[Bug 755510] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510 Jens Lody changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@jenslody.de --- Comment #85 from Jens Lody --- Informal review: From a quick look: you need to run glib-compile-schemas in %postun and %posstrans, except for most recent rawhide with file-triggers, see my review-request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246903 . Running glib-compile-schemas in %build is most likely unneeded. You just need to install the xml.file in the the systems schemas-folder. You need to reflect the mixed licenses in the License-tag and add ann additional comment: e.g. "# The entire source code is GPLv3+ except convenience.js, which is BSD\nLicense:GPLv3+ and BSD" . Two javascript-files and the two shell-scripts are without a license-header, this might be okay, but probably it should be stated explicitely in the license-file (COPYING). AN upstream is probably the best idea to get rid of this problem. cleaning the buildroot is not needed and shuld not be doen (except for older EPEL), The schams subfolder in the shell-extensions directory is not needed (just for local installs below "~/.local" . You do not own the shell-extensions folder, see also my review-request for this issue and a solution. I think the %if-clause at the top of the spec-file is not needed any longer, because FC17 has reached EOL several years ago. That's all after a quick look. I try to look into it deeper after coming back from work. Jens -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1256435] Review Request: metapixel - photomosaic generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256435
Miroslav Suchý changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(msu...@redhat.com |
|) |
--- Comment #8 from Miroslav Suchý ---
SPEC in #7 differs from SPEC file included in SRPM in #7.
> %{_mandir}/man1/metapixel.1
This should be:
%{_mandir}/man1/metapixel.1*
> Requires: libpng
> Requires: libjpeg
> Requires: giflib
This is not needed. Rpm automatically guess this dependency and generate e.g
for libjpeg those deps:
libjpeg.so.62()(64bit)
libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit)
which is more precise than listing libjpeg explicitely.
>%changelog
> * Wed Aug 26 2015 Neil Horman - 1.0.2
As I said, you should user release in changelog entry as well. Therefore:
* Wed Aug 26 2015 Neil Horman - 1.0.2-1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061732] Review Request: python-flask-restful - RESTful library for Flask
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061732 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061732] Review Request: python-flask-restful - RESTful library for Flask
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061732 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- python-flask-restful-0.3.4-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-13802 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1045963] Review Request: ghc-gtk3 - Binding to the Gtk+ graphical user interface library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045963 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #18 from Jens Petersen --- Thank you very much, Pranav -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061732] Review Request: python-flask-restful - RESTful library for Flask
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061732 Jan Sedlák changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-08-31 04:35:44 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061732] Review Request: python-flask-restful - RESTful library for Flask
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061732 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- python-flask-restful-0.3.4-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-13803 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1172724] Review Request: pyotherside - Asynchronous Python 3 Bindings for Qt 5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172724 Martin Kolman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-08-31 04:45:06 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #6 from Petr Šabata ---
(In reply to William Moreno from comment #5)
> 1- You SHOULD add a appdata.xml file to show this app in Gnome Software
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData
I don't think this browser aims at standard desktop users but I'll consider it.
> 3- This BR are not needed: coreutils make sed
They are. Multiple utilities from coreutils are called in the Makefile, so is
sed. Additionally, sed is called in the spec file, too.
> 4- This app do not have a icon, so I will recomend add this line
> to the desktop file:
>
> Icon=web-browser
This doesn't appear to be a universal name (few icon sets seem to have it) but
I'm no expert on the matter. I'll add it.
> 5- [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> In build I will recomend to use make %{?_smp_mflags}
CFLAGS are set on line 45. I'll add the flags for make. Missed that, thanks.
b> Please fix these issues to check:
> [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
I hope it does :)
> Provides
>
> jumanji:
> application()
> application(jumanji.desktop)
> jumanji
> jumanji(x86-64)
Do you have an idea what the empty `application()' virtual provide means?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1202805] Review Request: owncloud-client - The ownCloud Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202805 --- Comment #19 from Nikos Roussos --- Thanks for the review. I updated the spec. I think I fixed all of the above issues. SPEC: https://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/specs/owncloud-client.spec SRPM: https://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/srpms/owncloud-client-1.8.4-2.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1230161] Review Request: jumanji - A highly customizable, minimalist WebKit web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230161 --- Comment #7 from Petr Šabata --- * make flags added * Icon defined in the desktop file Spec: https://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/jumanji/jumanji.spec SRPM: https://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/jumanji/jumanji-0-3.20111209git963b309.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 1216279] Review Request: cppformat - Small, safe and fast formating library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1216279
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Antonio Trande ---
Package approved.
Note:
The'private-shared-object-provides' issue is not solved yet.
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1253917
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 33
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1216279-cppformat/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:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
cppformat-doc
[ ]: Package functions as describ
[Bug 1258405] New: Review Request: python-colorclass - Yet another ANSI color text library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258405 Bug ID: 1258405 Summary: Review Request: python-colorclass - Yet another ANSI color text library for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rene.rib...@free.fr QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://uggla.free.fr/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-colorclass.spec SRPM URL: uggla.free.fr/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-colorclass-1.2.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Colorful worry-free console applications for Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows. Yet another ANSI color text library for Python. Provides “auto colors” for dark/light terminals. Works on Linux, OS X, and Windows. Fedora Account System Username: uggla -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||i...@cicku.me -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #8 from Christopher Meng --- Why are these hardcoded? BuildRequires:binutils BuildRequires:coreutils BuildRequires:make BuildRequires:pkgconfig BuildRequires:sed BuildRequires:glibc-devel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1257695] Review Request: signon-glib - Single signon authentication library for GLib applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1257695 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jgrul...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jgrul...@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 1257696] Review Request: telepathy-accounts-signon - Telepathy providers for libaccounts/libsignon borrowed from Empathy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1257696 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jgrul...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jgrul...@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 1230161] Review Request: jumanji - A highly customizable, minimalist WebKit web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230161 --- Comment #9 from Petr Šabata --- Because they're all needed for build of this package, Christopher. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1257695] Review Request: signon-glib - Single signon authentication library for GLib applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1257695 --- Comment #1 from Jan Grulich --- Doesn't build, see: ./autogen.sh: line 13: gtkdocize: command not found I guess you are missing BuildRequires: gtk-doc. And doesn't build even later with added BR: gtk-doc because of: libsignon-glib/Makefile.am:1: error: Libtool library used but 'LIBTOOL' is undefined libsignon-glib/Makefile.am:1: The usual way to define 'LIBTOOL' is to add 'LT_INIT' libsignon-glib/Makefile.am:1: to 'configure.ac' and run 'aclocal' and 'autoconf' again. libsignon-glib/Makefile.am:1: If 'LT_INIT' is in 'configure.ac', make sure libsignon-glib/Makefile.am:1: its definition is in aclocal's search path. /usr/share/automake-1.15/am/ltlibrary.am: warning: 'libsignon-glib.la': linking libtool libraries using a non-POSIX /usr/share/automake-1.15/am/ltlibrary.am: archiver requires 'AM_PROG_AR' in 'configure.ac' libsignon-glib/Makefile.am:1: while processing Libtool library 'libsignon-glib.la' libsignon-glib/Makefile.am: installing 'build-aux/depcomp' pygobject/Makefile.am:2: installing 'build-aux/py-compile' autoreconf: automake failed with exit status: 1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1254778] Review Request: pidgin-epel - A Gtk+ based multiprotocol instant messaging client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1254778 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- pidgin-epel-2.10.7-25.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7858 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1254778] Review Request: pidgin-epel - A Gtk+ based multiprotocol instant messaging client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1254778 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1257695] Review Request: signon-glib - Single signon authentication library for GLib applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1257695 --- Comment #2 from Jan Grulich --- I tried to build it for rawhide using fedora-review (the output above). When I try to build it locally then it builds fine, but reveals also wrong %files section, see: Processing files: signon-glib-devel-1.9-1.fc22.x86_64 error: File not found: /home/jgrulich/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/signon-glib-1.9-1.fc22.x86_64/usr/lib64/girepository-1.0/Signon-1.0.typelib error: File not found: /home/jgrulich/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/signon-glib-1.9-1.fc22.x86_64/usr/share/gir-1.0/Signon-1.0.gir error: File not found by glob: /home/jgrulich/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/signon-glib-1.9-1.fc22.x86_64/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/gi/overrides/Signon.* -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1257696] Review Request: telepathy-accounts-signon - Telepathy providers for libaccounts/libsignon borrowed from Empathy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1257696 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jan Grulich --- 1) The license should be LGPLv2+ according to source files 2) Missing %license COPYING.LGPL in %files section Minor issues, the package can be approved and both issues fixed later or during import. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258241] Review Request: nodejs-basic-auth-parser - Parse Basic Auth Authorization HTTP headers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258241 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu 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 1258241] Review Request: nodejs-basic-auth-parser - Parse Basic Auth Authorization HTTP headers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258241
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1258241-nodejs-basic-auth-
parser/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: 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).
[?]: 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
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-basic-auth-parser-0.0.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
nodejs
[Bug 1258241] Review Request: nodejs-basic-auth-parser - Parse Basic Auth Authorization HTTP headers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258241 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes --- Looks fine. Package 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 1258162] Review Request: nodejs-after - Nodejs module which provides after flow control
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258162 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu 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 1258162] Review Request: nodejs-after - Nodejs module which provides after flow control
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258162
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1258162-nodejs-
after/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: 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).
[?]: 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
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-after-0.8.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
nodejs-after-0.8.1-1.fc24.src.
[Bug 1258162] Review Request: nodejs-after - Nodejs module which provides after flow control
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258162 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes --- All looks good. Package 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 1256097] Review Request: synapse - Semantic launcher written in Vala
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256097 --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Tonet Jallo from comment #9) > New Package SCM Request > === > Package Name: synapse > Short Description: Semantic launcher written in Vala > Upstream URL: https://launchpad.net/synapse-project > Owners: tonet666p > Branches: f21 f22 f23 > InitialCC: tonet666p Don't be hasty, I never give + on this. Reviewing 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 1258151] Review Request: nodejs-async-cache - Cache your async lookups and don't fetch the same thing more than necessary
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258151 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu 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 1258151] Review Request: nodejs-async-cache - Cache your async lookups and don't fetch the same thing more than necessary
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258151
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1258151-nodejs-async-
cache/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: 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).
[?]: 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
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-async-cache-1.0.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
nodejs-async-cache
[Bug 1258151] Review Request: nodejs-async-cache - Cache your async lookups and don't fetch the same thing more than necessary
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258151 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes --- Package 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 1258156] Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and comparison functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258156 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu 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 1258156] Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and comparison functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258156
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1258156-nodejs-
samsam/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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).
[?]: 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
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-samsam-1.1.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
nodejs-samsam-1.1.2-1.fc24.s
[Bug 1258430] New: Review Request: dolphin - KDE File Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258430 Bug ID: 1258430 Summary: Review Request: dolphin - KDE File Manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dvra...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/applications/review/dolphin.spec SRPM URL: https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/applications/review/dolphin-15.08.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: KDE File Manager Fedora Account System Username: dvratil Dolphin has been split out from kde-baseapps in Applications 15.08 release, so I want to unretire the Dolphin package. The spec file has been written from scratch, because there's nothing in-common with the old one (just the name :-)) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258156] Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and comparison functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258156 --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes --- Just one spelling error from rpmlint: nodejs-samsam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US identifiying -> identifying, identified nodejs-samsam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US identifiying -> identifying, identified -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258430] Review Request: dolphin - KDE File Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258430 Daniel Vrátil changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews) Alias||dolphin Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997 [Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258159] Review Request: nodejs-lolex - Fake JavaScript timers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t...@compton.nu --- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes --- URLs are for formatio not lolex. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1174974] Review Request: python-mox3 - Mock object framework for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174974 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mru...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #19 from Matthias Runge --- Ooops, this somehow slipped through. I will have a second look. Alan, I agree with you, py3 tests failing for something trying to fix exact py3 issues doesn't look right. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258159] Review Request: nodejs-lolex - Fake JavaScript timers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258159 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu 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 1258145] Review Request: nodejs-get-stdin - Nodejs module for easier stdin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258145 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes --- Needs updating to new 5.0.0 upstream release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258137] Review Request: nodejs-run-parallel-limit - Run functions in parallel with a limit on concurrent tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258137 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu 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 1254828] Review Request: python-networking-bigswitch - big switch neutron plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1254828 --- Comment #25 from Ihar Hrachyshka --- Make sure all descriptions mention neutron, since it's neutron specific. Otherwise looks good, and I believe we should proceed with merging it into Fedora and RDO. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258430] Review Request: dolphin - KDE File Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258430
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng ---
%packagedevel
Requires: qt5-qtbase-devel%{?_isa}
Requires: kf5-kio-devel%{?_isa}
%{?_isa} is needed if required package is not noarch.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258137] Review Request: nodejs-run-parallel-limit - Run functions in parallel with a limit on concurrent tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258137
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1258137-nodejs-run-parallel-
limit/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: 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).
[?]: 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
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-run-parallel-limit-1.0.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
node
[Bug 1258137] Review Request: nodejs-run-parallel-limit - Run functions in parallel with a limit on concurrent tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258137 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes --- All looks good. Package 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 1224800] Review Request: xfce-bluetooth - A bluetooth manager for Xfce
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224800 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- xfce-bluetooth-0-0.4.20150130git.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14649 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1256097] Review Request: synapse - Semantic launcher written in Vala
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256097 --- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng --- Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: === - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines = MUST items = C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck: *No copyright* GPL (v3 or later) synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/ssh-plugin.vala GPL (v2 or later) - synapse-0.2.99.1/build-aux/ltmain.sh synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/banshee-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/calculator-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/chat-actions-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/command-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/desktop-file-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/devhelp-search.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/dictionary.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/directory-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/file-op-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/gnome-screensaver-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/gnome-session-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/hello-world-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/hybrid-search-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/imgur-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/launchpad-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/locate-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/opensearch.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/pastebin-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/pidgin-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/rhythmbox-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/selection-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/system-management.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/test-slow-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/xnoise-media-player-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/zeitgeist-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/zeitgeist-related.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/tile-view/abstract-tile-object.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/tile-view/tile-view.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/tile-view/tile.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/tile-view/wrap-label.vala GPL (v3 or later) - synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/chromium-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/plugins/gnome-bookmarks-plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/category.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/controller.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/icon-cache-service.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/interfaces.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/keybindings.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/model.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/settings.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/synapse-main.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/utils.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/view-base.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/view-default.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/view-doish.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/view-essential.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/view-side-doish.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/view-virgilio.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/widgets-matchlistview.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/ui/widgets.vala LGPL (v2 or later) -- synapse-0.2.99.1/src/core/config-service.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/core/volume-service.vala LGPL (v2.1 or later) synapse-0.2.99.1/src/core/common-actions.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/core/data-sink.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/core/dbus-service.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/core/desktop-file-service.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/core/match.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/core/plugin.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/core/query.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/core/relevancy-backend-zg.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/core/relevancy-service.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/core/result-set.vala synapse-0.2.99.1/src/core/utils.vala [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: %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. [-]: 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]: Packag
[Bug 1230161] Review Request: jumanji - A highly customizable, minimalist WebKit web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230161 Jens Lody changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@jenslody.de --- Comment #10 from Jens Lody --- (In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #9) > Because they're all needed for build of this package, Christopher. All these packages are (have been) part of the minimal build environment as stated in the Packaging:Guidelines, either directly or as dependency. I tried to find recent documentation about this, but all I found is a change in the Packaging:Guidelines from 8. January 2015, where the list has been removed. The description of the change is "Remove duplicate \"man pages\" section". So the exceptions might still be valid. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1213184] Review Request: grantlee-qt5 - Qt string template engine based on the Django template system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1213184 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- grantlee-qt5-5.0.0-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14650 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258157] Review Request: nodejs-formatio - Human-readable object formatting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258157 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu 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 1258157] Review Request: nodejs-formatio - Human-readable object formatting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258157
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1258157-nodejs-
formatio/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.
[-]: 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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).
[?]: 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.
[?]: %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
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-formatio-1.1.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
nodejs-formatio-1.1.2-1.
[Bug 1258157] Review Request: nodejs-formatio - Human-readable object formatting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258157 --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes --- I haven't been able to run the tests because buster is refusing to install cleanly but other than that it looks ok. Do autolint.js and buster.js actually need to be installed I wonder? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258430] Review Request: dolphin - KDE File Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258430 --- Comment #2 from Kevin Kofler --- Well, some code from the old KDE 3 version is probably still there somewhere. ;-) But packaging-wise, it's completely different, sure, so I'd also have rewritten the spec file from scratch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #11 from Petr Šabata --- True, there used to be a list of exceptions, packages that were guaranteed to be present in every buildroot. This list was dropped for multiple reasons -- to simplify the guidelines and to achieve minimal smaller minimal buildroots, among others. See the relevant discussions on devel@ and packaging@ mailing lists. Nowadays, there is no guarantee for anything to be in the minimal buildroot and every package is expected to explicitly require what it uses. There's nothing wrong with it, quite the contrary. If you naively expect some of you dependencies to bring in some other of your dependencies for you, your package might break at any time in the future when the dependency chain changes. Frankly, I don't understand this strong opposition against correct dependency lists. It doesn't cause any harm, only helps. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258430] Review Request: dolphin - KDE File Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258430 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu 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 1258182] Review Request: go-compilers - Go language compilers for various architectures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258182
--- Comment #1 from Jan Chaloupka ---
After discussion with Jakub, compile.sh removed, definition of gobuild and
gotest moved to macros. macros.go-compilers now contains:
%gobuild() \
function gobuild { \
local LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:-} -B 0x$(head -c20 /dev/urandom|od -An -tx1|tr -d '
\\n')" \
go build -compiler gc-ldflags "${LDFLAGS:-}" -a -v -x "$@"; \
} \
gobuild %{*}
%gotest() \
function gotest { go test -compiler gc-ldflags "${LDFLAGS:-}" "$@"; } \
gotest %{*}
Use:
%{gobuild} -o bin/go-md2man %{import_path}
%{gotest} %{import_path}
%{gobuild} can be used multiple times as gobuild function is only redefined.
The same holds for %{gotest}. At the moment, the package ships only
macros.go-compilers file.
Spec URL:
https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/go-compilers/go-compilers.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/go-compilers/go-compilers-1-1.fc20.src.rpm
koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10894598
ppc-koji: http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2726756
s390-koji: http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1939913
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 #12 from Jens Lody --- There's nothing wrong with requiring what I need to build, of course. I did not (yet) read the discussion, but one question pops up: what's in the real actual minimal guaranteed buildroot ? Obviously there must be something. Is there a list available somewhere ? Or do I have to expect real nothing ? But that would also include compilers (if needed), probably autofoo-stuff etc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #13 from Petr Šabata --- (In reply to Jens Lody from comment #12) > There's nothing wrong with requiring what I need to build, of course. > > I did not (yet) read the discussion, but one question pops up: > what's in the real actual minimal guaranteed buildroot ? > Obviously there must be something. Is there a list available somewhere ? > > Or do I have to expect real nothing ? > But that would also include compilers (if needed), probably autofoo-stuff > etc. Expect real nothing; that's the goal. In practice you can, at the moment, expect dnf and rpm at least. I can imagine that changing as well, though -- the buildroot could be populated from the outside. There's no list. If you need a compiler, buildrequire it. If you need autotools et al., buildrequire them. Personally, I would say this greatly simplifies the packaging work -- you don't have to remember any exceptions, check any lists. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #14 from Petr Šabata --- Here's the relevant FPC ticket, by the way: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258430] Review Request: dolphin - KDE File Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258430 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter --- naming: ok scriptlets: not ok org.kde.dolphin.desktop contains: org.kde.dolphin.desktop:MimeType=inode/directory; 1. SHOULD add mimetype scriptlet (update-desktop-database) sources: ok 11760d094c2c3e3fff0e89b81d4db118 dolphin-15.08.0.tar.xz builds: NOT ok, missing some buildrequires 2. SHOULD add missing buildrequires licensing: ok 3. SHOULD add arch'd -devel dependencies per comment #1 APPROVED. those items mentioned above, we can fix at our leisure prior to doing any official builds. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228172] Review Request: jedis - A redis Java client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228172 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228172] Review Request: jedis - A redis Java client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228172 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258430] Review Request: dolphin - KDE File Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258430 Daniel Vrátil changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Daniel Vrátil --- Package Change Request == Package Name: dolphin New Branches: f22 f23 devel Owners: dvratil group::kde-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 1228172] Review Request: jedis - A redis Java client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228172 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- jedis-2.7.2-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14667 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242090] Review Request: nodejs-socks-client - A SOCKS proxy client supporting SOCKS 4, 4a, and 5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242090 --- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean --- Done. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SPECS/nodejs-socks-client.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SRPMS/nodejs-socks-client-1.1.4-2.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1230161] Review Request: jumanji - A highly customizable, minimalist WebKit web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230161 --- Comment #15 from Jens Lody --- (In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #14) > Here's the relevant FPC ticket, by the way: > https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497 Thanks I will read this evening, if I'm back from work. That means almost all packages lack BR, this included (it uses a c-compiler). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #16 from Petr Šabata --- (In reply to Jens Lody from comment #15) > (In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #14) > > Here's the relevant FPC ticket, by the way: > > https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497 > > Thanks I will read this evening, if I'm back from work. > > That means almost all packages lack BR, this included (it uses a c-compiler). Yes, you're right, I'll add it right away :)) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #17 from Petr Šabata --- * added a build time dependency on gcc Spec: https://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/jumanji/jumanji.spec SRPM: https://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/jumanji/jumanji-0-4.20111209git963b309.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 1242090] Review Request: nodejs-socks-client - A SOCKS proxy client supporting SOCKS 4, 4a, and 5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242090
Piotr Popieluch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review- |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch ---
There is one error which can be fixed before uploading: description is not
wrapped into 80 chars.
I will approve, could please you add me as co-maintainer? I will build the pkg.
nodejs-socks-client.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C A SOCKS proxy client
supporting SOCKS 4, 4a, and 5. (also supports BIND/Associate)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1242090-nodejs-socks-
client/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.
[-]: 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %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]: Pa
[Bug 1256351] Review Request: kf5-akonadi-server - PIM Storage Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256351 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Vrátil --- Correct Spec URL: https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kdepim/review/kf5-akonadi-server.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1256387] Review Request: kf5-kmime - The KMime Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256387 Daniel Vrátil changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-08-31 10:28:36 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1256324] Review Request: kf5-kcontacts - The KContacts Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256324 Daniel Vrátil changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-08-31 10:29:05 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1256365] Review Request: kf5-kcalendarcore - The KCalendarCore library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256365 Daniel Vrátil changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-08-31 10:30:58 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1256328] Review Request: kf5-kholidays - The KHolidays Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256328 Daniel Vrátil changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-08-31 10:31:55 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1256358] Review Request: kf5-gpgmepp - C++ wrapper and Qt integreation for GpgMe library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256358 Daniel Vrátil changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-08-31 10:28:20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #18 from William Moreno --- I missed to set the Assigned to me any way the web-browser icon it is included in the hicolor-icon-theme package, So I will recommed to add Requires: hicolor-icon-theme. I do not think than include some build depencies in the spec than are suposed to be part of the minimal build enviroment is a bloquer. I will recomend to include the appdata.xml file in the package, more users will use the default firefox included, some user will use google chrome, advanced user can look for in the Gnome Sotware Center for others options available in Fedora repos and with out this file this app will be hiden. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1103545] Review Request: granite - GTK extensions for the elementary desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103545 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|admil...@redhat.com |i...@cicku.me --- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng --- Taking back. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #19 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) --- > the web-browser icon it is included in the hicolor-icon-theme package, > So I will recommed to add Requires: hicolor-icon-theme. The hicolor-icon-theme doesn't contain any icons for a very long time. It contains and defines lots of directories: $ rpmls hicolor-icon-theme|grep -v ^d -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/hicolor-icon-theme/README -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/icons/hicolor/icon-theme.cache -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/icons/hicolor/index.theme -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/licenses/hicolor-icon-theme/COPYING $ rpm -qR hicolor-icon-theme|grep -v ^rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh /bin/sh coreutils coreutils -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258137] Review Request: nodejs-run-parallel-limit - Run functions in parallel with a limit on concurrent tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258137 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch --- Thank you for the reviews, I owe you some. If I can review anything for you please let me know. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-run-parallel-limit Short Description: Run functions in parallel with a limit on concurrent tasks Upstream URL: https://github.com/feross/run-parallel-limit Owners: piotrp Branches: f21 f22 f23 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258151] Review Request: nodejs-async-cache - Cache your async lookups and don't fetch the same thing more than necessary
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258151 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch --- Thank you. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-async-cache Short Description: Cache your async lookups and don't fetch the same thing more than necessary Upstream URL: https://github.com/isaacs/async-cache Owners: piotrp Branches: f21 f22 f23 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258162] Review Request: nodejs-after - Nodejs module which provides after flow control
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258162 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch --- Thank you New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-after Short Description: Nodejs module which provides after flow control Upstream URL: https://github.com/Raynos/after Owners: piotrp Branches: f21 f22 f23 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258241] Review Request: nodejs-basic-auth-parser - Parse Basic Auth Authorization HTTP headers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258241 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch --- Thanks New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-basic-auth-parser Short Description: Parse Basic Auth Authorization HTTP headers Upstream URL: https://www.npmjs.com/package/basic-auth-parser Owners: piotrp Branches: f21 f22 f23 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1256435] Review Request: metapixel - photomosaic generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256435 Neil Horman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nhor...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(nhor...@redhat.co ||m) --- Comment #9 from Neil Horman --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/metapixel.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/metapixel-1.0.2-1.src.rpm All fixed, new version available, thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258156] Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and comparison functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258156 --- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch --- Thank you!! Updated description, no version bump. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242090] Review Request: nodejs-socks-client - A SOCKS proxy client supporting SOCKS 4, 4a, and 5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242090 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-socks-client Short Description: A SOCKS proxy client supporting SOCKS 4, 4a, and 5 Upstream URL: https://npmjs.org/package/socks-client Owners: ralph piotrp Branches: f23 f22 f21 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258156] Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and comparison functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258156 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes --- Great. Package is approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258542] New: Review Request: hack-fonts - A typeface designed for source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542 Bug ID: 1258542 Summary: Review Request: hack-fonts - A typeface designed for source code Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: he...@kde.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://heliocastro.fedorapeople.org/hack-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://heliocastro.fedorapeople.org/hack-fonts-2.010-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: A typeface designed for source code Fedora Account System Username: heliocastro -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1256435] Review Request: metapixel - photomosaic generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256435
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
--- Comment #10 from Ralf Corsepius ---
(In reply to Neil Horman from comment #9)
> All fixed, new version available, thanks!
Well,
- this package doesn't honor CFLAGS:
...
gcc -I/sw/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -I/usr/X11R6/include/X11 -I. -Irwimg
-Wall -O2 -DMETAPIXEL_VERSION=\"1.0.2\" -DRWIMG_JPEG -DRWIMG_PNG -DRWIMG_GIF
-c metapixel.c
...
- this package doesn't honor ans installation paths.
This is the origin why "make install" appears broken to you and likely is why
you resorted to manual installation.
- this package's "release" lacks %{?dist}
- there still are superflous deps:
# rpmlint metapixel-1.0.2-1.x86_64.rpm
metapixel.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency giflib
metapixel.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libjpeg
metapixel.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpng
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1256435] Review Request: metapixel - photomosaic generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256435 --- Comment #11 from Neil Horman --- Ralf, you're two revisions behind in your reviews. The deps have been fixed already Though you're correct about the missed cflags and install paths. The makefile honors the paths, but the spec file was taken from the upstream project, and I neglected to fix that up. will do 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 1256435] Review Request: metapixel - photomosaic generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256435 Neil Horman changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(nhor...@redhat.co |needinfo?(msu...@redhat.com |m) |) --- Comment #12 from Neil Horman --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/metapixel.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/metapixel-1.0.2-1.src.rpm There, cflags and install paths fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1256435] Review Request: metapixel - photomosaic generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256435 --- Comment #13 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to Neil Horman from comment #11) > Ralf, you're two revisions behind in your reviews. It's what I found in http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/metapixel-1.0.2-1.src.rpm shortly after comment #9 arrived by email. As you did not increment %release, it's impossible for to tell if the version I downloaded is the right one => Please increment %release each time you change something in your spec. Not doing so adds avoidable complications to reviews. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1256435] Review Request: metapixel - photomosaic generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256435 --- Comment #14 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to Neil Horman from comment #12) > Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/metapixel.spec > SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/metapixel-1.0.2-1.src.rpm > > There, cflags and install paths fixed. Well, you seem to have updated http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/metapixel.spec but not http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/metapixel-1.0.2-1.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 1256435] Review Request: metapixel - photomosaic generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256435
--- Comment #15 from Ralf Corsepius ---
- Impossible to review this package, because *.spec does not match the srpm.
=> metapixel-copyright.patch and metapixel-install.patch are missing.
- If metapixel-copyright.patch is what I presume it is (Changing the FSF
address) then it's superfluous, because it's legally irrelevant.
- MUSTFIX: Add %{?dist} to release
- make PREFIX=... is pretty much useless.
You need to add BINDIR and MANDIR as well.
- Requires: perl also seems superfluous. Rpm automatically adds appropriate R:
to packages containing perl scripts
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258572] New: Review Request: libipt - Intel Processor Trace Decoder Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258572 Bug ID: 1258572 Summary: Review Request: libipt - Intel Processor Trace Decoder Library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jan.kratoch...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://people.redhat.com/jkratoch/libipt.spec SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/jkratoch/libipt-1.4.2-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Library for GDB for Intel Haswell/Skylake tracing feature Fedora Account System Username: jankratochvil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1254828] Review Request: python-networking-bigswitch - big switch neutron plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1254828 --- Comment #26 from bigswitch --- All descriptions are updated to mention neutron. Please let us know how to proceed to merge it. Also, is it time now to start a Delorean review? Spec URL: https://bigswitch.box.com/shared/static/24hmnr6ojdgwulgpqclcvlvp5qf8tdt3.spec SRPM URL: https://bigswitch.box.com/shared/static/0xq8hbab8lbzcn5au4gqvkbhe4figavo.rpm Description: Big Switch Openstack Neutron driver Fedora Account System Username: xinwu mock build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10897452 spec file and service file is also available at https://github.com/xinwu/python-networking-bigswitch wget https://bigswitch.box.com/shared/static/24hmnr6ojdgwulgpqclcvlvp5qf8tdt3.spec -O python-networking-bigswitch.spec wget https://bigswitch.box.com/shared/static/0xq8hbab8lbzcn5au4gqvkbhe4figavo.rpm -O python-networking-bigswitch-2015.1.37-1.el7.centos.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 1258572] Review Request: libipt - Intel Processor Trace Decoder Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258572 Jan Kratochvil changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jan.kratoch...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil --- Associated prepared gdb.spec patch: http://people.redhat.com/jkratoch/libipt-gdb.patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1254828] Review Request: python-networking-bigswitch - big switch neutron plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1254828 --- Comment #27 from Ihar Hrachyshka --- > All descriptions are updated to mention neutron. Please let us know how to > proceed to merge it. You need a sponsor that will walk you thru formal review process. Ask RDO folks for help. > Also, is it time now to start a Delorean review? Yes, absolutely! :) My view is that we should have started there in the first place. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1256435] Review Request: metapixel - photomosaic generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256435
--- Comment #16 from Neil Horman ---
sorry, typoed the srpm address
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/metapixel.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/metapixel-1.0.2-2.fc21.src.rpm
even bumped the release for you :)
Regarding the copyright patch, it is what you presume, and while I agree its
legally irrelevant, its also easy to do, so instead of arguing about it, I just
updated it.
%{dist} tag has been fixed for some time, above was a typo.
BINDIR and MANDIR are set appropriately in the makefile, no need to do that in
the spec file.
Regarding perl, it may be superfulous, but its also not getting a complaint
from rpmlint on the subject, nor are the packaging guidelines explicit on the
subject. I'd just as soon leave it in place
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
