[Bug 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-06-26 17:41:37 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- 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 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.el5 -- 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 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.el6 -- 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 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-5.fc17 -- 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 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-4.el5 -- 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 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-4.el6 -- 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 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-4.fc17 -- 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 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163
Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com ---
The build is requiring this, there are many other components following this.
If it's ok with you i'll leave it like this for now.
It was more a comment than a rule, and it is not bocking :)
[OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
dpm-contrib-admintools.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0.tar.gz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
- minors warnings
[OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[OK] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[N/A] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[OK] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[N/A] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[OK] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[OK] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[N/A] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[OK] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[OK] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[OK] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[OK] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[OK] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
[N/A] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[N/A] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[N/A] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[N/A] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
[N/A] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[N/A] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly
[Bug 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: dpm-contrib-admintools Short Description: DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP) Owners: rocha Branches: el5 el6 f17 InitialCC: -- 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 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 --- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163
--- Comment #4 from Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com ---
Hi.
Thanks for the review, spec and srpm updated:
https://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dpm-contrib-admintools.spec
https://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0-2.src.rpm
Koji builds (success):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4128602 (rawhide)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4128606 (5E)
Details inline below.
[OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-spacetoken-list-files
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-disk-to-dpns
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpns-usage-by-vouser
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-delreplica
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-dpns-by-replication
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-spacetoken-replicate-hotfiles
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-spacetoken-usage
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-diskfs-to-dpns-chk
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-du
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-list-disk
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-usage-by-vo-user
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-list-hotfiles
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary adler32sum
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-find
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-pfn-to-dpns
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-files-by-vo-user
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-dpns-to-diskfs-chk
dpm-contrib-admintools.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0.tar.gz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings.
- minors warnings
[OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
[OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[FAIL] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
- Missing %{?_isa} macro on python-dpm and MySQL-python
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires
- make is not executed properly, compilation is done by make
install in the install section
Both fixed.
- -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/ is an override of the %cmake macro, this is
not recommended.
The build is requiring this, there are many other components following this. If
it's ok with you i'll leave it like this for now.
[OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[N/A] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[OK] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this
task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the
Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[N/A] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not
compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a
comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[OK] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common
sense.
[OK] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[N/A] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default
paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[OK] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[OK] MUST: If the package is designed to be
[Bug 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163 Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ade...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ade...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com --- I take care of it -- 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 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823163
--- Comment #3 from Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com ---
[OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-spacetoken-list-files
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-disk-to-dpns
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-usage-by-vouser
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-delreplica
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-dpns-by-replication
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-spacetoken-replicate-hotfiles
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-spacetoken-usage
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-diskfs-to-dpns-chk
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-du
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-list-disk
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-usage-by-vo-user
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-list-hotfiles
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary adler32sum
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-find
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-pfn-to-dpns
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-files-by-vo-user
dpm-contrib-admintools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
dpm-sql-dpns-to-diskfs-chk
dpm-contrib-admintools.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
dpm-contrib-admintools-0.2.0.tar.gz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings.
- minors warnings
[OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[FAIL] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
- Missing %{?_isa} macro on python-dpm and MySQL-python
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires
- make is not executed properly, compilation is done by make
install in the install section
- -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/ is an override of the %cmake macro, this is
not recommended.
[OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[N/A] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[OK] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[N/A] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[OK] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[OK] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[N/A] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[OK] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[OK] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[OK] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with
[Bug 823163] Review Request: dpm-contrib-admintools - DPM administration toolkit (contrib from GridPP)
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=823163 --- Comment #1 from Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com 2012-05-19 14:45:33 EDT --- Koji builds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4089382 (dist-5E-epel) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4089386 (dist-6E-epel) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4089378 (f17) Known issues from rpmlint (and pointer to ticket added upstream): https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/lcgdm/ticket/524 dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-spacetoken-list-files dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-disk-to-dpns dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-usage-by-vouser dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-delreplica dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-dpns-by-replication dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-spacetoken-replicate-hotfiles dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-spacetoken-usage dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-diskfs-to-dpns-chk dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-du dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-list-disk dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-usage-by-vo-user dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-list-hotfiles dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary adler32sum dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpns-find dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-pfn-to-dpns dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-files-by-vo-user dpm-contrib-admintools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpm-sql-dpns-to-diskfs-chk -- 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
