[Bug 1319451] Review Request: mbassador - a light-weight and high-performance message (event) bus implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319451 --- Comment #1 from Honggang LI --- Update to upstream version 1.2.4.1 . http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13478147 URL: http://people.redhat.com/honli/.82434973391d40a5f58aadbc0a330bfb/mbassador.spec SRC: http://people.redhat.com/honli/.82434973391d40a5f58aadbc0a330bfb/mbassador-1.2.4.1-1.fc25.src.rpm The logs for mock local building are available from [0]. The latest upstream version is 1.2.4.2. There is no functional change between 1.2.4.1 and 1.2.4.2. And 1.2.4.2 depends on nexus-staging-plugin, which is unavailable for maven offline mode. To build this nexus-staging-plugin from sources you need access to Sonatype commercial components [1]. I don't know how to build it and there is another dependency hell to build it. That is why I picked up 1.2.4.1 not 1.2.4.2. And failed to build v1.2.4.2 with gradle, please see [2]. [0] http://people.redhat.com/honli/.82434973391d40a5f58aadbc0a330bfb/ [1] https://github.com/bennidi/mbassador/commit/2bf0f19f327e29b081aa7b2a4a85fc82107c544a [2] https://github.com/bennidi/mbassador/issues/137 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1316195] Review Request: arquillian-core - Java Testing Platform for the JVM Member
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316195 --- Comment #26 from gil cattaneo --- Requested re-integration: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6377 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1316195] Review Request: arquillian-core - Java Testing Platform for the JVM Member
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316195 --- Comment #25 from gil cattaneo --- Thanks for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1316195] Review Request: arquillian-core - Java Testing Platform for the JVM Member
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316195 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #24 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Thanks for the replies. 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 1316195] Review Request: arquillian-core - Java Testing Platform for the JVM Member
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316195 --- Comment #23 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #22) > (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #21) > > Before I approve the package, I would like to clarify one issue - > > > > While the provides and requires look correct, why is this not mentioned in > > the spec file? Provides and requires are handled by maven-local/javapackages-utils, and it is not necessary to add another -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1316195] Review Request: arquillian-core - Java Testing Platform for the JVM Member
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316195 --- Comment #22 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #21) > Before I approve the package, I would like to clarify one issue - > > While the provides and requires look correct, why is this not mentioned in > the spec file? > > -- > > > Also, please contact upstream about license headers for the following files Already reported: https://github.com/arquillian/arquillian-core/issues/101 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1316175] Review Request: fasd - A command-line productivity booster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316175 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- fasd-1.0.1-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1307459] Review Request: perl-Test-Fake-HTTPD - Fake HTTP server module for testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307459 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Test-Fake-HTTPD-0.07-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1305261] Review Request: perl-Sereal - Fast, compact, powerful binary (de-)serialization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305261 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Sereal-3.003-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1305261] Review Request: perl-Sereal - Fast, compact, powerful binary (de-)serialization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305261 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2016-02-08 04:43:40 |2016-03-27 21:55:09 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321440] Review Request: SuperLU43 - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321440 --- Comment #15 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Thanks gil for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1316195] Review Request: arquillian-core - Java Testing Platform for the JVM Member
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316195 --- Comment #21 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Before I approve the package, I would like to clarify one issue - While the provides and requires look correct, why is this not mentioned in the spec file? -- Also, please contact upstream about license headers for the following files - Unknown or generated arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/build/ide/eclipse/templates/junit/ArquillianJUnitTest.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/build/ide/netbeans/templates/JUnit/ArquillianJUnitTest.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/container/impl-base/src/main/java/org/jboss/arquillian/container/impl/client/deployment/ArchiveDeploymentExporter.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/container/test-impl-base/src/main/java/org/jboss/arquillian/container/test/impl/enricher/resource/RemoteResourceCommand.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/container/test-impl-base/src/main/java/org/jboss/arquillian/container/test/impl/enricher/resource/RemoteResourceCommandObserver.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/core/impl-base/src/main/java/org/jboss/arquillian/core/impl/threading/ThreadedExecutorService.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/core/impl-base/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/core/impl/ThreadedExecutorServiceTestCase.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/core/impl-base/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/core/impl/loadable/util/FakeService.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/core/impl-base/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/core/impl/loadable/util/ShouldBeExcluded.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/core/impl-base/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/core/impl/loadable/util/ShouldBeIncluded.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/javadoc/stylesheet.css arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/junit/core/src/main/java/org/jboss/arquillian/junit/event/AfterRules.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/junit/core/src/main/java/org/jboss/arquillian/junit/event/BeforeRules.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/junit/core/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/junit/rules/AbstractRuleStatementEnrichment.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/junit/core/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/junit/rules/InnerRuleInnerStatementEnrichment.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/junit/core/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/junit/rules/OuterRuleInnerStatementEnrichment.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/junit/core/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/junit/rules/OuterRuleOuterStatementEnrichment.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/junit/core/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/junit/rules/ResourcesImpl.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/junit/core/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/junit/rules/ResourcesProvider.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/junit/core/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/junit/rules/RulesEnrichmentTestCase.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/junit/core/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/junit/rules/TestingMethodRule.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/junit/core/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/junit/rules/TestingMethodRuleInnerStatement.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/junit/core/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/junit/rules/TestingStatement.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/junit/core/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/junit/rules/TestingTestRule.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/junit/core/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/junit/rules/TestingTestRuleInnerStatement.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/junit/standalone/src/main/java/org/jboss/arquillian/junit/standalone/AllLifecycleEventExecutor.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/protocols/servlet/src/main/java/org/jboss/arquillian/protocol/servlet/arq514hack/descriptors/api/web/WebAppDescriptor.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/testenrichers/cdi/src/main/java/org/jboss/arquillian/testenricher/cdi/container/CDIExtension.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/testenrichers/cdi/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/testenricher/cdi/CDIInjectionEnricherTestCase.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/testenrichers/cdi/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/testenricher/cdi/beans/Cat.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/testenrichers/cdi/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/testenricher/cdi/beans/CatService.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/testenrichers/cdi/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/testenricher/cdi/beans/Dog.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/testenrichers/cdi/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/testenricher/cdi/beans/DogService.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/testenrichers/cdi/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/testenricher/cdi/beans/Service.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/testenrichers/resource/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/testenricher/resource/ResourceInjectionEnricherTestCase.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/testng/container/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/testng/container/ShouldProvideConfigurationFailureToTestRunner.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/testng/container/src/test/java/org/jboss/arquillian/testng/container/ShouldProvideVariousTestResultsToTestRunner.java arquillian-core-1.1.11.Final/testng/core/src
[Bug 1316195] Review Request: arquillian-core - Java Testing Platform for the JVM Member
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316195
--- Comment #20 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/arquillian-core
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
---> This is a re-review. This is fine.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or
generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 38 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1316195-arquillian-
core/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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 is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
is pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the s
[Bug 1321440] Review Request: SuperLU43 - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321440 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321440] Review Request: SuperLU43 - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321440 --- Comment #14 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #12) > - Added the doc subpackage > - Added GPLV2+ on the license field. Maybe, should be added only for doc sub package ... ? > - I will send an email to upstream about adding the license headers on > individual files along with licensecheck.txt file. Thanks 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 1321440] Review Request: SuperLU43 - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321440 --- Comment #13 from Mukundan Ragavan --- koji scratch build - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13477517 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321440] Review Request: SuperLU43 - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321440 --- Comment #12 from Mukundan Ragavan --- - Added the doc subpackage - Added GPLV2+ on the license field. - I will send an email to upstream about adding the license headers on individual files along with licensecheck.txt file. Updated SPEC and SRPM below - SPEC URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/compat-superlu-43/SuperLU43.spec SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/compat-superlu-43/SuperLU43-4.3-3.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1189015] Review Request: python-MDAnalysis - Analyze and manipulate molecular dynamics trajectories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189015 --- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System --- python-MDAnalysis-0.14.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292040] Review Request: tng - Trajectory Next Generation binary format manipulation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292040 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- tng-1.7.8-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1299637] Review Request: pam_wrapper - A tool to test PAM applications and PAM modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299637 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-03-27 21:19:46 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1299637] Review Request: pam_wrapper - A tool to test PAM applications and PAM modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299637 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- pam_wrapper-1.0.1-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1316175] Review Request: fasd - A command-line productivity booster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316175 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- fasd-1.0.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter - A generic message filter library and command-line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685 --- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System --- sylfilter-0.8-10.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-18c55e72fc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter - A generic message filter library and command-line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685 --- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System --- sylfilter-0.8-10.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8c3ce917d1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter - A generic message filter library and command-line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685 --- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System --- sylfilter-0.8-10.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-70cf974005 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter - A generic message filter library and command-line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685 --- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System --- sylfilter-0.8-10.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3e49eba720 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter - A generic message filter library and command-line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1305390] Review Request: dreamchess-tools - DreamChess Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305390 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-03-27 17:58:11 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1305390] Review Request: dreamchess-tools - DreamChess Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305390 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- dreamchess-tools-0-0.2.20141101gitf8f32aa.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1268716] Review Request: cjdns - IP6 VPN with crypto address allocation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268716 --- Comment #67 from Fedora Update System --- cjdns-17.3-10.el7, nacl-20110221-15.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-0ee03feec9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 837050] Review Request: nacl - Networking and Cryptography library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837050 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- cjdns-17.3-10.el7, nacl-20110221-15.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-0ee03feec9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1268716] Review Request: cjdns - IP6 VPN with crypto address allocation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268716 --- Comment #66 from Fedora Update System --- cjdns-17.3-10.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-eb3d6e16f1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321461] Review Request: compiz-plugins-experimental - Additional plugins for Compiz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321461 leigh scott changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|leigh123li...@googlemail.co ||m -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321208] Review Request: julietaula-montserrat-fonts - Sans-serif typeface created by Julieta Ulanovsky
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321208 --- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #10) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7) > > $ appstream-util validate > > /usr/share/appdata/julietaula-montserrat.metainfo.xml > > /usr/share/appdata/julietaula-montserrat.metainfo.xml: FAILED: > > • style-invalid : Not enough tags for a good description > > Validation of files failed > > validate-relax ;) The spec file has validate-relax already, and that's the right thing to use for %check. But it's sometimes good to check what the "non-relax" version says. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321440] Review Request: SuperLU43 - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321440 --- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo --- Created attachment 1140717 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1140717&action=edit licensecheck -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321440] Review Request: SuperLU43 - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321440 --- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo --- Issues: - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 6748160 bytes in 368 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation Please, add suggested sub package [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 445 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1321440-SuperLU43/licensecheck.txt The package contains some files with GPLv2 license, but have incorrect Free Software Foundation address. To ensure that the problem does not re present more, please, report this bug upstream https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address The following source files are without license headers: SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/caxpy.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/ccopy.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/cdotc.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/cgemv.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/cgerc.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/chemv.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/cher2.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/cscal.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/cswap.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/ctrsv.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/dasum.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/daxpy.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/dcabs1.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/dcopy.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/ddot.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/dgemv.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/dger.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/dnrm2.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/drot.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/dscal.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/dswap.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/dsymv.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/dsyr2.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/dtrsv.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/dzasum.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/dznrm2.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/f2c.h SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/icamax.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/idamax.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/isamax.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/izamax.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/sasum.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/saxpy.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/scasum.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/scnrm2.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/scopy.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/sdot.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/sgemv.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/sger.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/slu_Cnames.h SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/snrm2.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/srot.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/sscal.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/sswap.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/ssymv.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/ssyr2.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/strsv.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/superlu_f2c.h SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/zaxpy.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/zcopy.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/zdotc.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/zgemv.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/zgerc.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/zhemv.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/zher2.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/zscal.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/zswap.c SuperLU_4.3/CBLAS/ztrsv.c SuperLU_4.3/DOC/html/doxygen.css SuperLU_4.3/DOC/html/tabs.css SuperLU_4.3/DoxyConfig SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/citersol.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/citersol1.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/clinsol.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/clinsol1.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/clinsolx.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/clinsolx1.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/clinsolx2.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/ditersol.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/ditersol1.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/dlinsol.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/dlinsol1.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/dlinsolx.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/dlinsolx1.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/dlinsolx2.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/fgmr.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/sitersol.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/sitersol1.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/slinsol.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/slinsol1.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/slinsolx.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/slinsolx1.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/slinsolx2.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/sp_ienv.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/superlu.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/zitersol.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/zitersol1.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/zlinsol.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/zlinsol1.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/zlinsolx.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/zlinsolx1.c SuperLU_4.3/EXAMPLE/zlinsolx2.c SuperLU_4.3/FORTRAN/c_fortran_cgssv.c SuperLU_4.3/FORTRAN/c_fortran_dgssv.c SuperLU_4.3/FORTRAN/c_fortran_sgssv.c SuperLU_4.3/FORTRAN/c_fortran_zgssv.c SuperLU_4.3/FORTRAN/f77_main.f SuperLU_4.3/FORTRAN/hbcode1.f SuperLU_4.3/FORTRAN/z_f77_main.f SuperLU_4.3/FORTRAN/zhbcode1.f SuperLU_4.3/INSTALL/dlamch.c SuperLU_4.3/INSTALL/dlamchtst.c SuperLU_4.3/INSTALL/lsame.c SuperLU_4.3/INSTALL/slamch.c SuperLU_4.3/INSTALL/slamchtst.c SuperLU_4.3/INSTALL/superlu_timer.c SuperLU_4.3/INSTALL/timertst.c SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/babble.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/burble.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/copyright.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/hbo.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/isperm.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/lusolve.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/mexlusolve.c SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/mexlusolve.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/mexsuperlu.c SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/mexsuperlu.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/permutation.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/resetrandoms.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/spart2.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/spypart.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/superlu.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/time.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/try2.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/try3.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/try4.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/trylusolve.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/trysuperlu.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/trytime.m SuperLU_4.3/MATLAB/verbose.m SuperLU_4.3/SRC/ccolumn_bmod.c SuperLU_4.3/SRC/ccolumn_dfs.c SuperLU_4.3/SRC/ccopy_to_ucol.c SuperLU_4.3/SRC/cdiagonal.c SuperLU_4.3/SRC/cgscon.c SuperLU_4.3/SRC/cgsequ.c SuperLU_4.3/SRC/cgsisx.c SuperL
[Bug 1321440] Review Request: SuperLU43 - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321440
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 6748160 bytes in 368 files.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
= 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.
[?]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown
or generated". 445 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/gil/1321440-SuperLU43/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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
SuperLU43-debuginfo
[x]: Package
[Bug 1265265] Review Request: mlt - A multimedia framework designed for television broadcasting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265265 Sergio Monteiro Basto changed: What|Removed |Added CC||limburg...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(limburgher@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #15 from Sergio Monteiro Basto --- (In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #7) > I made a build with avformat, kdenlive and kino removed. Doesn't require > ffmpeg. > > SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/mlt/mlt.spec > SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/mlt/mlt-0.9.8-2.fc23.src.rpm Jon Ciesla, have you remove things form the source ? what ? can you provide a script ? 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 1321473] Review Request: diodon - Clipboard manager for GNOME and Cinnamon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321473 --- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner --- And second, fixed build on x86. No idea why arm FTBFS. Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13476279 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321208] Review Request: julietaula-montserrat-fonts - Sans-serif typeface created by Julieta Ulanovsky
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321208 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-4.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7dc6c6d417 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321208] Review Request: julietaula-montserrat-fonts - Sans-serif typeface created by Julieta Ulanovsky
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321208 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7c72af3d2a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321208] Review Request: julietaula-montserrat-fonts - Sans-serif typeface created by Julieta Ulanovsky
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321208 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-4.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ae2c22107d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321208] Review Request: julietaula-montserrat-fonts - Sans-serif typeface created by Julieta Ulanovsky
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321208 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-2d8a0763ef -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321208] Review Request: julietaula-montserrat-fonts - Sans-serif typeface created by Julieta Ulanovsky
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321208 --- Comment #10 from Igor Gnatenko --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7) > $ appstream-util validate > /usr/share/appdata/julietaula-montserrat.metainfo.xml > /usr/share/appdata/julietaula-montserrat.metainfo.xml: FAILED: > • style-invalid : Not enough tags for a good description > Validation of files failed validate-relax ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321208] Review Request: julietaula-montserrat-fonts - Sans-serif typeface created by Julieta Ulanovsky
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321208 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-4.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d998681c55 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321208] Review Request: julietaula-montserrat-fonts - Sans-serif typeface created by Julieta Ulanovsky
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321208 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1321473] Review Request: diodon - Clipboard manager for GNOME and Cinnamon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321473 --- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner --- Fixed missing BR: desktop-file-utils Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13476181 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321473] New: Review Request: diodon - Clipboard manager for GNOME and Cinnamon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321473 Bug ID: 1321473 Summary: Review Request: diodon - Clipboard manager for GNOME and Cinnamon Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: projects...@smart.ms QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/util/diodon.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/util/diodon-1.4.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Clipboard manager for GNOME and Cinnamon Fedora Account System Username: raphgro Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13476153 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1268716] Review Request: cjdns - IP6 VPN with crypto address allocation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268716 Stuart D Gathman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1246974] Review Request: rubygem-shortURL - very simple library to use URL shortening services.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246974 --- Comment #18 from Igor Gnatenko --- Ping? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1117961] Review Request: lua-msgpack - Lua binary-based efficient object serialization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117961 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags|needinfo?(i.gnatenko.brain@ | |gmail.com) | Last Closed||2016-03-27 12:30:25 --- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3) > PING or I will submit this by myself since my package depends on it. Submit by yourself. Feel free to take my spec as base. ;) unfortunately I don't have time to work on this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1118019] Review Request: lua-cmsgpack - Self contained Lua MessagePack C implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118019 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags|needinfo?(i.gnatenko.brain@ | |gmail.com) | Last Closed||2016-03-27 12:30:39 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- Sorry, don't have time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1288886] Review Request: python-portalocker - Library to provide an easy API to file locking
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(i.gnatenko.brain@ | |gmail.com) | --- Comment #7 from Igor Gnatenko --- Sorry, didn't have time. I will look into your comments. Regarding difference of srpm/spec its really minor issue ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1119075] Review Request: itop-itsm - Simple, web based IT Service Management tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119075 Bug 1119075 depends on bug 1119446, which changed state. Bug 1119446 Summary: update to 5.2.1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119446 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321461] Review Request: compiz-plugins-experimental - Additional plugins for Compiz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321461 --- Comment #1 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- This is a re-review request for a package rename. Old packackage name is compiz-plugins-unsupported. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321461] New: Review Request: compiz-plugins-experimental - Additional plugins for Compiz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321461 Bug ID: 1321461 Summary: Review Request: compiz-plugins-experimental - Additional plugins for Compiz Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: chat-to...@raveit.de QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/compiz/SPEC/compiz-plugins-experimental.spec SRPM URL: https://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/compiz/SRPM/compiz-plugins-experimental-0.8.12-2.fc24.src.rpm Description: The Compiz Reloaded Project brings 3D desktop visual effects that improve usability of the X Window System and provide increased productivity though plugins and themes contributed by the community giving a rich desktop experience. This package contains additional plugins from the Compiz Reloaded Project Fedora Account System Username: raveit65 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1317178] Review Request: tcllauncher - launcher for Tcl applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317178 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- 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 1212909] New package request: clufter - Tool for transforming/analyzing cluster configuration formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212909 Lenka Spackova changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|Enhancement |Technology Preview --- Doc Text *updated* --- Support for *clufter*, a tool for transforming and analyzing cluster configuration formats The _clufter_ package, available as a Technology Preview in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, provides a tool for transforming and analyzing cluster configuration formats. It can be used to assist with migration from an older stack configuration to a newer configuration that leverages Pacemaker. For information on the capabilities of *clufter*, see the `clufter(1)` man page or the output of the "clufter -h" command. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321440] Review Request: SuperLU43 - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321440 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: SuperLU43 - |compat-SuperLU-43 - |Subroutines to solve sparse |Subroutines to solve sparse |linear systems |linear systems | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321440] Review Request: compat-SuperLU-43 - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321440 --- Comment #8 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Here is the koji scratch build - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13475506 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1316195] Review Request: arquillian-core - Java Testing Platform for the JVM Member
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316195 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #19 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Looking at the timeline in pkgdb, the package was retired by Till. 2015-07-29 20:55:03 user: till updated package: arquillian-core status from: Approved to Retired on branch: f23 2015-07-29 20:54:45 user: till updated package: arquillian-core status from: Approved to Retired on branch: master Since then, it has not had a re-review but for some reason the pkgdb branches have the status Approved. In any case, according to process, as mentioned in #18, this package needs to be re-reviewed. I am looking at the package 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 1321440] Review Request: compat-SuperLU-43 - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321440 --- Comment #7 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Changelog from the updated spec file * Sun Mar 27 2016 Mukundan Ragavan - 4.3-2 114 - Renamed the package to SuperLU43 115 - Renamed devel shared lib to libsuperlu43 116 - Removed conflicts since the latest version and this can co-exist -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321440] Review Request: compat-SuperLU-43 - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321440 --- Comment #6 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Spec and SRPM updated. SPEC URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/compat-superlu-43/SuperLU43.spec SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/compat-superlu-43/SuperLU43-4.3-2.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300943] Review Request: compiler-rt - LLVM compiler-rt runtime libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300943 Jan Včelák changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2016-03-27 07:55:00 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300942] Review Request: clang - llvm clang compiler package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300942 Jan Včelák changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2016-03-27 07:54:00 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300944] Review Request: lldb - LLVM based debugger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300944 Jan Včelák changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2016-03-27 07:54:39 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321455] New: Review Request: knot-resolver - Caching full DNS Resolver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321455 Bug ID: 1321455 Summary: Review Request: knot-resolver - Caching full DNS Resolver Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jv+fed...@fcelda.cz QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/knot-resolver/1.0.0-0.1.beta3/knot-resolver.spec SRPM URL: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/knot-resolver/1.0.0-0.1.beta3/knot-resolver-1.0.0-0.1.beta3.fc25.src.rpm Description: Caching full DNS Resolver Fedora Account System Username: jvcelak -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321440] Review Request: compat-SuperLU-43 - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321440
--- Comment #5 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #4)
> (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #3)
> > The name looks weird to me. Why is it needed to use compat in the package
> > name?
>
> Simply use %{pkgname}43 as the package name (without any dash). The digits
> inside the name should be enough to show it's a compat package.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#CommonCharacterSet
>
> Maybe you'd look also into package renaming guideline.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.
> 2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
>
Well, as far as I can tell, the package name, while weird, does comply with the
guidelines. Having said that, you are right. superlu43 is certainly sufficient.
I will change it.
> --
> Please move 'make -C TESTING' into (new) %check. We do not want to build
> tests with rpmbuild --nocheck .
>
Fair enough. done. Just to be sure, there IS a %check section.
> Why is there no license text file with %license ? Please poke upstream to
> clear what BSD version we have here.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/
> LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
>
License text is there! %doc README contains the license text AND other stuff.
Perhaps I can add a license text .. perhaps I can move this file to %license ..
> Last, a general advice to generally use macros where possible.
> - URL:http://crd-legacy.lbl.gov/~xiaoye/SuperLU/
> - Source0:
> http://crd-legacy.lbl.gov/~xiaoye/SuperLU/%{archname}_%{version}.tar.gz
> URL: http://crd-legacy.lbl.gov/~xiaoye/%{pkgname}
> Source0: %{url}/%{archname}_%{version}.tar.gz
I missed that. I was changing macros a few times when I made this spec file
that I missed this one. Will fix it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1316195] Review Request: arquillian-core - Java Testing Platform for the JVM Member
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316195 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nonamed...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nonamed...@gmail.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 1321440] Review Request: compat-SuperLU-43 - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321440
--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #3)
> The name looks weird to me. Why is it needed to use compat in the package
> name?
Simply use %{pkgname}43 as the package name (without any dash). The digits
inside the name should be enough to show it's a compat package.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#CommonCharacterSet
Maybe you'd look also into package renaming guideline.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
--
Please move 'make -C TESTING' into (new) %check. We do not want to build tests
with rpmbuild --nocheck .
Why is there no license text file with %license ? Please poke upstream to clear
what BSD version we have here.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Last, a general advice to generally use macros where possible.
- URL:http://crd-legacy.lbl.gov/~xiaoye/SuperLU/
- Source0:
http://crd-legacy.lbl.gov/~xiaoye/SuperLU/%{archname}_%{version}.tar.gz
URL:http://crd-legacy.lbl.gov/~xiaoye/%{pkgname}
Source0:%{url}/%{archname}_%{version}.tar.gz
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321440] Review Request: compat-SuperLU-43 - Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321440 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||projects...@smart.ms --- Comment #3 from Raphael Groner --- The name looks weird to me. Why is it needed to use compat in the package 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 1301286] Review Request: firejail - A SUID sandbox program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301286 --- Comment #3 from Dhiru Kholia --- https://fedorapeople.org/~halfie/packages/firejail/firejail.spec This .spec files packages Firejail 0.9.38, and it also simplifies inclusion of various profiles. I am actually unable to run Firejail on Fedora. Running "firejail hexchat" does not launch hexchat on Fedora systems. While doing the same on Ubuntu launches hexchat just fine. How do I test this package further in Fedora? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321449] New: Review Request: python-sshtunnel - SSH tunnels to remote server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321449 Bug ID: 1321449 Summary: Review Request: python-sshtunnel - SSH tunnels to remote server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-sshtunnel.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-sshtunnel-0.0.8.1-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: SSH tunnels to remote server. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
