta/php-zetacomponents-graph/php-zetacomponents-graph.spec Srpm: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-zetacomponents-graph-1.5.2-3.remi.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 1241632] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-seqdiag - Sphinx seqdiag extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241632 --- Comment #2 from Javier Peña jp...@redhat.com --- Hi Haïkel, I have reviewed the following packages: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1240116 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230161 I've also updated the spec file to include a Python3 build. Updated files are: Spec URL: https://sites.google.com/site/jpenapkg/files/python-sphinxcontrib-seqdiag.spec SRPM URL: https://sites.google.com/site/jpenapkg/files/python-sphinxcontrib-seqdiag-0.8.4-2.fc21.src.rpm Scratch build available at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10339073 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1014544] Review Request: almohawell - Linux Packages Installer and Convertor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014544
Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich kryz...@ispms.ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kryz...@ispms.ru
--- Comment #26 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich kryz...@ispms.ru ---
1. Perl modules should go to %{perl_vendorlib}. See [1].
2. There is no %license macros, only License tag. LICENSE and gpl-2.0.txt files
are to go in %doc.
3a. LICENSE file has wrong permissions: 775. Should be 644.
3b. almohawell file has wrong permissions: 775. Should be 755.
3c. pm files have wrong permissions: 775. Should be 644.
4. Package must have proper perl requirement. See [1].
5. In header, spaces and tabs are mixed. Please choose one of them.
6. In Description please add spaces after commas: ... Rpm, Deb, Tgz
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl?rd=Packaging/Perl
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203018] Review Request: baculum - WebGUI tool for Bacula Community program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203018 --- Comment #19 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net --- @Jonathan, I also like Marcin's contributions and I intend to sponsor him once this review is completed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241493] Review Request: libgrss - Library for easy management of RSS/Atom/Pie feeds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241493 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libgrss-0.6-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgrss-0.6-1.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 1241493] Review Request: libgrss - Library for easy management of RSS/Atom/Pie feeds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241493 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242328] Review Request: takari-tycho-support - Takari Tycho Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242328
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
IGNORE
- Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
Note: No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for
Fedora versions = 21
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
IGNORE
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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
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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files
[Bug 1242328] Review Request: takari-tycho-support - Takari Tycho Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242328 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- NON blocking issues: [!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. 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 1241838] Review Request: yubico-piv-tool - Tool for interacting with the PIV applet on a YubiKey NEO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241838 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelen jje...@redhat.com --- Thank you for review. I fixed all the addressed problems and updated spec file, as referenced in the original post. New srpm comes with new version tag: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/yubico-piv-tool-1.0.0-3.fc21.src.rpm There was problem with check, that was not working without RPATH, so I switched to the other method of removing it from binary using chrpath. Builds are also in copr: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jjelen/yubico-piv-tool/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203018] Review Request: baculum - WebGUI tool for Bacula Community program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203018 Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #15 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com --- In support of Marcin's Sponsor request, I'd like to point out that he contributed very helpfully to the review of python-importmagic (BZ #1241944) - if I were a sponsor I'd not hesitate sponsoring him. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1193878] Review Request: qmasterpassword - Stateless Master Password Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193878 Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bugs.mich...@gmx.net Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242328] Review Request: takari-tycho-support - Takari Tycho Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242328 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it 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 1014544] Review Request: almohawell - Linux Packages Installer and Convertor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014544 --- Comment #27 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich kryz...@ispms.ru --- 7. (optional) It would be great if you add man file(s). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203018] Review Request: baculum - WebGUI tool for Bacula Community program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203018
--- Comment #17 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net ---
Regarding selinux policy, you should not import the included binary policy
module directly:
semodule -i %{_datadir}/selinux/packages/%{name}/%{name}.pp 2/dev/null || :
but build it from source (.te file) first, instead.
make -f %{datadir}/selinux/devel/Makefile %{name}.pp
Of course, you need selinux-policy-devel for 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 1242091] Review Request: nodejs-smart-buffer - A smarter Buffer that keeps track of its own read and write positions while growing endlessly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242091
Zuzana Svetlikova zsvet...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zsvet...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zsvet...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Zuzana Svetlikova zsvet...@redhat.com ---
Move LICENSE to %license and shorten the summary, otherwise seems to be okay.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/kasicka/fedora-review/1242091-nodejs-
smart-buffer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[Bug 1221551] Review Request: nodejs-fs-vacuum - recursively remove empty directories -- to a point
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221551 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1221551] Review Request: nodejs-fs-vacuum - recursively remove empty directories -- to a point
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221551 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fs-vacuum-1.2.6-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-fs-vacuum-1.2.6-1.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 1221551] Review Request: nodejs-fs-vacuum - recursively remove empty directories -- to a point
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221551 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fs-vacuum-1.2.6-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-fs-vacuum-1.2.6-1.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 1203018] Review Request: baculum - WebGUI tool for Bacula Community program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203018 --- Comment #13 from Marcin Haba marcin.h...@bacula.pl --- Hello, Thanks for point me these not needed requires (chkconfig and service). I removed them and prepared new Spec and SRPM (attached below). About Apache integration, thanks for show me link to mod_authn_file. Some time ago I have done private research about Apache auth. Then I found info that storing plain text passwords for Apache works only for selected platforms. From htpasswd man page: -p Use plaintext passwords. Though htpasswd will support creation on all platforms, the httpd daemon will only accept plain text passwords on Windows and Netware. However, if I remember good, I have not tried this way for check with Apache. Spec URL: http://bacula.pl/baculum-2/baculum.spec SRPM URL: http://bacula.pl/baculum-2/baculum-7.0.6.0.1.b.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 1235422] Review Request: java-hll - Java library for the HyperLogLog algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1235422 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it 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 1235422] Review Request: java-hll - Java library for the HyperLogLog algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1235422 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: java-hll Short Description: Java library for the HyperLogLog algorithm Upstream URL: https://github.com/aggregateknowledge/java-hll 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 1241944] Review Request: python-importmagic - Python library to auto-magically add, remove and manage imports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241944 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com --- Great, thanks toy you both for the reviews and works you put into this, much appreciated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1235422] Review Request: java-hll - Java library for the HyperLogLog algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1235422
Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
[x] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[x] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[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 must be included in %doc.
[x] The spec file must be written in American English.
[x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use
sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once
imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this
package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with
this.
[x] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[x] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the
package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug
number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding
ExcludeArch line.
[x] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
Apply common sense.
[x] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
[x] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[x] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[x] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[x] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a
package which does create that directory.
[x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in
specific situations.)
[x] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example.
[x] Each package must consistently use macros.
[x] The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement,
but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
[x] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[x] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[x] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires:
%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[x] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[x] Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed
with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel
that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file,
you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be
[Bug 1241944] Review Request: python-importmagic - Python library to auto-magically add, remove and manage imports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241944 Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241944] Review Request: python-importmagic - Python library to auto-magically add, remove and manage imports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241944 --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-importmagic Short Description: Python library to auto-magically add, remove and manage imports Upstream URL: http://github.com/alecthomas/importmagic Owners: jgu Branches: f21 f22 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203018] Review Request: baculum - WebGUI tool for Bacula Community program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203018 --- Comment #14 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net --- Typos and errors in %description: The Baculum program allows the user to administrate and manage Bacula work. ^- administer ^- jobs, tasks? By using Baculum is possible to execute backup/restore operations, monitor ^- missing 'it' current Bacula jobs, media management and others. Baculum has integrated web ^- missing 'an' console that communicates with Bacula bconsole program. Given that it's possible to make this work with Apache, it'd be better to put lighttpd-specific files (and Requires:) into a subpackage, so that it's possible to install this without pulling in lighttpd. The ordering of the spec file sections is weird. Please put all %files sections at the bottom, just before %changelog. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215150] Review Request: python-pathlib - Object-oriented filesystem paths
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215150 --- Comment #9 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-pathlib Short Description: Object-oriented filesystem paths Upstream URL: https://pathlib.readthedocs.org/ Owners: hguemar apevec Branches: epel7 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 1014544] Review Request: almohawell - Linux Packages Installer and Convertor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014544 --- Comment #28 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich kryz...@ispms.ru --- Looks like my packaging knowledges are to be refreshed. Consider (2) is dropped. Sorry for the noise. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1222926] Review Request: nunit - unit-testing framework for .Net/mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222926
--- Comment #11 from Timotheus Pokorra timotheus.poko...@solidcharity.com ---
I just realized that I introduced new issues:
Issues:
===
- gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in nunit
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
- 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.
Note: License file license.html is marked as %doc instead of %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 3072000 bytes in 151 files.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
- update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in nunit
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
database
I will fix these now...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1230161] Review Request: jumanji - A highly customizable, minimalist WebKit web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230161 --- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- Okay, I've added a simple desktop file. Spec URL: https://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/jumanji/jumanji.spec SRPM URL: https://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/jumanji/jumanji-0-2.20111209git963b309.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 1242328] Review Request: takari-tycho-support - Takari Tycho Base
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242328 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: takari-tycho-support Short Description: Takari Tycho Base Owners: mizdebsk msimacek msrb 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 1228091] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-console-tools - Zeta ConsoleTools Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228091 --- Comment #5 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Good catch, thanks. Notice: in fact the generated autoloader is only used for tests, real consumer will use the ezcBase autoloader (but this one is unable to manage 2 directories... so cannot be used for tests) Fix: https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/fd6c7d4db35a09db35154eceede200548bc507e8 Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/fd6c7d4db35a09db35154eceede200548bc507e8/php/zeta/php-zetacomponents-console-tools/php-zetacomponents-console-tools.spec Srpm: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-zetacomponents-console-tools-1.7-3.remi.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 1215150] Review Request: python-pathlib - Object-oriented filesystem paths
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215150 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-pathlib Short Description: Object-oriented filesystem paths Upstream URL: https://pathlib.readthedocs.org/ Owners: hguemar apevec Branches: 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 1223464] Review Request: nuget - Package manager for NuGet repositories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223464
Timotheus Pokorra timotheus.poko...@solidcharity.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Timotheus Pokorra timotheus.poko...@solidcharity.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated. 798 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/reviewer/1223464-nuget/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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:
[-]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[Bug 1203018] Review Request: baculum - WebGUI tool for Bacula Community program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203018 --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com --- Hi Macin, some points fro looking over the spec file: 1) Please update the Release tag each time you make a change, and add a %changelog entry 2) What is the rationale behind the %post and %preun snippets that create/remove those symlinks? Why can they not simply be created in %install and packaged? At the very least the spec file needs some comments explaining why these operations are done in %post and %preun, but better would be find a way to not have to do that there. 3) It's not obligatory, but it strikes me that you do a lot of work manually in %install that would more normally be handled with a Makefile shipped with the upstream tarball. Since you're also upstream, have you considered using a Makefile (or autotools) to simplify installation for users and other distros in general? 4) adding a sub-package for apache configuration would adviseable 5) See all of Dominik's points above :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1221551] Review Request: nodejs-fs-vacuum - recursively remove empty directories -- to a point
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221551 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fs-vacuum-1.2.6-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-fs-vacuum-1.2.6-1.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 1203018] Review Request: baculum - WebGUI tool for Bacula Community program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203018
--- Comment #20 from Marcin Haba marcin.h...@bacula.pl ---
@Dominik, @Jonathan, Matthias:
Thank you for all your advises and recommendations in this Baculum request. It
is precious knowledge for me, specially as a beginner in RPM packaging.
@Dominik
Thanks for your correction English texts in Baculum package description. Thanks
also for indicate me proper sections ordering.
About Baculum working with Apache. It is good idea to have separate subpackages
for Apache and Lighttpd. I will work on it and I try to find common way in
Baculum to full support both web servers.
Generally Baculum works with Apache fine, but in this usage is not possible to
serve some Baculum functionalities (that I mentioned in Comment 6). If
finding solution for full Apache support be impossible, then I modify Baculum
code to hide these functionalities not supported in Apache environment and
inform about this fact in message on Baculum interface.
About SELinux compilation by Spec file. Thanks for show me proper sample, I
will use it and I will add selinux-policy-devel to requirements.
You said about unfettered access to web server users to bconsole with root
privilages. Baculum does not provide sudoers.d definition for bconsole. Users
have to choose in Baculum install wizard if they want to sudo or they want to
not sudo. If sudo access checked, then user need to provide prepared sudoers.d
file self. If sudo access not checked, then user need to make bconsole
accessible also self. Both solutions have their disadventages. Sudo for
lighttpd to execute bconole may sound OK specially that lighttpd user has
default as shell: /sbin/nologin. However it is root access to bconsole so it
may be not safe. Access without sudo also may sound OK, but customer need to
provide way to read bconsole.conf file by web server user for execute bconsole.
Steps to do by user after install Baculum are:
1) Choose in install wizard how Baculum should connect to bconsole
2) If connection using sudo then there is need provide sudoers.d
3) If connection using direct access (no sudo) then there is need to make
available reading bconsole.conf file by web server user (for
exec('/usr/sbin/bconsole -c /etc/bacula/etc.) and change web server user
shell.
All above three points are to choose by user.
There is at least a few additional barriers to force for get access to Baculum
and then bconsole.
1) Access to Baculum is realized by web server HTTP Basic auth (no internal
Bauclum login pages)
2) In Baculum is one admin role and can be a lot of normal users. All they have
own HTTP Basic credentials.
3) Normal users have assigned dedicated restricted consoles access defined as
Bacula Console ACL. It is restricted access from Bacula side (not Baculum
side), for example user1 can check only Bacula status, user2 can only run
specific one backup job. All these actions are done by Bacula administrator.
4) Baculum has defined possibility to execute only pre-defined commands in
bconsole. (no pipes, injections, etc..).
@Jonathan:
Thanks for info about update Release tag. I will have it on mind for next Spec
and SRPM.
About symlinks, I will check what can I do with them. Maybe you are right about
using them in %install way. I wll check it and I will add comments to Spec
file.
Using Makefile is really good idea. I will prepare this Makefile. Thank you for
this your idea :)
@Dominik, @Jonathan and Matthias:
Thank you again for your help. With each your comment the Baculum becomes
better :)
I will back here with new Spec and SRPM when I have all changes ready.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223464] Review Request: nuget - Package manager for NuGet repositories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223464 --- Comment #7 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz claudiorodr...@pereyradiaz.com.ar --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nuget Short Description: Package manager for .Net/Mono development platform Upstream URL: http://nuget.org/ Owners: elsupergomez mono-sig Branches: 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 1222926] Review Request: nunit - unit-testing framework for .Net/mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222926 --- Comment #12 from Timotheus Pokorra timotheus.poko...@solidcharity.com --- updated the spec and the srpm: Spec URL: https://tpokorra.fedorapeople.org/mono/nunit.spec SRPM URL: https://tpokorra.fedorapeople.org/mono/nunit-2.6.4-4.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1230161] Review Request: jumanji - A highly customizable, minimalist WebKit web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230161 Javier Peña jp...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jp...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Javier Peña jp...@redhat.com --- Please note this is an informal review. The spec looks ok to me, although I have found an issue: it is a GUI application, yet it does not provide a .desktop file (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#desktop). Checked with fedora-review, I did not find anything else worth commenting. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203018] Review Request: baculum - WebGUI tool for Bacula Community program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203018 --- Comment #18 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net --- Also, allowing the web server user unfettered access to the bconsole command as root seems like a security hole waiting to be exploited. Isn't there a way to authenticate users against PAM so that sudoers can be configured only for those users? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1222926] Review Request: nunit - unit-testing framework for .Net/mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222926 --- Comment #10 from Timotheus Pokorra timotheus.poko...@solidcharity.com --- updated the spec and the srpm: Spec URL: https://tpokorra.fedorapeople.org/mono/nunit.spec SRPM URL: https://tpokorra.fedorapeople.org/mono/nunit-2.6.4-3.fc23.src.rpm This now contains a nunit.desktop file, and also installs the icon in the right place. I have also fixed the requires for the devel 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 1089962] Review Request: radeontop - View GPU utilization off AMD/ATI Radeon devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089962
Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.mich...@gmx.net
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|bjoern.es...@gmail.com |bugs.mich...@gmx.net
Flags|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #11 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Summary:View GPU utilization off AMD/ATI Radeon devices
s/off/of/
Group: System Environment/Libraries
It's still not a library. ;)
Repeating my earlier comment, you may want drop the optional Group tag or pick
a more suitable group from /usr/share/doc/rpm/GROUPS.
%install
make install PREFIX=%{_prefix} DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
Something's broken here. This step recompiles the entire program using
different flags as in %build.
%doc README.md COPYING
Since early 2015, the guidelines want packagers to use the %license macro:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1089962] Review Request: radeontop - View GPU utilization of AMD/ATI Radeon devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089962 Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: radeontop - |Review Request: radeontop - |View GPU utilization off|View GPU utilization of |AMD/ATI Radeon devices |AMD/ATI Radeon devices Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1222926] Review Request: nunit - unit-testing framework for .Net/mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222926 --- Comment #13 from Timotheus Pokorra timotheus.poko...@solidcharity.com --- fixing another typo: updated the spec and the srpm: Spec URL: https://tpokorra.fedorapeople.org/mono/nunit.spec SRPM URL: https://tpokorra.fedorapeople.org/mono/nunit-2.6.4-5.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242709] New: Review Request: python-jupyter_core - Core Jupyter functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242709 Bug ID: 1242709 Summary: Review Request: python-jupyter_core - Core Jupyter functionality Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: or...@cora.nwra.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-jupyter_core.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-jupyter_core-4.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Core common functionality of Jupyter projects. This package contains base application classes and configuration inhertited by other projects. It doesn't do much on its own. Fedora Account System Username: orion -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242726] New: Review Request: perl-MooX-Log-Any - Role to add Log::Any
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242726 Bug ID: 1242726 Summary: Review Request: perl-MooX-Log-Any - Role to add Log::Any Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ticot...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ttorling.fedorapeople.org/perl-MooX-Log-Any/perl-MooX-Log-Any.spec SRPM URL: https://ttorling.fedorapeople.org/perl-MooX-Log-Any/perl-MooX-Log-Any-0.004001-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: A logging role building a very lightweight wrapper to Log::Any for use with your Moo or Moose classes. Connecting a Log::Any::Adapter should be performed prior to logging the first log message, otherwise nothing will happen, just like with Log::Any Fedora Account System Username:ttorling This is the third of four new packages to support meta-cpan (https://github.com/rehsack/meta-cpan) and Packager::Utils (https://github.com/rehsack/Packager-Utils) in Fedora. I am in need of 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 1242723] Review Request: perl-Alien-Packages - Find information of installed packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242723
Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
ISSUES:
- Better summary, perhaps: Find information of installed packages
- Need better description
- Need to install license with %license
- Drop %clean, %defattr(), rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install
- Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
- Need email in %changelog
- No need to specify:
Requires: perl(IPC::Cmd)
Requires: perl(IPC::Run)
Requires: perl(Module::Pluggable) = 4.5
will be generated automatically. I see no evidence that it uses IPC::Run?
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: Unknown or generated. 10 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/1242723-perl-
Alien-Packages/licensecheck.txt
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Alien(alien, perl-Alien-ROOT, perl-Alien-
SDL)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: 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
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be
[Bug 1242724] New: Review Request: perl-File-Find-Rule-Age - Rule to match on file age
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242724 Bug ID: 1242724 Summary: Review Request: perl-File-Find-Rule-Age - Rule to match on file age Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ticot...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ttorling.fedorapeople.org/perl-File-Find-Rule-Age/perl-File-Find-Rule-Age.spec SRPM URL: https://ttorling.fedorapeople.org/perl-File-Find-Rule-Age/perl-File-Find-Rule-Age-0.302-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: File::Find::Rule::Age makes it easy to search for files based on their age. DateTime and File::stat are used to do the behind the scenes work, with File::Find::Rule doing the Heavy Lifting Fedora Account System Username:ttorling koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10337931 copr: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/ttorling/perl-meta-cpan-support/monitor/ THis is the second of four new packages needed to support meta-cpan (https://github.com/rehsack/meta-cpan) and Packager::Utils (https://github.com/rehsack/Packager-Utils) in Fedora -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242663] Review Request: perl-Hash-Layout - Hashes with predefined levels, composite keys and default values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242663
Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
t/99_pod.t .. skipped: Test::Pod 1.14 required
t/99_podcoverage.t .. skipped: Test::Pod::Coverage 1.04 required
Looks like you should BR perl(Test::Pod) and perl(Test::Pod::Coverage)
= 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. 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/1242663-perl-Hash-
Layout/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Hash(perl-Hash-Case, perl-Hash-Flatten,
perl-Hash-MoreUtils, perl-Hash-Merge, perl-Hash-WithDefaults, perl-
Hash-MultiValue, perl-Hash-Merge-Simple, perl-Hash-Util-FieldHash-
Compat)
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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]: 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
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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]:
[Bug 1242723] New: Review Request: perl-Alien-Packages - Find information of installed packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242723 Bug ID: 1242723 Summary: Review Request: perl-Alien-Packages - Find information of installed packages Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ticot...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ttorling.fedorapeople.org/perl-Alien-Packages/perl-Alien-Packages.spec SRPM URL: https://ttorling.fedorapeople.org/perl-Alien-Packages/perl-Alien-Packages-0.003-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Alien::Packages - Find information of installed packages Fedora Account System Username: ttorling koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10337917 copr: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/ttorling/perl-meta-cpan-support/monitor/ This is one of four new packages needed to support meta-cpan (https://github.com/rehsack/meta-cpan) and Packager::Utils (https://github.com/rehsack/Packager-Utils) This is my first package submission. I am in need of 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 1234210] Review Request: pdf-stapler - tool for manipulating PDF documents from the command line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234210 --- Comment #2 from Globe Trotter itsme_...@yahoo.com --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) %description should be wrapped to 72 columns. But please change the text to something which describes what the package does (history is not relevant). I have included a short description but also left a bit of the history as well as the dependencyon PyPDF2. I think this will be helpful for future packagers. Summary should start with a capital letter. done Remove %defattr. done There are some stale comments, remove them too. I presume that these means the commented-out codes? Done, but for commented out Requires. No need to run sed in a loop, just pass all the file names to sed at once. I am not sure how to do this, please advise if this is a serious issue. Also, are you sure that you want to encode pypdf version in the file? This package will have to be updated whenever the pypdf package is updated to a new version. Why not remove the pypdf version (s/pypdf == .*/pypdf/) ? pyPdf is dead. The only update will be to PyPDF2. That is also my package which is also under review. So, at this point, this is not particularly an issue? New source rpms and spec files at: Spec URL: https://streaming.stat.iastate.edu/~stat580/fedora/pdf-stapler.spec SRPM URL: https://streaming.stat.iastate.edu/~stat580/fedora/pdf-stapler-0.3.0-1.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 1242194] Review Request: drbdmanage - Utility for managing multiple node DRBD9 clusters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242194
Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package is missing BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
We are shifting to python3 for F23+ so this should be built with python3 if
possible.
- License is GPLv3+ and Python (It includes argparse.py from python lib -
note this in the spec)
- Need:
%license COPYING
- I would install README with %doc
- %{mod_name} is unneeded.
- Fix rpmlint errors
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or generated. 12 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/export/home/orion/redhat/1242194-drbdmanage/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/dbus-1/system.d,
/usr/share/dbus-1, /etc/dbus-1, /usr/share/dbus-1/system-services
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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
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.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD
[Bug 1242098] Review Request: python-traitlets - A lightweight derivative of Enthought Traits for configuring Python objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242098 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1242709 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242709 [Bug 1242709] Review Request: python-jupyter_core - Core Jupyter functionality -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242709] Review Request: python-jupyter_core - Core Jupyter functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242709 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1242098 --- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Tests are failing - https://github.com/jupyter/jupyter_core/issues/32 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242098 [Bug 1242098] Review Request: python-traitlets - A lightweight derivative of Enthought Traits for configuring Python objects -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1234208] Review Request: PyPDF2 - A Pure-Python library built as a PDF toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234208 Globe Trotter itsme_...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |22 --- Comment #9 from Globe Trotter itsme_...@yahoo.com --- Thanks! I was just concerned because I have put in another package for review (pdf-stapler as a substitute for the deprecated pdftk) which ideally depends on PyPDF2 (but seems to work on pyPdf. (So, while the latter is what I am requiring in my build, the right package to require is PyPDF2.) Thanks for clarifying! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242727] New: Review Request: perl-MooX-Roles-Pluggable - Moo eXtension for pluggable roles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242727 Bug ID: 1242727 Summary: Review Request: perl-MooX-Roles-Pluggable - Moo eXtension for pluggable roles Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ticot...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ttorling.fedorapeople.org/perl-MooX-Roles-Pluggable/perl-MooX-Roles-Pluggable.spec SRPM URL: https://ttorling.fedorapeople.org/perl-MooX-Roles-Pluggable/perl-MooX-Roles-Pluggable-0.003-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: This module allows a class consuming several roles based on rules passed to Module::Pluggable::Object. Fedora Account System Username: ttorling koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10338401 copr: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/ttorling/perl-meta-cpan-support/monitor/ This is the fourth of four new packages to support meta-cpan (https://github.com/rehsack/meta-cpan) and Packager::Utils (https://github.com/rehsack/Packager-Utils) for Fedora. I am in need of 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 1230161] Review Request: jumanji - A highly customizable, minimalist WebKit web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230161 --- Comment #3 from Javier Peña jp...@redhat.com --- Thanks! It looks fine for me now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241838] Review Request: yubico-piv-tool - Tool for interacting with the PIV applet on a YubiKey NEO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241838
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- No issues found, review passed.
= 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]: 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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
[Bug 1230161] Review Request: jumanji - A highly customizable, minimalist WebKit web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230161 --- Comment #4 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- Thank you, 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 1230867] Review Request: felix-scr - Apache Felix Declarative Services Runtime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230867 Jie Kang jk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Jie Kang jk...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: felix-scr Short Description: Implementation of the Declarative Services specification 1.2 Upstream URL: http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-service-component-runtime.html Owners: jkang 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 1239160] Review Request: python-flask-cache - Adds cache support to your Flask application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239160 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-flask-cache-0.13.1-3.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 951496] Review Request: gimp-lensfun - gimp plugin to correct lens distortion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951496 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|gimp-lensfun-0.2.3-1.fc22 |gimp-lensfun-0.2.3-1.fc21 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gimp-lensfun-0.2.3-1.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 1232580] Review Request: purple-line - libpurple (Pidgin, Finch) protocol plugin for LINE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232580 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- purple-line-20150426git9b7b019-1.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 985753] Review Request: dfuzzer - Fuzzer for processes connected to D-Bus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985753 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dfuzzer-1.4-1.fc22.1 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1229610] Review Request: doxy2man - Create man pages from doxygen XML output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229610 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||doxy2man-0-1.20150625git.fc ||22 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- doxy2man-0-1.20150625git.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1232777] Review Request: nodejs-spdx-license-ids - A list of SPDX license identifiers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232777 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-spdx-license-ids-1.0.1-1.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 1232433] Review Request: python-certifi - Python package for providing Mozilla's CA Bundle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232433 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package python-certifi-2015.04.28-5.fc22, livereload-2.4.0-8.fc22: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing python-certifi-2015.04.28-5.fc22 livereload-2.4.0-8.fc22' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-11367/python-certifi-2015.04.28-5.fc22,livereload-2.4.0-8.fc22 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858062] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt - Qt5 for Windows - QtActiveQt component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858062 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt-5.4.2- ||1.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-07-13 15:05:39 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt-5.4.2-1.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 1230968] Review Request: livereload - Command line utility for starting a server in a directory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230968 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package python-certifi-2015.04.28-5.fc22, livereload-2.4.0-8.fc22: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing python-certifi-2015.04.28-5.fc22 livereload-2.4.0-8.fc22' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-11367/python-certifi-2015.04.28-5.fc22,livereload-2.4.0-8.fc22 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228089] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-base - Zeta Base Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228089 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||php-zetacomponents-base-1.9 ||-2.fc21 Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-zetacomponents-base-1.9-2.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 858062] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt - Qt5 for Windows - QtActiveQt component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858062 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt-5.4.2- |mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt-5.4.2- |1.fc21 |1.fc22 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-qt5-qtactiveqt-5.4.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1230874] Review Request: felix-scr-maven-plugin - Maven plugin for generating OSGi Declarative Services annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230874 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- felix-scr-maven-plugin-1.21.0-2.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 1239067] Review Request: libaudclient - audacious D-Bus remote control library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239067 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libaudclient-3.5-0.2.rc2.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 951496] Review Request: gimp-lensfun - gimp plugin to correct lens distortion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951496 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||gimp-lensfun-0.2.3-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-07-13 15:10:57 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gimp-lensfun-0.2.3-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1228089] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-base - Zeta Base Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228089 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|php-zetacomponents-base-1.9 |php-zetacomponents-base-1.9 |-2.fc21 |-2.fc22 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-zetacomponents-base-1.9-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1235364] Review Request: python-mysql - Python interface to MySQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1235364 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-mysql-1.3.6-4.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 1240634] Review Request: python-afl - Module that enables Afl fork server for Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1240634 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-afl-0.2-1.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 1231951] Review Request: springframework-data-mongodb - MongoDB support for Spring Data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231951 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||springframework-data-mongod ||b-1.5.2-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-07-13 15:16:35 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- springframework-data-mongodb-1.5.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1233987] Review Request: gap-pkg-cryst - GAP support for crystallographic groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233987 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gap-pkg-cryst-4.1.12-1.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 1199819] Review Request: nodejs-fd-slicer - Create multiple stream objects from the same file descriptor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199819 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fd-slicer-1.0.1-1.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 1236565] Review Request: nodejs-builtins - List of node.js builtin modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1236565 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-builtins-1.0.2-1.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 907261] Review Request: poly2tri - A 2D constrained Delaunay triangulation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907261 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- poly2tri-0.0-10.20130501hg26242d0aa7b8.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 1230965] Review Request: php-doctrine-doctrine-cache-bundle - Symfony Bundle for Doctrine Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230965 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|php-doctrine-doctrine-cache |php-doctrine-doctrine-cache |-bundle-1.0.1-2.fc21|-bundle-1.0.1-2.el7 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-doctrine-doctrine-cache-bundle-1.0.1-2.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 1233985] Review Request: gap-pkg-nq - Nilpotent Quotients of finitely presented groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233985 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||gap-pkg-nq-2.5.1-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-07-13 15:09:13 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gap-pkg-nq-2.5.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1226719] Review Request: menulibre - FreeDesktop.org compliant menu editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226719
Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com
--- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- Need to own %{datadir}/menulibre, change:
%{_datadir}/menulibre/ui/MenulibreWindow.ui
to
%{_datadir}/menulibre/
- BR python3 is redundant and not needed
- Remove %clean
- Fix rpmlint errors
= 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: GPL (v3). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/export/home/orion/redhat/1226719-menulibre/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/menulibre, /usr/share/menulibre/ui
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/menulibre,
/usr/share/menulibre/ui
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in menulibre
[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 51200 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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
[Bug 1194902] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-util-options - Grunt util for getting options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194902 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-grunt-util-options-0.0.2-2.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 1224800] Review Request: xfce-bluetooth - A bluetooth manager for XFCE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224800 Bug 1224800 depends on bug 1224801, which changed state. Bug 1224801 Summary: Please build for EPEL7 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224801 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1237119] Review Request: nodejs-require-inject - A simple mock injector compatible needing no instrumentation in the libraries being tested
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1237119 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-require-inject-1.2.0-1.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 1231262] Review Request: debbuild - Build Debian-compatible .deb packages from RPM .spec files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231262 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- debbuild-0.10.1-5.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 1070482] Review Request: reaver - Brute force attack against Wifi Protected Setup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070482 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|reaver-1.4-3.el6|reaver-1.4-3.el7 --- Comment #59 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- reaver-1.4-3.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 1235404] Review Request: pristine-tar - Regenerate pristine tarballs from version control systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1235404 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||or...@cora.nwra.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- This seems like fairly old code. Is it of particular use to you or something else? I'm also concerned that it appears to bundle gzip and bzip2 code. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1083720] Review Request: python-hwloc - Python bindings for hwloc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1083720 --- Comment #2 from Guy Streeter stree...@redhat.com --- Latest versions: http://people.redhat.com/streeter/python-hwloc-2.0.7-1.10.0.fc21.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/streeter/python-hwloc.spec http://people.redhat.com/streeter/python3-hwloc-2.1-1.10.0.fc21.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/streeter/python3-hwloc.spec COPR built for Fedora 21, 22 at https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/streeter/python-hwloc/ Do I need a separate review request for the python3 version? By the way, this package requires python(3)-libnuma. I am currently preparing a review request for 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 1209446] Review Request: carbonate - Utilities for managing graphite clusters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209446 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- carbonate-0.2.2-1.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 1242289] Review Request: rubygems-fpm - Ruby Package Builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242289 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Looks like this depends on some other gems first? Error: Package: rubygem-fpm-1.3.3-1.fc21.noarch (/rubygem-fpm-1.3.3-1.fc21.noarch) Requires: rubygem(arr-pm) = 0.0.9 Error: Package: rubygem-fpm-1.3.3-1.fc21.noarch (/rubygem-fpm-1.3.3-1.fc21.noarch) Requires: rubygem(clamp) 1 Error: Package: rubygem-fpm-1.3.3-1.fc21.noarch (/rubygem-fpm-1.3.3-1.fc21.noarch) Requires: rubygem(arr-pm) 0.1 Error: Package: rubygem-fpm-1.3.3-1.fc21.noarch (/rubygem-fpm-1.3.3-1.fc21.noarch) Requires: rubygem(clamp) = 0.6 Error: Package: rubygem-fpm-1.3.3-1.fc21.noarch (/rubygem-fpm-1.3.3-1.fc21.noarch) Requires: rubygem(cabin) = 0.6.0 are there reviews for those? They should block this one if so. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070482] Review Request: reaver - Brute force attack against Wifi Protected Setup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070482 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|reaver-1.4-3.fc21 |reaver-1.4-3.el6 --- Comment #58 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- reaver-1.4-3.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 1237247] Review Request: nghttp2 - library implementing the HTTP/2 protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1237247 David Kaspar dkas...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dkas...@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 1014544] Review Request: almohawell - Linux Packages Installer and Convertor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014544 --- Comment #29 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- 1. This is not common Perl modules .. This just for Almohawell modules and no need to be in common. 2. FOUND 3. FIXED 4. What requires I miss ?? 5. FIXED 6. FIXED 7. ADDED Spec : http://ojuba.org/test/almohawell.spec SRPM : http://ojuba.org/test/almohawell-9.3.2-4.oj35.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 1014544] Review Request: almohawell - Linux Packages Installer and Convertor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014544 Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1242630 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242630 [Bug 1242630] Can't exec dpkg-parsechangelog -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
