[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc19|sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc17 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sugar-xoeditor-11-2.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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MHqXMWqSt4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc17|sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc18 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Em27dscOIPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2013-06-03 13:32:04 |2013-06-16 02:06:18 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oca8Zg8dhCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cZ550Oi4Sca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XbyOR5EHgRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cbLoOM42SMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zBerI60vV5a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wtH3OQc8Osa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9Mm7kcVSzda=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 --- Comment #18 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qwvDNGmWzVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5471897
$ rpmlint -i -v *
sugar-xoeditor.src: I: checking
sugar-xoeditor.src: I: checking-url
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activities/XoEditor (timeout 10 seconds)
sugar-xoeditor.src: I: checking-url
http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/honey/xoEditor/xoEditor-11.tar.bz2
(timeout 10 seconds)
sugar-xoeditor.noarch: I: checking
sugar-xoeditor.noarch: I: checking-url
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activities/XoEditor (timeout 10 seconds)
sugar-xoeditor.spec: I: checking-url
http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/honey/xoEditor/xoEditor-11.tar.bz2
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint is happy :)
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv3+ and MIT
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
2bd2829b77130606cbb0bc16793c49be3fcba0461da1b27eb9743642d14c8029
xoEditor-11.tar.bz2
2bd2829b77130606cbb0bc16793c49be3fcba0461da1b27eb9743642d14c8029
xoEditor-11.tar.bz2.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] 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.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] 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)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] 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).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 --- Comment #16 from Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sugar-xoeditor Short Description: Editor for xo icon colors Owners: snavin Branches: f17 f18 f19 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1MsHWIXVoMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vEa5Z0aHS6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com --- small mistake. I was suppose to set fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=urqEbECsmKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 --- Comment #12 from Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com --- thanks Kalpa Updated to version 11 SPEC file URL: http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-xoeditor/sugar-xoeditor.spec SRPM URL: http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-xoeditor/sugar-xoeditor-11-1.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3EnKCnSMuDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #13 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Danishka Navin from comment #8) You better asked before closing. :) Sorry for the inconvenience. I will do the review for you in return :) python-devel is deprecated, use python2-devel instead: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires %defattr(-,root,root,-) is obsolete and can be dropped for all currently supported Fedora versions and EPEL=6. COPYING contains the GPLv3, not GPLv2. Moreover, licensecheck says: $ licensecheck -r * game.py: GPL (v3 or later) setup.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN sprites.py: MIT/X11 (BSD like) toolbar_utils.py: GPL (v3 or later) XOEditorActivity.py: GPL (v3 or later) That's why the license tag has to be GPLv3+ and MIT -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ruccwT2R5Ga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 --- Comment #14 from Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com --- Thanks Mario for the review and comments. SPEC file URL: http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-xoeditor/sugar-xoeditor.spec SRPM URL: http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-xoeditor/sugar-xoeditor-11-2.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=E8NBeFim4Ka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2013-06-03 13:32:04 --- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- There's a new review request for the same package, bug #969671. I will mark this one as a duplicate, because there is no progress for almost one year. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 969671 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kGsN6PassXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||callka...@gmail.com, ||pbrobin...@gmail.com --- Comment #8 from Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com --- I could not get the sponsorship till last week. Few days ago I got the sponsorship from Peter Robinson. I hope you have seen my requests in the devel list. You have made the changed after I get the sponsorship. I already sent the list of bugs to be review to Parag if he have free time to work on it. You better asked before closing. :) I will discus this with Kapla. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6kVHTufyTha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 --- Comment #9 from Kalpa Welivitigoda callka...@gmail.com --- @Danishka I didn't notice that you have already packaged and files a review request. You may continue with this and I'll mark mine a duplicate of this. You better file the request for the latest upstream version. Version 11 is there --- Comment #10 from Kalpa Welivitigoda callka...@gmail.com --- @Danishka I didn't notice that you have already packaged and files a review request. You may continue with this and I'll mark mine a duplicate of this. You better file the request for the latest upstream version. Version 11 is there -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rSdp6ngDPna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Kalpa Welivitigoda callka...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|DUPLICATE |--- Keywords||Reopened -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XetRuoy9swa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 --- Comment #9 from Kalpa Welivitigoda callka...@gmail.com --- @Danishka I didn't notice that you have already packaged and files a review request. You may continue with this and I'll mark mine a duplicate of this. You better file the request for the latest upstream version. Version 11 is there --- Comment #10 from Kalpa Welivitigoda callka...@gmail.com --- @Danishka I didn't notice that you have already packaged and files a review request. You may continue with this and I'll mark mine a duplicate of this. You better file the request for the latest upstream version. Version 11 is there -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3hAF3CEZn4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 --- Comment #11 from Kalpa Welivitigoda callka...@gmail.com --- *** Bug 969671 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6l4fi02czka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Kalpa Welivitigoda callka...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dpFqpZaavua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org --- Comment #5 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Since the activity requires gconf, shouldn't a requires on gnome-python2-gconf be added ? ( the policy is not explicit into what is part of the base platform : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SugarActivityGuidelines ) There is also a bundled library in it ( sprites.py ), under a different license. Not sure if something need to be done there too. -- 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 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- 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 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Recent update looks Ok. Package APPROVED. -- 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 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- 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 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 --- Comment #1 from Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com --- updated the spec and tested for rpmlint against spec, srpm and rpm http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-xoeditor/sugar-xoeditor.spec http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-xoeditor/sugar-xoeditor-6-2.fc17.src.rpm -- 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 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Review: + koji scratch build -http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4246639 + rpmlint on rpms gave 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + Source verified with upstream as (sha1sum) 03a04f1089be6d54c056d70a32d97018db34d46e xoEditor-6.tar.bz2 03a04f1089be6d54c056d70a32d97018db34d46e ../SOURCES/xoEditor-6.tar.bz2 - License is GPLv3. suggestions: 1) Change the license tag to GPLv3+ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses 2) Remove the following line from spec %defattr(-,root,root,-) -- 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 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 --- Comment #3 from Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com --- fixed both suggestions http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-xoeditor/sugar-xoeditor.spec http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-xoeditor/sugar-xoeditor-6-3.fc17.src.rpm -- 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 840437] Review Request: sugar-xoeditor - editor for xo icon colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840437 Danishka Navin danis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- 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
