[Bug 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662269 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|662270 (circuit_macros) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Assignee|ti...@math.uh.edu |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | |needinfo?(maths...@gmail.co | |m) | Last Closed||2015-12-11 11:03:00 --- Comment #12 from James Hogarth --- It's been over a week with no response from the requestor to the NeedsInfo flag. Closing as per policy. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662270 [Bug 662270] Review Request: circuit_macros - A set of macros for drawing high-quality line diagram -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662269 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||james.hoga...@gmail.com, ||maths...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(maths...@gmail.co ||m) --- Comment #11 from James Hogarth --- Ben it has been a few years since your last comment on this ticket. Are you intending to progress this? As per policy if there is no response within a week the bug will be closed so that others may create a fresh review request if interested. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662269 --- Comment #10 from Ben Boeckel --- Nope, I've put off the license inspection mainly :/ . I'll try to figure some time in for going through my bugzilla backlog in the next week or so. -- 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 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662269 --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts --- Did I miss an update? -- 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 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662269 --- Comment #8 from Ben Boeckel 2012-05-08 18:13:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > Indeed, I get those rpmlint complaints and they're all fine. (Though I wonder > why all of the stuff in the srpm has such odd permissions. I guess it could > be > your umask.) Yeah, I use 027 as my umask. > The "texlive2010" bit is a little odd since that project is on to texlive2012 > now. Hopefully one day soon that project will actually be finished. (Last I > checked it was waiting on just two license issues.) Anyway, that's …an incomplete sentence ;) . I didn't know texlive2012 was that close. I know jnovy fedorapeople repo hasn't been updated in a long time, but I haven't seen any reviews going by. > Since the package contains files of multiple licenses, you'll need at least a > comment in the spec indicating which file is under which license. Ah, yeah. > The examples package has a somewhat odd directory structure; the "examples" > directory is repeated: > /usr/share/dpic/examples/examples/README > I also wonder if the documentation for the examples should be packaged as > documentation, though that's starting to descend to absurdity. Hmm, I'll get rid of the duplicate examples thing. Must have skimmed that when looking at the path lists. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662269 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts 2012-05-08 15:26:21 EDT --- Indeed, I get those rpmlint complaints and they're all fine. (Though I wonder why all of the stuff in the srpm has such odd permissions. I guess it could be your umask.) The "texlive2010" bit is a little odd since that project is on to texlive2012 now. Hopefully one day soon that project will actually be finished. (Last I checked it was waiting on just two license issues.) Anyway, that's Since the package contains files of multiple licenses, you'll need at least a comment in the spec indicating which file is under which license. The examples package has a somewhat odd directory structure; the "examples" directory is repeated: /usr/share/dpic/examples/examples/README I also wonder if the documentation for the examples should be packaged as documentation, though that's starting to descend to absurdity. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: c79dc98fe3c46e2c79a260b54c5e429b2c587ed80edd2060bbd462914b8a dpic-2012.04.23.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package (at least one license text is in the README file) * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: dpic-2012.04.23-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm dpic = 2012.04.23-1.fc18 dpic(x86-64) = 2012.04.23-1.fc18 = (none special) dpic-examples-2012.04.23-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm dpic-examples = 2012.04.23-1.fc18 dpic-examples(x86-64) = 2012.04.23-1.fc18 = dpic = 2012.04.23 * no bundled libraries. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662269 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|fedora-package-review@redha |package-review@lists.fedora |t.com |project.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662269 --- Comment #4 from Ben Boeckel 2012-03-03 00:01:31 EST --- Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic-2012.02.12-1.fc18.src.rpm dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic-2012.02.12.tar.gz 0640L dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic.spec 0640L dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic-no-strip-binaries.patch 0640L dpic.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpic dpic-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662269 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura 2010-12-12 18:05:47 EST --- *** Bug 530755 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662269 --- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel 2010-12-11 11:22:32 EST --- The numbers are for which diag and tst file they were generated from. I suppose since the Makefile is shipped with the examples, which sources the examples were build from is more obvious. Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic-2010.12.08-2.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662269
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola 2010-12-11 10:46:41
EST ---
Might I suggest cleaning up the spec file with e.g. by replacing the long
example building bit with a simple
# Add current directory to path
export PATH=$PATH:`pwd`
# Build examples
pushd examples
for target in epic pstricks pgf pdf mfpic overlay metapost; do
make $target
mv tst.ps example-$target.ps
done
for target in psfrag postscript; do
make $target
mv tst.ps example-$target.ps
mv diag.eps example-$target.eps
done
for target in xfig; do
make $target
mv diag.fig example-$target.fig
done
# Clean up temporary files
rm tst-mfpic.* tst.* diag.*
# Return to parent directory
popd
***
If you want to add numbering, you can do it with e.g.
n=0
for target in epic pstricks pgf pdf mfpic overlay metapost; do
let n=n+1
make $target
mv tst.ps example-${n}-${target}.ps
done
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662269 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||662270(circuit_macros) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662269 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||dpic -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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
