[Bug 228960] Review Request: java-1.5.0-gcj - JPackage compatibility layer for GCJ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: java-1.5.0-gcj - JPackage compatibility layer for GCJ
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228960
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 03:15 EST ---
A few notes for the reviewer:
- this can't be built in mock until the GCJ with 1.5 support lands in Rawhide
- I simplified the name, removing the -compat since people have been confused by
it (thinking that it was a legacy compatibility package similar to e.g.
compat-libgcc-296)
- the rpmlint output is as clean as possible, but still claims some warnings
and errors:
$ rpmlint SRPMS/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0-1.src.rpm
E: java-1.5.0-gcj hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
See comments in spec file -- this is needed to allow 64-bit JDK alternatives.
$ rpmlint RPMS/i386/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0-1.i386.rpm
E: java-1.5.0-gcj only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
These non-binaries are symlinks to binaries so they should be in /usr/lib.
W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/java/gcj-endorsed/mx4j-remote.jar ../mx4j/mx4j-remote.jar
W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre/bin/rmiregistry
../../../../../bin/grmiregistry
W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre/lib/security/java.security
../../../../../security/classpath.security
W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jaas-1.5.0.0.jar
../../jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre/lib/jaas.jar
W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jdbc-stdext-1.5.0.0.jar
../../jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre/lib/jdbc-stdext.jar
W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jsse-1.5.0.0.jar
../../jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre/lib/jsse.jar
W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre/bin/keytool ../../../../../bin/gkeytool
W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jndi-1.5.0.0.jar
../../jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre/lib/jndi.jar
W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/java/gcj-endorsed/mx4j.jar ../mx4j/mx4j.jar
These are properly terminated by dependency packages.
W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangerous-command-in-%post ln
W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangerous-command-in-%trigger ln
These are required to create compatibility symlinks.
$ rpmlint RPMS/i386/java-1.5.0-gcj-devel-1.5.0.0-1.i386.rpm
E: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel no-documentation
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/jarsigner ../../../../bin/gjarsigner
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/java ../../../../bin/gij
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/jar ../../../../bin/fastjar
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/rmic ../../../../bin/grmic
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/rmiregistry ../../../../bin/grmiregistry
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/keytool ../../../../bin/gkeytool
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/javac ../../../../bin/ecj
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/javah ../../../../bin/gjavah
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/appletviewer
../../../../bin/gappletviewer
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.5.0-gcj java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangerous-command-in-%post ln
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangerous-command-in-%trigger ln
$ rpmlint RPMS/i386/java-1.5.0-gcj-javadoc-1.5.0.0-1.i386.rpm
$ rpmlint RPMS/i386/java-1.5.0-gcj-src-1.5.0.0-1.i386.rpm
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-src no-documentation
This is a sub-package; the documentation is in the base package.
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-src dangerous-command-in-%post ln
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-src dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
W: java-1.5.0-gcj-src dangerous-command-in-%trigger ln
These are required to create and remove the src.zip compatibility symlink.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 169704] Review Request: mosml - Moscow ML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mosml - Moscow ML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169704 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 03:24 EST --- FYI the mosml site seems to have a contributed rpm. Does not build on x86_64. Add to the x86_64 exclude tracker. 2.01-9 again, this time builds on F7 devel i386: rpmlint of mosml-devel-2.01-9.fc7.i386.rpm:W: mosml-devel invalid-license GPL/ATT/INRIA/Distributable W: mosml-devel no-documentation rpmlint of mosml-pg-2.01-9.fc7.i386.rpm:W: mosml-pg invalid-license GPL/ATT/INRIA/Distributable E: mosml-pg invalid-soname /usr/lib/mosml/lib/libmpq.so libmpq.so W: mosml-pg no-documentation rpmlint of mosml-gd-2.01-9.fc7.i386.rpm:W: mosml-gd invalid-license GPL/ATT/INRIA/Distributable E: mosml-gd invalid-soname /usr/lib/mosml/lib/libmgd.so libmgd.so W: mosml-gd no-documentation rpmlint of mosml-2.01-9.fc7.i386.rpm:W: mosml invalid-license GPL/ATT/INRIA/Distributable E: mosml invalid-soname /usr/lib/mosml/lib/libmregex.so libmregex.so E: mosml invalid-soname /usr/lib/mosml/lib/libmunix.so libmunix.so E: mosml invalid-soname /usr/lib/mosml/lib/libmgmp.so libmgmp.so rpmlint of mosml-gdbm-2.01-9.fc7.i386.rpm:W: mosml-gdbm invalid-license GPL/ATT/INRIA/Distributable E: mosml-gdbm invalid-soname /usr/lib/mosml/lib/libmgdbm.so libmgdbm.so W: mosml-gdbm no-documentation rpmlint of mosml-docs-2.01-9.fc7.i386.rpm:W: mosml-docs invalid-license GPL/ATT/INRIA/Distributable rpmlint of mosml-examples-2.01-9.fc7.i386.rpm:W: mosml-examples invalid-license GPL/ATT/INRIA/Distributable no-documentation ignore, docs subpackage Good: + Proper BuildRoot + Macros throughout + subpackages require base package + commented + defattr for all packages + ownership good + header files split out + Downloaded source matches APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: bzip2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 03:32 EST ---
The man pages are installed with bad perms. Should be
install -p -m644 bzip2.1 bzdiff.1 bzgrep.1 bzmore.1
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1/
-devel should not require the main package.
There is no static library, the %description should be updated.
Suggestions:
use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root)
use
URL: http://www.bzip.org/
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225735] Merge Review: ethtool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: ethtool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225735 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 04:13 EST --- Fixed in bzip2-1.0.4-6.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226133] Merge Review: mc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: mc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226133 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 04:32 EST --- Now all problems were cleared, so this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226133] Merge Review: mc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: mc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226133 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 04:35 EST --- Dan, thanks for your comments and review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 215659] Review Request: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215659 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 05:03 EST --- Sure, I'll take over. Expect (hopefully) a first review later today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228969] New: Review Request: wxGlade - A wxWidgets/wxPython/wxPerl GUI designer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228969 Summary: Review Request: wxGlade - A wxWidgets/wxPython/wxPerl GUI designer Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/wxglade.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/wxGlade-0.4.1-1.src.rpm Description: wxGlade is a GUI designer written in Python with the popular GUI toolkit wxPython, that helps you create wxWidgets/wxPython user interfaces. At the moment it can generate Python, C++, Perl and XRC (wxWidgets' XML resources) code. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228970] New: Review Request: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228970 Summary: Review Request: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://ftp.licr.org/pub/elph.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.licr.org/pub/elph-1.0.1-0.src.rpm Description: ELPH is a general-purpose Gibbs sampler for finding motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences. The program takes as input a set containing anywhere from a few dozen to thousands of sequences, and searches through them for the most common motif, assuming that each sequence contains one copy of the motif. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228971] New: Review Request: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228971 Summary: Review Request: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://ftp.licr.org/pub/glimmer.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.licr.org/pub/glimmer-3.02-0.src.rpm Description: Glimmer is a system for finding genes in microbial DNA, especially the genomes of bacteria, archaea, and viruses. Glimmer (Gene Locator and Interpolated Markov ModelER) uses interpolated Markov models (IMMs) to identify the coding regions and distinguish them from noncoding DNA. This packages requires the elph package also submitted for review: #228970 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228971] Review Request: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228971 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||228970 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228970] Review Request: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228970 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||228971 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225907] Merge Review: iptraf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: iptraf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225907
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 05:46 EST ---
Formal review is here:
OK source files match upstream:
9ee433d95573d612539da4b452e6cdcbca6ab6674a88bfbf6eaf12d4902b5163
iptraf-3.0.0.tar.gz
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
OK latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK compiler flags are appropriate.
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock (i386).
OK debuginfo package looks complete.
OK final provides and requires looks sane:
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK no scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK no headers.
OK no pkgconfig files.
OK no libtool .la droppings.
OK not a GUI app.
MUST FIX:
BAD build root is NOT correct.
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BAD rpmlint is NOT silent.
I: iptraf checking
W: iptraf summary-ended-with-dot A console-based network monitoring utility.
E: iptraf non-standard-dir-perm /var/lock/iptraf 0700
E: iptraf non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/iptraf 0700
E: iptraf non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/iptraf 0700
can be ignored
W: iptraf hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/iptraf-3.0.0/Documentation/stylesheet-images/.eps
E: iptraf zero-length
/usr/share/doc/iptraf-3.0.0/Documentation/stylesheet-images/.eps
better will be to delete this file manually, I don't think it is really
needed
somewhere
W: iptraf log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/iptraf
maybe a logrotate.d file could be added
I: iptraf checking
W: iptraf summary-ended-with-dot A console-based network monitoring utility.
W: iptraf hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag /var/tmp/%{name}-%{version}-root
see above
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226354] Merge Review: radvd
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: radvd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226354 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 06:06 EST --- No, /usr/lib/sendmail is generated by alternatives. It could also point to postfix or exim. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 06:07 EST ---
comment #11
I think correct will be ln -s {_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver}
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}%{majorver}
The prefix was used for packages for lib or lib64. I don't know, which packages
need this backward compatibility (not sure if they still needed, or if it's
something what was forgoten in spec).
comment #12
yes, you're right
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 07:03 EST --- Tagged and built as 6.7-6.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226164] Merge Review: mtr
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: mtr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226164
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 07:11 EST ---
Formal review is here:
OK source files match upstream:
b742c46797ba23000e149c99127580d541ed44a69b5bbc44323211665c95e02a
mtr-0.71.tar.gz
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK compiler flags are appropriate.
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock (i386).
OK debuginfo package looks complete.
OK final provides and requires look sane:
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK no scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK no headers.
OK no pkgconfig files.
OK no libtool .la droppings.
MUST FIX:
BAD build root is correct.
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BAD latest version is NOT being packaged.
version 0.72 is available
BAD rpmlint is NOT silent.
I: mtr-gtk checking
W: mtr-gtk summary-ended-with-dot The GTK+ interface for mtr.
E: mtr-gtk file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile
/usr/share/applications/net-xmtr.desktop
W: mtr-gtk conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/usr/share/applications/net-xmtr.desktop
do not mark it as a config file
W: mtr-gtk non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/xmtr
W: mtr-gtk non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/xmtr
I: mtr checking
W: mtr summary-ended-with-dot A network diagnostic tool.
I: mtr (src.rpm) checking
W: mtr summary-ended-with-dot A network diagnostic tool.
W: mtr mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 327, tab: line 5)
BAD is a GUI app
contains a desktop file, but is not correctly handled
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755)
you could create a new SourceX file and use desktop-file-install
the Category: X-Red-Hat-Base should be removed
Also the CVS repo contains some patches for previous versions that are not used
now. Please cvs remove them.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217671] Review Request: libhangul - Hangul input library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libhangul - Hangul input library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217671 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 08:04 EST --- Thanks for reviewing. updated spec file and srpm file are: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/tagoh/libhangul/libhangul.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/tagoh/libhangul/libhangul-0.0.4-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228865] Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228865 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Component|net-tools |Package Review AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 08:08 EST --- This package is in review process for RHEL5. What is the status for Fedora? Spec URL: cvs://cvs.devel.redhat.com/cvs/dist?rpms/ipw3945-ucode/RHEL-5/ipw3945-ucode.spec SRPM URL: cvs://cvs.devel.redhat.com/cvs/dist?rpms/ipw3945-ucode/RHEL-5 Description: This is the firmware which runs on the ipw3945 device. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225754] Merge Review: finger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: finger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225754 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write
support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 08:45 EST ---
Okay. Two minor issues.
* setup directory
%setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}
is okay with
%setup -q
because the default directory is %{name}-%{version}
* For Requires/BuildRequires of perl modules:
BuildRequires: perl-XML-Parser
Well, for perl modules, the preferred style is
BuildRequires: perl(XML::Parser)
Anything else is okay.
---
This package (ntfs-config) is APPROVED by me.
---
Please fill up http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/CVSSyncNeeded
and import this package after cvsadmin does some needed procedure.
By the way, are you in need of sponsor? I see that you
assigned some review requests to yourself, however
as far as I know the person who can review the bug must be in
fedorabugs group, and then must be in cvsadmin group...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228707] Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228707 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 217654] Review Request: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217654 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226494] Merge Review: tk
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: tk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226494
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 08:56 EST ---
Marcela, again, again and again: Watch out _before_ you cause unowned/orphaned
directories, please! The directory /usr/share/tk8.4 is no longer owned by any
package but should be owned by tk (like before):
--- tk.spec 2007-02-15 16:25:56.0 +0100
+++ tk.spec.rsc 2007-02-16 14:56:01.0 +0100
@@ -105,11 +105,7 @@
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_bindir}/wish*
-%{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver}/demos/
-%{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver}/images/
-%{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver}/msgs/
-%{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver}/*.tcl
-%{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver}/tclIndex
+%{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver}
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}%{majorver}.so
%{_libdir}/%{name}%{majorver}
%{_mandir}/man1/*
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 09:13 EST --- Any chance to own /usr/lib/sendmail somehow else? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 09:18 EST --- Sorry, on fc6, building still fails with the jade/docbook error reported in #1. Did you try to build this package for fc6? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225010] Review Request: glob2 - An innovative RTS game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glob2 - An innovative RTS game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 09:45 EST --- Rafat, About closing bug 191005 as a dup of this, that review was actually still active I must admit it didn't look like that, that is because most of the discussion was taking place elsewhere as Nikolai needed (and still needs) sponsering. I didn't get around to reviewing one of his other packages and sponser him because of various circumstances. AFAIK Nikolai still wants to become an FE contributer and is still interested in maintaining glob2. Nikolai I've added you to the CC for this, what do you think about this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228865] Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228865 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 09:45 EST --- AFAIK it was not submitted because of the binary only regulatory daemon. OTOH livna has it in the review queue -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 09:50 EST --- I think adding: Provides: /usr/lib/sendmail would achieve the desired result. I think that is how sendmail owns /usr/sbin/sendmail, which is also managed by alternatives. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226431] Merge Review: squid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: squid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226431 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] BugsThisDependsOn||198251 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 10:10 EST --- MUST blocker (imo, anyway), samba RFE: samba: make /var/cache/samba/windind_privledged group owned, bug #198251 (and related squid bug #198253), changing owner/group/permissions on a file/dir owned by another pkg is unacceptable (ie, squid's existing %triggerin -- samba-common /usr/sbin/usermod -a -G winbind squid /dev/null 21 || \ chgrp squid /var/cache/samba/winbindd_privileged /dev/null 21 || : -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225010] Review Request: glob2 - An innovative RTS game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glob2 - An innovative RTS game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225010 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 10:16 EST --- Ok, I'll wait for Nikolais reply. If he is really interested in maintaining glob2 I'll let him to do it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write
support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 10:18 EST ---
* setup directory
%setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}
is okay with
%setup -q
because the default directory is %{name}-%{version}
It's why i let it like that ;-)
Well, for perl modules, the preferred style is
BuildRequires: perl(XML::Parser)
okay, i can change it to perl(XML::Parser) ;-)
Please fill up http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/CVSSyncNeeded
and import this package after cvsadmin does some needed procedure.
By the way, are you in need of sponsor? I see that you
assigned some review requests to yourself, however
as far as I know the person who can review the bug must be in
fedorabugs group, and then must be in cvsadmin group...
I'm in the fedorabugs group but, not in cvsadmin group yet.
And i'm in fact still looking for sponsors...
If you can do something for me.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228865] Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228865 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 10:29 EST --- now that the binary only daemon is gone. the new driver should be ok for inclusion but to get into fedora it needs to get in the upstream kernel first -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|RAWHIDE |NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 10:33 EST --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/NewPackageProcess -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225010] Review Request: glob2 - An innovative RTS game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: glob2 - An innovative RTS game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225010 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 10:50 EST --- Erm, thats not completely what I had in mind, what I had in mind (but didn't write) is that you and Nikolai could co-maintain it. Since Nikolai is somewhat new to all this I think co-maintaining would be a good idea! Now lets hope Nikolai responds soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.2804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 10:56 EST --- Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/jtidy.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/jtidy-1.0-0.1.r7dev.1jpp.1.src.rpm (In reply to comment #15) X * rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there Perhaps change group for javadoc to Documentation.. ? I will not block on this though Done. X * Vendor tag should not be used Tag is still there X * Distribution tag should not be used Tag is still there Fixed, fixed. X * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps Lines in %install use cp -a .. consider using cp -ap Done. X * package should own all directories and files /usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils and it should be a requirement Fixed. X * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs Missing a Requires: xml-commoms-apis ? There is a Requires: xml-commons-apis already. - Need to put %define gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec I've changed the crazy conditional gcj_support line to just be gcj_support 1 - 's' after the '-' in BSD-style should be capital Fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227065] Review Request: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227065 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 10:59 EST --- Great! Did the diff -cr on the sources, and they match. Built it in mock successfully, here's the rpmlint output on mock built rpms: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-net-* W: jakarta-commons-net non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: jakarta-commons-net non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Requires and Provides: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm commons-net = 0:1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7 jakarta-commons-net = 0:1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm java jpackage-utils = 0:1.6 oro = 2.0.7 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) = 3.0.3-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-net-javadoc-1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm jakarta-commons-net-javadoc = 0:1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-net-javadoc-1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 APPROVED. Reassigning to myself as I need to build it in plague. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226239] Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226239 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 11:01 EST --- XX- License is GPL or Artistic ok? XX- License file included in package -- no license included As tibbs pointed out to us on IRC today, the license is included in the POD for this package: http://search.cpan.org/~kane/Archive-Tar-1.30/lib/Archive/Tar.pm#COPYRIGHT Or 'perldoc Archive::Tar' on a system with the package installed. 'GPL or Artistic' is standard for most CPAN modules. XX - No rpmlint output Should be fixed with perl-Archive-Tar-1.30-2.fc7.src.rpm, available soon. Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226239] Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226239 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 11:16 EST --- the license is included in the POD for this package: This is standared for most CPAN dist. 'GPL or Artistic' is standard for most CPAN modules. This is the shortcut we once had agreed upon to use, when a perl-module's copyright carries license notice of this kind: This library is free software; you may redistribute and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. So licensing-wise this package seems OK. Wrt. to license files we once also had agreed upon NOT to require detached license files, unless the package contains one. i.e. if a perl-module contains one you MUST add it to %doc, if not you don't have to add one. So. both rpmlint complains are void. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228865] Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228865 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Component|Package Review |kernel AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 11:17 EST --- It will be added when the new iwlwifi driver is in some sort of upstream; it might be added if it's in the wireless tree, or the netdev tree, as long as it's on its way to Linus. Moving from the package review queue to the kernel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228707] Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228707
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 11:24 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=148205)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148205action=view)
Mock build log of KoboDeluxe-0.4-0.1.pre10.fc7
Well, for 0.4-0.1.pre10:
* BuildRequires
- mockbuild fails on FC7 i386. SDL_image-devel seems
to be needed for BuildRequires.
* Encodings
- Some documentations installed by this package have
other Encodings than UTF-8. Please change them to
UTF-8.
--
READMEISO-8859-1
README.jp ISO-2022-JP
README.xkobo.jp ISO-2022-JP
--
* Documentation
- README.osx
I don't think this is useful.
* Timestamps
- This package contains many data files (especially
under %{_datadir}/%{_name} ) and keeping
timestamps on these files are recommended.
For this package, it is done by
---
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL=install -p
---
* Setgid bits
- Well, would you just explain why setgid bits is required
for the binary?
? Alsa issue
- Well I tried to enable alsa support, however it failed
because this package is for some old alsa-lib support
(around alsa-lib 0.5.9). Well, if it is preferred to
make this package have alsa support, would you contact
upstream?
* Functionality
- Well, I tried this package on both FC5 and FC-devel.
On FC-5, there is no problem, however, on FC-devel,
it seems that kobodl hangs up completely.
Well, as it hangs up after swithing to full screen mode,
I don't know how to get a backtrace... Would you know
any idea?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222522] Review Request: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222522 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 11:26 EST --- Looked at yellownet.so; it does not reference any symbols from that library. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222522] Review Request: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222522 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 11:27 EST --- NEWS file added in CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228865] Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228865 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fedora-package- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227101] Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default
Plexus Container
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227101
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 11:28 EST ---
plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.src.rpm
Legend:
OK: passes criteria
NO: fails criteria (errors included between -- markers)
NA: non applicable
??: unable to verify
MUST:
OK * package is named appropriately
OK - match upstream tarball or project name
OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec
OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
something)
OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name
OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
OK - OSI-approved
OK - not a kernel module
OK - not shareware
OK - is it covered by patents?
OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
OK - no binary firmware
OK * license field matches the actual license.
OK * license is open source-compatible.
OK - use acronyms for licences where common
OK * specfile name matches %{name}
?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches
do)
- if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
how to generate the the source drop; ie.
# svn export blah/tag blah
# tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
OK * correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
NO * rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
- justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
--
$ rpmlint plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.src.rpm
W: plexus-container-default invalid-license Apache Software License and MIT
--
OK * changelog should be in one of these formats:
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
OK * Packager tag should not be used
OK * Vendor tag should not be used
OK * use License and not Copyright
OK * Summary tag should not end in a period
NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK * specfile is legible
- this is largely subjective; use your judgement
?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
?? * BuildRequires are proper
- builds in mock will flush out problems here
- the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
bash
bzip2
coreutils
cpio
diffutils
fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
gcc
gcc-c++
gzip
make
patch
perl
redhat-rpm-config
rpm-build
sed
tar
unzip
which
OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
NO * make sure lines are = 80 characters
--
line 6 in %install is too long
--
OK * specfile written in American English
NA * make a -doc sub-package if necessary
- see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
OK * don't use rpath
NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files
NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
NO * use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
--
...
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
# jars
install -d -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/plexus
...
--
OK * don't use %makeinstall
NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK * package should probably not be relocatable
OK * package contains code
- see
[Bug 227042] Review Request: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 11:32 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Please add URL of Source0. Fixed. Please change Group to Development/Libraries. Fixed. The file src/readme should be specified as %doc (it has the license info). Fixed. The source rpm and spec file can be found here: http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/ Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226475] Merge Review: SysVinit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: SysVinit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226475 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 11:37 EST --- Sure, why not? New stuff uploaded at http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/ - please double-check. Note that I'm *not* going to commit the rename until the package is moved - realistically, if we're doing a rename, it should be a new CVS module with the new name, etc., and I'd only rather do that once. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227101] Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227101 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 11:40 EST --- Review update: OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227042] Review Request: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 11:40 EST --- Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227089] Review Request: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 11:41 EST --- Updated SRPM and spec: http://overholt.ca/fedora/msv.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/msv-1.2-0.1.20050722.3jpp.1.src.rpm The only rpmlint warning is on the demo sub-package about not having any documentation. I think this is fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228894] Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal
addresses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228894
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Product|Fedora Core |Fedora Extras
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
Component|Package Review |Package Review
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis||
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 11:46 EST ---
Couple issues thus far:
Mixed tabs/spaces in the spec (URL line is tabbed, rest are spaces)
Mixed use of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}, please pick one.
Do you need to --prefix %{buildroot} ? doesn't %configure set a proper prefix
that will be used when you do DESTDIR= in %install?
Init files aren't supposed to be config files are they?
Why is there an 'exit 0' in your %post ?
Also the build fails in mock:
security.c:24:27: error: rpcsvc/rquota.h: No such file or directory
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227101] Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default
Plexus Container
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227101
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 11:50 EST ---
Updated spec and SRPM:
http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-container-default.spec
http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #2)
NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc
It's unfortunately not included so this must be ignored.
NO * rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
- justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
--
$ rpmlint plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.src.rpm
W: plexus-container-default invalid-license Apache Software License and MIT
It's actually both so I can't see any way around it.
?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
NO * make sure lines are = 80 characters
--
line 6 in %install is too long
--
Fixed.
NO * use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
I think that's fine.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227101] Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 11:57 EST --- All looks good, marking fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227047] Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader
Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 11:58 EST ---
Updated spec and SRPM:
http://overholt.ca/fedora/classworlds.spec
http://overholt.ca/fedora/classworlds-1.1-1jpp.1.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #2)
X * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
release tag should have a %{?dist}
Fixed.
X * rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
- justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
Perhaps change group for javadoc to Documentation.. ? I will not block on
this though
Fixed.
X * package should own all directories and files
/usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils and it should be a requirement
Fixed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227109] Review Request: pmd-3.6-1jpp - Scans Java source code and looks for potential problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pmd-3.6-1jpp - Scans Java source code and looks for potential problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227109 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227111] Review Request: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227111 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227101] Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227101 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227096] Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227096 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 12:36 EST --- Just a couple of things: - Remove %define secion free. - Source0 should be a URL. - The license can be found in a few html pages in the following directory: target/docs/apidocs/org/codehaus/plexus/archiver - Remove the vendor tag. - Remove the distribution tag. - Some lines are more than 80 characters. - Should gcj support be added? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227044] Review Request: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227044
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 12:36 EST ---
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
* verify source and patches
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} used properly
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* packages meet FHS
X rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
$ rpmlint checkstyle-4.1-4jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm
W: checkstyle non-standard-group Development/Build Tools
Let's make this Development/Tools
* changelog fine
* Packager tag not used
* Vendor tag not used
* Distribution tag not used
* License used and not Copyright
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* no PreReq
* specfile is legible
X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
/usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Could not find excalibur/avalon-logkit Java
extension for this JVM
/usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Some specified jars were not found
I removed this to make it build
* BuildRequires are proper
* summary fine
* description fine
* make sure lines are = 80 characters
. I'm fine with the ones that aren't
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary
* no libraries
* no rpath
* no config files
* not a GUI app
* no -devel sub-package necessary
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* %makeinstall not used
* no locale data
* cp -p used
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions okay; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a web app
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
W: checkstyle non-standard-group Development/Build Tools
W: checkstyle-demo non-standard-group Development/Build Tools
These are fine but let's just make it Development/Tools
W: checkstyle-demo no-documentation
This is fine if there's nothing in the upstream sources
E: checkstyle-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/checkstyle-4.1/package-list
Hmm, this should be fixed.
W: checkstyle-manual dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/checkstyle-manual-4.1/api
/usr/share/javadoc/checkstyle
This should also be fixed.
W: checkstyle-manual symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/checkstyle-manual-4.1/api /usr/share/javadoc/checkstyle
This too
W: checkstyle-optional non-standard-group Development/Build Tools
See above.
W: checkstyle-optional no-documentation
Fine.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 13:11 EST --- Removing NEEDSPONSOR. I am now sponsoring. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222960] Review Request: XenMan - Graphical management tool for Xen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: XenMan - Graphical management tool for Xen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222960 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 13:11 EST --- (Removing NEEDSPONSOR: bug 225075) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: coreutils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 13:16 EST ---
Missing
Requires(pre): /sbin/install-info
Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info
Requires(post): grep, /sbin/install-info, coreutils
I am not sure that coreutils in Requires(post) makes sense...
Is
Requires: grep, findutils
really right?
The versions are certainly wrong in Obsoletes. The latest packaged
version (and versions below) should be obsoleted. The Provides also seems
wrong to me. First of all I guess it should be %{version}-%{release}.
But I am not sure that the current package version should be used
for the Provides since it is a merge of packages that certainly had
their own version.
I think it is a bit strange to depend on itself and other packages that
also depends on coreutils and are not really required, that is, anything
else than the shell, gcc and make since there is a bootstrapping issue
otherwise. But I guess that it is impossible to avoid that bootstraping
issue (except by doing complicated things like using busybox...).
I also guess that this issue is also there for gcc, make and bash, so...
There is a huge amount of patches. Many could be submitted (even the pam
one), or have they been submitted and rejected?
/etc, /var and /usr/bin are hardcoded in the spec file, maybe they could
be changed to macros.
It may be relevant to to use -p for files installed, like DIR_COLORS,
colorls.* ... pam files, since the files are certainly not changed often
and the timestamp carry some information.
sed could be used instead of
perl -pi -e 's/basic-1//g' tests/stty/Makefile*
and
perl -pi -e 's,/etc/utmp,/var/run/utmp,g;s,/etc/wtmp,/var/run/wtmp,g'
doc/coreutils.texi
Suggestions:
Add a comment above
bzip2 -f9 old/*/C* || :
to explain what it does
Don't use -f for some rm invocations (like rm -f
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT{%_bindir/$i,%_mandir/man1/$i.1}), don't add || : after
bzip2 -f9 old/*/C* || :, and also do bzip2 -9f ChangeLog unconditionally
such that they fail if something changes upstream. At the same time
short-circuit should still work, so care should be taken.
Maybe
[[ -f ChangeLog -f ChangeLog.bz2 ]] || bzip2 -9f ChangeLog
should be in %install
In the info scriptlets, I suggest removing the .gz from preun and
post, and replace .bz2 by something appropriate. Maybe *, but care
should be taken that it doesn't expands to more than one file.
replace %defattr(-,root,root) by %defattr(-,root,root,-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225827] Merge Review: gnome-nettool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gnome-nettool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225827 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 13:25 EST --- GOOD: * Build Ok in mock (x86_64) * License (GPL) and rpm Group tag OK * Naming meets the packaging guildlines * Handles locales appropriately * Buildrequires properly listed * rpmlint silent * Source file matches upstream 4d73e13da06200fe17c85f616b5e78392 gnome-nettool-2.17.4.tar.bz2 I hope you'll fix the earlier highlighted issues. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227044] Review Request: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227044 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 14:19 EST --- FYI, it builds in mock for me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 14:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) So my take is, if this is the standard free font for Tibetan then we should probably name it fonts-tibetan, otherwise we can keep the current name. When you look at description in spec file and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_script you will see that using this fonts you can write in Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi. AFAIK TMU and Jomolhari are the only free TrueType OpenType Unicode fonts that's metter (http://www.thdl.org/tools/fonts/tibfonts.php?l=uva10924125554021m=set), so I could assume they are standard fonts. Then my propose is to pack TMU and Jomolhari together and name it fonts-tibetan-dzongkha(-ladakhi)? (In reply to comment #8) One more question, I haven't tested the font(s) yet, do we have any support for OTF fonts yet in Fedora? Do we need libotf or something for that? Fedora should support OpenType out of box as it include FreeType. Pango supports Tibetan (probably Dzongkha) since 1.8.0 release (* Add Tibetan module [G Karunakar, Pema Geyleg]), in 1.11.0 shaper module was improved (* New improved Tibetan shaper module. [Pema Geyleg]). I don't know what's the status of Qt. Dzongkha's version of OO.org (ICU), GNOME and FF are available (some of them upstream). (In reply to comment #10) Also what is the difference between the TibetanMachineFont and TibetanMachineWebFont, btw? Tibetan Machine Uni is a Unicode version of TibetanMachineFont/TibetanMachineWebFont so this two are obsolete. As Tibetan is only standardized in Unicode I don't know encoding is used by TMF and TMWF. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.2804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 15:10 EST --- APPROVED. Reassigning to component owner. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.2804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227047] Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 15:15 EST --- APPROVED. Reassigning to component owner. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227077] Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227077 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227113] Review Request: rhino-1.6-0.r2.2jpp - JavaScript for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rhino-1.6-0.r2.2jpp - JavaScript for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 15:22 EST --- re-assigning -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 15:31 EST --- Some suggestions: * The crypt29 source seems to be unavailable. I have found: ftp://ftp.uu.net/pub/archiving/zip/src/zcrypt29.zip * rename exec-shield.patch zip-exec-shield.patch * add README.CR to %doc * replace %defattr(-,root,root) with %defattr(-,root,root,-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227101] Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227101 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 15:40 EST --- I uploaded the SRPM I built in mock. Here are the final ones just for posterify: http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-container-default.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227096] Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227096 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 15:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Just a couple of things: - Remove %define secion free. Removed - Source0 should be a URL. Source0 is taken from svn, so there is no download url for it. The svn instructions are included as comments in the spec - The license can be found in a few html pages in the following directory: target/docs/apidocs/org/codehaus/plexus/archiver These are the javadocs and are included in the javadoc subpackage. This project does not include license specific files. - Remove the vendor tag. Done - Remove the distribution tag. Done - Some lines are more than 80 characters. Fixed - Should gcj support be added? Gcj support added srpm and spec upload to same location as before -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226671] Merge Review: zlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: zlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226671
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 16:16 EST ---
* the source is not one of those appearing on the home page. Moreover
you could use the tar.bz2.
* Is Prefix: %{_prefix} needed?
* BuildRoot is not the preferred one
* The comment in %build is misleading. It should better be something like
# prepare Makefile for the static lib
and in %install there could be a comment saying
# the first make triggers compilation of the object files, linking of the
# shared library and installs the library
# The second make triggers the linking of the static library and
# its installation
* I think it would be better to have, in -devel
http://www.zlib.net/manual.html
and
http://www.zlib.net/zlib_how.html
* it seems to me that FAQ should be in %doc, and ChangeLog should be
in the main package
* -devel should
Requires: zlib = %{version}-%{release}
* It seems to me that there should be a make clean between the 2
make -f invocations, to trigger recompilation with the flags without -fPIC
* I'll attach a patch to simplify the build and install, and use more
macros.
* zutil.h seems to be an internal header that should no be shipped
* seems like that spec is not in utf8, certainly because of Glomsrød
* remove the dots at the end of the Summaries
Suggestion:
Change %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226671] Merge Review: zlib
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: zlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226671 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 16:18 EST --- Created an attachment (id=148247) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148247action=view) simplify %build and %install, remove redundant Prefix -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227107] Review Request: plexus-velocity-1.1.2-2jpp - Plexus Velocity Component
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-velocity-1.1.2-2jpp - Plexus Velocity Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227107 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 16:24 EST --- An updated source rpm and spec file can be found here: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/plexus-velocity/ Just a note, the md5sums do not match, but I've verified that the contents are the same. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227077] Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance
and scalability testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227077
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 16:31 EST ---
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
* verify source and patches
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} is used properly
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* packages meet FHS
* rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
$ rpmlint junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp.1.src.rpm
W: junitperf non-standard-group Development/Testing
This is fine.
* changelog fine
* Packager tag not used
* Vendor tag not used
* Distribution tag not used
* use License and not Copyright
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* no PreReq
* specfile is legible
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary
* make sure lines are = 80 characters
. the lines that aren't, I'm okay with
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary
* no libraries
* no rpath
* no config files
* not a GUI app
* no -devel sub-package
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* no locale data
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a web apps
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
$ rpmlint junitperf-*.noarch.rpm
W: junitperf non-standard-group Development/Testing
W: junitperf-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing
W: junitperf-demo no-documentation
These are all fine
SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
* package should build in mock
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225635] Merge Review: cairo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225635 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 16:33 EST --- Just wanted to remove the Obsoletes. I'll go over my merge review bugs next week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 228894] Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal
addresses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228894
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])|
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 16:56 EST ---
Mixed tabs/spaces in the spec (URL line is tabbed, rest are spaces)
changes the tabs to spaces
Mixed use of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}, please pick one.
%{buildroot} won...
Do you need to --prefix %{buildroot} ? doesn't %configure set a proper prefix
that will be used when you do DESTDIR= in %install?
True, --prefix %{buildroot} is not needed...
Init files aren't supposed to be config files are they?
Per our IRC converstion, I would like to leave this in
since thats the way a number of other RPC/NFS related
packages work.
Why is there an 'exit 0' in your %post ?
because someone complained about the %post not returning a zero
exit code... but it really not needed in this case so I remove it.
security.c:24:27: error: rpcsvc/rquota.h: No such file or directory
added a quota requirement
so in the end here is the diff...
diff -r1.1 rpcbind.spec
9c9
URL: http://nfsv4.bullopensource.org
---
URL:http://nfsv4.bullopensource.org
19c19
Requires: libtirpc
---
Requires: libtirpc quota
49,50c49
--enable-debug \
--prefix=%{buildroot}
---
--enable-debug
65c64
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
---
rm -rf %{buildroot}
79d77
exit 0
The source rpm and spec on my people page have been updated.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 16:57 EST --- oke a simple howto to simplify the problem. Open the src rpm package in mc of file-roller (enter CONTENTS.cpio) and extract all the files to the /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES dir The one file wich matters is the http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-7.6.1.spec spec file. Extract it to the /usr/src/redhat/SPECS run: rpmbuild -ba /usr/src/redhat/SPECS/linuxwacom-7.6.1.spec And then you should end up with a working rpm package for 64 bit If this fails enter this in the console cd /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/linuxwacom-0.7.6-4 ./configure --prefix=/usr --with-xorg-sdk=/usr --with-tcl=/usr --with-tk=/usr --enable-xserver64 make make install ofcouse you can tweak the ./configure line. It should be possible to configure without any options ! In this case you should create a few symlinks from /usr/lib/tk8.4 dir to /usr/local/lib/tk8.4 and a symlink from /usr/lib/tcl8.4 to /usr/local/lib/tcl8.4 In this case it will install into /usr/local/lib and you will have to manually copy the wacomcpl an wacomcpl-exec files from the src/wacomxi to /usr/bin dir. The lib dirs could be somehow different. But thats how I got it to work years ago by a ./configure and creating a few symlinks. (and ofcourse by editing the xorg.conf file, but for this I think the http://kxgenerator.xt.pl/ should be do the trick. A gui for the xorg.conf file. This doesn't work yet for the linuxwacom sections. however a little development should fix this. I hope I will find the time to help a bit with the development of this part of kxgenerator) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227068] Review Request: jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp - An XPath engine written in Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp - An XPath engine written in Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227068 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 16:58 EST --- Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/jaxen.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/jaxen-1.1-1jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227103] Review Request: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp - Plexus Interactivity Handler Component
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp - Plexus Interactivity Handler Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227103 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 17:16 EST --- Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-interactivity.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.1.a5.2jpp.1.src.rpm I can't build this yet due to jline not being finished. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227109] Review Request: pmd-3.6-1jpp - Scans Java source code and looks for potential problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pmd-3.6-1jpp - Scans Java source code and looks for
potential problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227109
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 17:19 EST ---
All problems below taken care of except binary build which is
blocked due to jaxen requirement.
http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/pmd-3.6-1jpp.1.src.rpm
http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/pmd.spec
MUST:
X - remove defines at top
- fill in Name, Version, and Release fields
Fixed.
X - release should be of form Xjpp.Y%{?dist}
Fixed.
X - instructions for source tar are incomplete
Fixed.
X - checking out source from CVS as specified and
tarring does not result in same md5sum
Fixed. Source replaced.
X correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Fixed.
X Vendor tag should not be used
Fixed.
X Distribution tag should not be used
Fixed.
X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
- waiting on jaxen
X make sure lines are = 80 characters
Fixed.
X run rpmlint on the src RPMs
W: pmd non-standard-group Development/Testing
E: pmd no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
W: pmd mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 30)
Fixed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227096] Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227096 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 17:21 EST --- Everything looks good to me. Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227049] Review Request: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227049 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 17:36 EST --- All comments addressed. There are minor warnings on rpmlint for no documentation in demo rpm and a strange permissions for .sh file in src rpm. These are ok. http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp.1.src.rpm http://www.vermillionskye.com/donwloads/dom4j.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226489] Merge Review: tftp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: tftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226489 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227103] Review Request: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp - Plexus Interactivity Handler Component
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp - Plexus
Interactivity Handler Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227103
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 18:07 EST ---
Link to updated SRPM above is broken...
Here's a partial review based on the specfile:
plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.1.a5.2jpp.1.src.rpm
Legend:
OK: passes criteria
NO: fails criteria (errors included between -- markers)
NA: non applicable
??: unable to verify
MUST:
OK * package is named appropriately
OK - match upstream tarball or project name
OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec
OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
something)
OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name
OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
OK - OSI-approved
OK - not a kernel module
OK - not shareware
OK - is it covered by patents?
OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
OK - no binary firmware
OK * license field matches the actual license.
OK * license is open source-compatible.
OK - use acronyms for licences where common
OK * specfile name matches %{name}
OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches
do)
OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
OK * correct buildroot
OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
NA * license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
OK * rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
OK * changelog should be in one of these formats:
OK * Packager tag should not be used
OK * Vendor tag should not be used
OK * use License and not Copyright
OK * Summary tag should not end in a period
NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK * specfile is legible
?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
?? * BuildRequires are proper
OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
OK * make sure lines are = 80 characters
OK * specfile written in American English
OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary
NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
OK * don't use rpath
NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files
NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
OK * use macros appropriately and consistently
OK * don't use %makeinstall
NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK * package should probably not be relocatable
OK * package contains code
OK * package should own all directories and files
OK * there should be no %files duplicates
OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
OK * %clean should be present
OK * %doc files should not affect runtime
NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
SHOULD:
NA * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
?? * package should build on i386
?? * package should build in mock
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227068] Review Request: jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp - An XPath engine written in Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp - An XPath engine written in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227068
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 18:11 EST ---
MUST:
X - remove defines at start for name, version, release and fill in tags
X rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
W: jaxen unversioned-explicit-provides jaxen-bootstrap
W: jaxen unversioned-explicit-obsoletes jaxen-bootstrap
W: jaxen mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 44)
X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
- requires packages not available yet
- mock build failed
X make sure lines are = 80 characters
- one comment goes over
X remove %ghost
- use %{_javadocdir}/*
X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
- could not build
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
- still needs to be done
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225750] Merge Review: file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: file https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225750 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 18:29 EST --- Needs fixing: - BuildRoot needs to be changed http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines Good: + License OK + follows naming guidelines + *.la cleaned + %clean section + devel package rpmlint on x86_64: rpmlint on file-4.19-2.fc7.src.rpm W: file summary-ended-with-dot A utility for determining file types. E: file tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: file invalid-license distributable E: file non-utf8-spec-file file.spec W: file macro-in-%changelog _includedir W: file macro-in-%changelog _datadir W: file mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 42, tab: line 10) rpmlint on file-4.19-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: file summary-ended-with-dot A utility for determining file types. E: file tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: file invalid-license distributable E: file binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/file ['/usr/lib64'] rpmlint on file-debuginfo-4.19-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: file-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: file-debuginfo invalid-license distributable rpmlint on file-devel-4.19-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: file-devel tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: file-devel invalid-license distributable W: file-devel no-documentation rpmlint on file-libs-4.19-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: file-libs tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: file-libs invalid-license distributable E: file-libs library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libmagic.so.1.0.0 E: file-libs library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libmagic.so.1.0.0 without-ldconfig seems bogus, it is in the spec. Optional cleanup: + Change license to Distributable to shut rpmlint up + Change spec encoding to ASCII/UTF8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226489] Merge Review: tftp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: tftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226489 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora_requires_release_note|fedora-review- |?, fedora-review?, fedora- | |cvs?| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 18:30 EST --- rpmlint *.src.rpm: W: tftp summary-ended-with-dot The client for the Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP). This should be easy to fix :) W: tftp no-url-tag This should be something like Url: http://foo.redhat.com at minimum or maybe you could point at the upstream home of tftp. W: tftp buildprereq-use tcp_wrappers-devel I'm not really familiar with BuildRequires vs BuildPreRequires here, though it seems like BuildRequires should work fine. W: tftp mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 54, tab: line 55) This isn't hurting anything, though moving install up to the previous line would make this go away. Depends how much you care about rpmlint being whiney. --- Other things I looked over: service logic looks good. xinetd is reloaded on an uninstall or after newinstalls or upgrades. config is noreplaced (good), permissions, good, etc. One potential problem is that the BuildRoot doesn't contain version info (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226489] Merge Review: tftp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: tftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226489 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226475] Merge Review: SysVinit
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: SysVinit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226475 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 18:54 EST --- ok, that version looks good to me. Thanks for the rename. Everything else looks good, and I see no further blockers, so this package is APPROVED. Thanks again for the speedy fixes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 18:56 EST --- Initial rpmlint scan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] devel]# rpmlint *.src.rpm W: dhcp invalid-license distributable Given this is the nonstandard ISC license, ok. W: dhcp unversioned-explicit-obsoletes dhcpcd ok. E: dhcp configure-without-libdir-spec I'm not familiar enough with details to say whether or not this is ok. W: dhcp macro-in-%changelog d W: dhcp macro-in-%changelog preun W: dhcp macro-in-%changelog postun W: dhcp mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 253) AFAIK, these shouldn't break anything but if they can be corrected it will make rpmlint happier. W: dhcp patch-not-applied Patch13: dhcp-3.0.5-xen-checksum.patch This patch is commented out in the spec file. I would suggest removing it from the list of patches? --- Spec file looks good at first glance, though I'll look over this in greater depth next week. Leaving as ? to indicate review still in progress. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 229098] New: Review Request: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229098 Summary: Review Request: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.haxxed.com/rpms/secondlife/openjpeg.spec SRPM URL: http://www.haxxed.com/rpms/secondlife/openjpeg-1.1-1.src.rpm Description: The OpenJPEG library is an open-source JPEG 2000 codec written in C language. It has been developed in order to promote the use of JPEG 2000, the new still-image compression standard from the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG). This is required by the Second Life client. As such, it has some patches needed to make it all work. spot deserves credit for finding these. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 222960] Review Request: XenMan - Graphical management tool for Xen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: XenMan - Graphical management tool for Xen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222960 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 19:39 EST --- fixed some minor stuff. New updated files: http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/SPECS/xenman.spec http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/RPMs/xenman-0.6-4.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
