[Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 Bug 505154 depends on bug 1401967, which changed state. Bug 1401967 Summary: Review Request: qcad - Powerful 2D CAD system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401967 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1406962] Review Request: python-pathlib2 - Object-oriented filesystem paths
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406962 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-12-31 01:50:01 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-pathlib2-2.1.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1401967] Review Request: qcad - Powerful 2D CAD system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401967 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-12-31 01:49:37 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- qcad-3.16.2.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1398369] Review Request: python-idstools - Snort and Suricata Rule and Event Utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398369 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-12-31 01:48:08 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- python-idstools-0.5.4-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1401344] Review Request: CuraEngine-lulzbot - Engine for processing 3D models into G-code instructions for 3D printers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401344 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-12-31 01:48:10 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- CuraEngine-lulzbot-15.04-5.fc25, cura-lulzbot-21.02-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1282063] Review Request: xxhsum - Extremely fast hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282063 --- Comment #21 from Jeremy Newton --- Any progress on this? Or is it a dead 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell integration for Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 Jeremy Newton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alexjn...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Jeremy Newton --- I'm interested in reviewing this. Can you please update it to the latest (v7.2.1)? -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1352837] Review Request: vassal - Game engine for building and playing online adaptations of board games and card games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352837 Jeremy Newton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|alexjn...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #12 from Jeremy Newton --- I don't have any reviews to swap and I no longer have interested in reviewing this. This is up for grabs again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1403423] Review Request: visualboyadvance-m - High compatibility Gameboy Advance Emulator combining VBA builds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403423 --- Comment #9 from Jeremy Newton --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #8) > (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #7) > > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6) > > > (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #5) > > > > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #4) > > > > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > > > > Note: Directories without known owners: > > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/96x96/apps, > > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, > > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, > > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, > > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, > > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, > > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/96x96, > > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, > > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, > > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, > > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, > > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, > > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, > > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable > > > > > > > > > > - Note that this issue can be solved by adding "BuildRequires: > > > > > hicolor-icon-theme" to the spec and "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme" to > > > > > the > > > > > main package. > > > > > > > > Nice catch, although only the build require is necessary, as the > > > > auto-dependencies should pick this up. > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, no, it will not automatically pick it up, since we don't > > > have > > > a dependency generator for checking for the mere existence of the > > > directory > > > paths and setting that up. > > > > Really? I guess I'm mistaken, I thought it picks up on some key directories. > > I assume all packages that install hicolor icons need this? If so, I need to > > fix up a few of my own. > > > > Yes. 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1176273] Review Request: andy-super-great-park - 2D arcade game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273
--- Comment #26 from Jeremy Newton ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
> This is fine, no need to change this.
[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: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa", "GPL (v2 or
later)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v3.0)", "Unknown or generated".
1555 files have unknown license.
> License is GPLv3 not GPLv3+. See LICENSE file
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
> You should really add a breakdown if possible
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/bear-factory
> This can be fixed by adding the following to the main package:
BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme
Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
> Which is something I missed when I was reviewing bear. Please fix this.
[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in asgp
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> ExcludeArch is required, but this is fine until bear is fixed on ppc64le...
> This arch is largely broken for a lot of stuff, so it's not a big deal.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Pac
[Bug 1403423] Review Request: visualboyadvance-m - High compatibility Gameboy Advance Emulator combining VBA builds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403423 --- Comment #8 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #7) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6) > > (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #5) > > > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #4) > > > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > > > Note: Directories without known owners: > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/96x96/apps, > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/96x96, > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, > > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable > > > > > > > > - Note that this issue can be solved by adding "BuildRequires: > > > > hicolor-icon-theme" to the spec and "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme" to > > > > the > > > > main package. > > > > > > Nice catch, although only the build require is necessary, as the > > > auto-dependencies should pick this up. > > > > > > > Unfortunately, no, it will not automatically pick it up, since we don't have > > a dependency generator for checking for the mere existence of the directory > > paths and setting that up. > > Really? I guess I'm mistaken, I thought it picks up on some key directories. > I assume all packages that install hicolor icons need this? If so, I need to > fix up a few of my own. > Yes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1367569] Review Request: perl-PFT - Hacker friendly static blog generator, core library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367569 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- perl-PFT-1.1.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-173acf8830 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409138] Review Request: pixiewps - An offline WPS bruteforce utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409138 --- Comment #6 from Leandro Costa --- Hello again, I did some changes on the spec file, using the %setup macro on the prep section as suggested, and added the option -q for silent running because rpmlint was complaining. My previous use of Source1 and Source2 was to attempt to put the files on the src.rpm. But now I see it's unnecessary. It's fixed in the new spec file. The build section and the install are the same for now, I'm going to do some reading on creating diff files, so I can create the patch to fix the Makefile as suggested. About the versioning, I really don't know how is done on this project. It's a pretty old software and doesn't seems very active. It's used on pentesting, I have it on kali linux, but really like fedora, that's why I'm trying to pack it as rpm :), but I'm going to read more the documentation about versioning using git checkout and make the necessary adjustments. The new links: Spec URL: http://dev.leandrocosta.pro.br/fedora/pixiewps/pixiewps.spec SRPM URL: http://dev.leandrocosta.pro.br/fedora/pixiewps/pixiewps-1.2-3.fc25.src.rpm Source0: http://dev.leandrocosta.pro.br/fedora/pixiewps/master.zip Once again, thanks for your help, I'm learning a lot. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409241] Review Request: ufw - Uncomplicated Firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409241 --- Comment #10 from Kevin Kofler --- Thanks! Package creation requested in pkgdb. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409138] Review Request: pixiewps - An offline WPS bruteforce utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409138
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt ---
Things you may want to look into:
| %prep
| %setup -n pixiewps-master
The %setup macro will extract the source archive automatically (also if you
stick to the .zip file instead of a .tgz).
The -n option will tell RPM the name of the top-level source directory. If not
using -n, the default would be to enter directory %{name}-%{version}.
rpmbuild is clever enough to enter this top-level source directory for every
build section (such as %build, %install, %check and even the %files list). You
can see that in the rpmbuild output.
| %build
| cd src
| CFLAGS="%{optflags}" make %{?_smp_mflags}
This would work already to build with Fedora's global C compiler flags, but the
Makefile adds some flags such as -O3 and therefore more will be necessary (such
as a trivial patch or some guarded "sed" magic) to adhere to the guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
| %install
| cd src
| %make_install
This _would_ work. Examine output of "rpm -E %make_install" to see what that
macro does. However, currently the Makefile is affected by a bug (a duplicated
$DESTDIR prefix). There is a pull request at github to fix that. A trivial
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409241] Review Request: ufw - Uncomplicated Firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409241 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Neal Gompa --- The python bytecode wrong magic value thing is a bug in rpmlint that was just fixed today, so it hasn't propagated out as an update yet. This will be fixed. The executables marked as config files are on purpose, as they are user-modifiable, but must be executable for ufw to utilize them, and thus are valid. The spelling error isn't a spelling error. Everything looks good to me. 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409241] Review Request: ufw - Uncomplicated Firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409241
--- Comment #8 from Neal Gompa ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 179 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/makerpm/ufw/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.6
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.6/site-
packages, /etc/default, /usr/lib/python3.6
[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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer s
[Bug 1409241] Review Request: ufw - Uncomplicated Firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409241 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler --- Spec URL: https://svn.calcforge.org/viewvc/kannolo/trunk/packages/ufw/ufw.spec?revision=259&view=co SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kkofler/kannolo/fedora-26-x86_64/00493938-ufw/ufw-0.35-6.fc26.src.rpm * Fri Dec 30 2016 Kevin Kofler 0.35-6 - Change permissions of the *.rules files from 0640 to 0644 - Change permissions of the before.init and after.init hooks from 0640 to 0755 - Don't prepend /usr/bin/env to sys.executable, which is always an absolute path -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1403423] Review Request: visualboyadvance-m - High compatibility Gameboy Advance Emulator combining VBA builds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403423
--- Comment #7 from Jeremy Newton ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #4)
> > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> > > Note: Directories without known owners:
> > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/96x96/apps,
> > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22,
> > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
> > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps,
> > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/96x96,
> > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
> > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps,
> > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
> > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps,
> > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64,
> > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
> > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable
> > >
> > > - Note that this issue can be solved by adding "BuildRequires:
> > > hicolor-icon-theme" to the spec and "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme" to the
> > > main package.
> >
> > Nice catch, although only the build require is necessary, as the
> > auto-dependencies should pick this up.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, no, it will not automatically pick it up, since we don't have
> a dependency generator for checking for the mere existence of the directory
> paths and setting that up.
Really? I guess I'm mistaken, I thought it picks up on some key directories. I
assume all packages that install hicolor icons need this? If so, I need to fix
up a few of my own.
>
> > %config(noreplace) /etc/%{shortname}.cfg
>
> Please replace usage of "/etc" with "%{_sysconfdir}"
Done.
Note that I didn't bump the release:
Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42480493/visualboyadvance-m.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42480493/visualboyadvance-m-2.0.0-0.4.Beta3.fc25.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1403423] Review Request: visualboyadvance-m - High compatibility Gameboy Advance Emulator combining VBA builds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403423
--- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa ---
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #5)
> (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #4)
> > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> > Note: Directories without known owners:
> > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/96x96/apps,
> > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22,
> > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
> > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps,
> > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/96x96,
> > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
> > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps,
> > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps,
> > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64,
> > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
> > /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable
> >
> > - Note that this issue can be solved by adding "BuildRequires:
> > hicolor-icon-theme" to the spec and "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme" to the
> > main package.
>
> Nice catch, although only the build require is necessary, as the
> auto-dependencies should pick this up.
>
Unfortunately, no, it will not automatically pick it up, since we don't have a
dependency generator for checking for the mere existence of the directory paths
and setting that up.
> %config(noreplace) /etc/%{shortname}.cfg
Please replace usage of "/etc" with "%{_sysconfdir}"
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409241] Review Request: ufw - Uncomplicated Firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409241 --- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa --- fedora-review picked up some concerning things: ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ufw/after.init 640 ufw.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/ufw/after.init 640 /bin/sh ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ufw/after.rules 640 ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ufw/after6.rules 640 ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ufw/before.init 640 ufw.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/ufw/before.init 640 /bin/sh ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ufw/before.rules 640 ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/ufw/before6.rules 640 ufw.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/sbin/ufw /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/python3 ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/ufw/iptables/after.rules 640 ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/ufw/iptables/after6.rules 640 ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/ufw/iptables/before.rules 640 ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/ufw/iptables/before6.rules 640 ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/ufw/iptables/user.rules 640 ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/ufw/iptables/user6.rules 640 ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /var/lib/ufw/user.rules 640 ufw.noarch: E: non-readable /var/lib/ufw/user6.rules 640 Could you please try to fix these? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1403423] Review Request: visualboyadvance-m - High compatibility Gameboy Advance Emulator combining VBA builds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403423 --- Comment #5 from Jeremy Newton --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #4) > A fedora-review run indicates that there are a couple of issues: > > - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package > contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. > Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in visualboyadvance-m > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- > database According to the wiki: "This scriptlet SHOULD NOT be used in Fedora 25 or later." So I'll wrap it in an %if. > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/96x96/apps, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/96x96, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable > > - Note that this issue can be solved by adding "BuildRequires: > hicolor-icon-theme" to the spec and "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme" to the > main package. Nice catch, although only the build require is necessary, as the auto-dependencies should pick this up. > [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/vbam(vbam-gtk) > > - If this is intentional, please put a comment in the spec for why it is > this way. I can imagine why it might be this way (the two programs are > independent and not necessarily both installed as they are not > interdependent). This is the old package name for visualboyadvance-m in rpmfusion. It's already provided and obsoleted, see lines 41-43 of the spec. Note that I also maintain this package in RPMFusion, so it will be retired once this is accepted. New files: Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42480493/visualboyadvance-m.spec SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42480493/visualboyadvance-m-2.0.0-0.4.Beta3.fc25.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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409241] Review Request: ufw - Uncomplicated Firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409241
--- Comment #5 from Kevin Kofler ---
Spec URL:
https://svn.calcforge.org/viewvc/kannolo/trunk/packages/ufw/ufw.spec?revision=258&view=co
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kkofler/kannolo/fedora-25-x86_64/00493862-ufw/ufw-0.35-5.fc25.src.rpm
* Fri Dec 30 2016 Kevin Kofler 0.35-5
- Change URL to https
- Get the tarball directly from upstream rather than from Ubuntu
- Remove redundant "-n %%{name}-%%{version}" from %%setup
- Use %%py3_build and %%py3_install macros
- Add Python 3.6 to check-requirements
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409243] Review Request: lxhotkey - Hotkeys management utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409243 Mamoru TASAKA changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: lxhotkey - |Review Request: lxhotkey - ||Hotkeys management utility --- Comment #1 from Mamoru TASAKA --- Oops... Spec URL: https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/lxhotkey/lxhotkey.spec SRPM URL: https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/lxhotkey/lxhotkey-0.1.0-1.fc.src.rpm Description: LXHotkey is an utility which let you to have an interface to manage hotkeys (also known as shortcuts), i.e. key combinations which, when pressed, do something with your desktop. (Note: currently my intention is for LXDE desktop only) Fedora Account System Username: mtasaka Koji scratch build (for rawhide): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17114663 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409241] Review Request: ufw - Uncomplicated Firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409241 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler --- > * Could you please use the official sources from the Launchpad project? It > appears to be available at: > https://launchpad.net/ufw/0.35/0.35/+download/ufw-0.35.tar.gz I'll fix that. (I hope it is really the same source…) The use of the Ubuntu package's .orig.tar.gz is a leftover from the times of the 0.34 prereleases, where the Ubuntu packages had various prereleases of 0.34 cut directly from the upstream SCM. There were months between the upstream 0.33 and 0.34 releases and the 0.34 prereleases were the only ones supporting Python 3 at the time. > * In the %prep phase, you're deleting profiles. Why? I am deleting the backups left by the %patchN -b .foo invocations because the broken build system installs them if I don't do that. I am not just leaving off the -b .foo because then I sometimes get .orig backups. (The %patchN macros do not understand "--no-backup-if-mismatch".) > * In your %build and %install phases, please use %py3_build and %py3_install > instead of calling them directly. Ah? I'll fix that, too. I'll be uploading a fixed specfile ASAP. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409243] New: Review Request: lxhotkey -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409243 Bug ID: 1409243 Summary: Review Request: lxhotkey - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mtas...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: SRPM URL: Description: Fedora Account System Username: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1401335] Review Request: python-numpy-stl - Library for reading, writing and modifying STL files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401335 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1401335] Review Request: python-numpy-stl - Library for reading, writing and modifying STL files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401335 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python-numpy-stl-2.1.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-df0bca528b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409241] Review Request: ufw - Uncomplicated Firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409241 --- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa --- Some initial notes: * Could you please use the official sources from the Launchpad project? It appears to be available at: https://launchpad.net/ufw/0.35/0.35/+download/ufw-0.35.tar.gz * In the %prep phase, you're deleting profiles. Why? * In your %build and %install phases, please use %py3_build and %py3_install instead of calling them directly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409241] New: Review Request: ufw - Uncomplicated Firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409241 Bug ID: 1409241 Summary: Review Request: ufw - Uncomplicated Firewall Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://svn.calcforge.org/viewvc/kannolo/trunk/packages/ufw/ufw.spec?revision=204&view=co SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kkofler/kannolo/fedora-26-x86_64/00471871-ufw/ufw-0.35-4.fc26.src.rpm Description: The Uncomplicated Firewall(ufw) is a front-end for netfilter, which aims to make it easier for people unfamiliar with firewall concepts. Ufw provides a framework for managing netfilter as well as manipulating the firewall. Fedora Account System Username: kkofler -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409241] Review Request: ufw - Uncomplicated Firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409241 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- Taking this 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409241] Review Request: ufw - Uncomplicated Firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409241 --- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa --- fedora-review cannot process the spec URL you've given me. While I'm using fedora-review in srpm only mode, please, in the future, publish spec files in a way that fedora-review can process them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1401334] Review Request: python-utils - Python Utils is a module with some convenient utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401334 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- python-utils-2.0.1-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ed61d2c137 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1399833] Review Request: python-libnacl - Python bindings for libsodium based on ctypes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1399833 Sergio Monteiro Basto changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@saltstack.com --- Comment #7 from Sergio Monteiro Basto --- *** Bug 1113310 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1113310] Review Request: python-libnacl - Python ctypes wrapper for libsodium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113310 Sergio Monteiro Basto changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE --- Comment #34 from Sergio Monteiro Basto --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1399833 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1404217] Review Request: php-pecl-dio - Direct I/O functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404217 --- Comment #17 from Erik Lundin --- Much appreciated Remi :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409212] Review Request: php-pecl-dio - PHP extension (Direct I/ O functions)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409212 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2016-12-30 09:14:57 --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- This package is already on its way to being part of EPEL7: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-8cd01d8eb3 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1404217 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1404217] Review Request: php-pecl-dio - Direct I/O functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404217 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@coretech.se --- Comment #16 from Neal Gompa --- *** Bug 1409212 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409192] Review Request: python-pytest-httpbin - Fixture providing local instance of httpbin test service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409192 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-pytest-httpbin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409138] Review Request: pixiewps - An offline WPS bruteforce utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409138
--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt ---
> Source1: README.md
> Source2: LICENSE.md
???
> rm -rf pixiewps-master README.md LICENSE.md
> unzip -q %{_sourcedir}/master.zip
> cp %{_sourcedir}/pixiewps-master/README.md .
> cp %{_sourcedir}/pixiewps-master/LICENSE.md .
What is going on here? Why do you remove the two files and add them back as
separate sources?
> Version: 1.2
What are the release habits of this project?
The version has changed to 1.2.2 in January 2016.
https://github.com/wiire/pixiewps/tags
https://github.com/wiire/pixiewps/releases/tag/v1.2.2
https://github.com/wiire/pixiewps/archive/v1.2.2.tar.gz
> install -p -m 755 pixiewps-master/pixiewps.1 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1
0644 would be correct since a manual page doesn't need to be executable.
> make %{?_smp_mflags}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409212] New: Review Request: php-pecl-dio - PHP extension (Direct I/ O functions)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409212 Bug ID: 1409212 Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-dio - PHP extension (Direct I/O functions) Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel7 Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: e...@coretech.se QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://repo.coretech.se/el7/spec/php-pecl-dio-0.0.9.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.coretech.se/el7/src/php-pecl-dio-0.0.9-1.el7.centos.src.rpm Description: PHP supports the direct io functions as described in the Posix Standard (Section 6) for performing I/O functions at a lower level than the C-Language stream I/O functions (fopen(), fread(),..). DIO provides functions and stream wrappers which provide raw and serial low level IO support. The use of the DIO functions should be considered only when direct control of a device is needed. In all other cases, the standard filesystem functions are more than adequate. Looking for a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409204] New: Review Request: lirc - Spec file for latest version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409204 Bug ID: 1409204 Summary: Review Request: lirc - Spec file for latest version Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel7 Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: e...@coretech.se QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://repo.coretech.se/el7/spec/lirc-0.9.4b.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.coretech.se/el7/src/lirc-0.9.4b-1.el7.centos.src.rpm The current package in epel7 (lirc-0.9.1a) is broken because it requires iguanaIR (see bug #1409067). This dependency has been removed in lirc-0.9.4b. Also the number of packages has been minimized to lirc and lirc-devel. I see no need to split it in multiple packages just for docs and example config-files. This package has been tested OK in CentOS 7. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
