[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- stlsplit-1.1-1.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 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|stlsplit-1.1-1.fc22 |1.1-1.fc23 Resolution|ERRATA |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- stlsplit-1.1-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|1.1-1.fc23 |1.1-1.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||stlsplit-1.1-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-08-13 12:59:06 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- stlsplit-1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- stlsplit-1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- stlsplit-1.1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/stlsplit-1.1-1.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- stlsplit-1.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/stlsplit-1.1-1.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- stlsplit-1.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 23. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/stlsplit-1.1-1.fc23 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Thank you. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: stlsplit Short Description: Split STL file to more files - one shell each Owners: churchyard Branches: f21 f22 f23 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211
Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com ---
PACKAGE APPROVED
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.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright
[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211 --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/stlsplit.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/stlsplit-1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Thanks. Fixed both problems. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211
--- Comment #3 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com ---
You could use in %build:
CFLAGS=%{optflags} -fPIC LDFLAGS=%{?__global_ldflags} make %{?_smp_mflags}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211 --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- What would be the appropriate LDFLAGS to set? I'm not quite sure. Thanks you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211
Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|e...@mayorgalinux.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- LDFLAGS not set.
- rpmlint unused-direct-shlib-dependency warnings can be fixed.
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: AGPL (v3 or later). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mayorga/1215211-stlsplit/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Note: LDFLAGS not set.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
See Issues above.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned
[Bug 1215211] Review Request: stlsplit - Split STL file to more files - one shell each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215211 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1224397 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224397 [Bug 1224397] Review Request: admeshgui - STL viewer and manipulation tool -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
