[Bug 463996] Review Request: tuxguitar - A multitrack tablature editor and player written in Java-SWT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463996 --- Comment #6 from Orcan Ogetbil [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 02:29:34 EDT --- Alright, thanks. I made that change. I also managed to compile the fluidsynth plugin the upstream offers but does not enable by default. The thing is, this plugin of tuxguitar requires fluidsynth-libs as requirement. Should I package the plugin separately? (The software runs fine without the plugin. But having the plugin is cool, e.g. the software can run in sync with ardour, hydrogen etc. also plays audio through fluidsynth) Please let me know of the redhat policies in such situations. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460786] Review Request: mediawiki-Cite - An extension to provide Citation tools for Mediawiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460786
--- Comment #4 from Nigel Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 02:49:35 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
+ = good, x = bad
x source files match upstream:
- I get different sums, see
http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/mediawiki-Cite.txt
Let me know if you did it differently.
Per IRC, tar/bzip produce different md5sums for each creation (on my system at
least), the files do have the same md5sum
x specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
- s/$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{buildroot}
- Might be a good idea to change the svnrev to without an r and use it in
the
comment that tells us how you created the tarball.
It's created just like any other, as for $ vs %{} is really just cosmetic,
something I can fix upon import.
x dist tag is present.
- Add %{?dist} to the end of the Release
Not a must -
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag#Do_I_Have_To_Use_the_Dist_Tag.3F
x license text included in package.
- Fetch a copy of the GPLv2 in text form and shove it in %doc.
This is NOT a must/appropriate solution -
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462163] Review Request: checkdns - A Domain Name Server analysis and reporting tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462163 --- Comment #6 from Jan ONDREJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 03:29:28 EDT --- Well, forks for me now. Just I am not interested in review (no time). Will be helpful for someone else. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 442507] Review Request: libspe2 - SPE Runtime Management Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442507 Jochen Roth [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463766] Package review: perl-Wx-Perl-Dialog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463766 --- Comment #3 from Dan Horák [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 04:39:21 EDT --- Just remove the whole useless /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/auto tree instead of removing the scripts only and I will approve the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462181] Review Request: teeworlds - Online multi-player platform 2D shooter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462181 Lubomir Rintel [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 449869] Review Request: tasque - A simple task management app
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449869 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||) --- Comment #19 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 10:39:48 EDT --- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 449037] Review Request: afio - cpio compatible archiver
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449037 --- Comment #13 from Bruno Cornec [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 10:59:44 EDT --- I'll do what you have advised and will hopefully come back soon to you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459010] python-statgrab - Python bindings for libstatgrab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459010 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 11:49:55 EDT --- Hi: As far as I checked this source tarball, this package must not be noarch. Would you rewrite your package again? Another issue - The name of this package can be pystatgrab (like pygtk2) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459010] Review request: python-statgrab - Python bindings for libstatgrab
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459010 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|python-statgrab - Python|Review request: |bindings for libstatgrab|python-statgrab - Python ||bindings for libstatgrab Alias|python-statgrab | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464308] New: Review Request: apt-mirror - APT sources mirroring tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: apt-mirror - APT sources mirroring tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464308 Summary: Review Request: apt-mirror - APT sources mirroring tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/apt-mirror-0.4.5/apt-mirror.spec SRPM URL: http://cassmodiah.fedorapeople.org/apt-mirror-0.4.5/apt-mirror-0.4.5-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: A small and efficient tool that lets you mirror a part of or the whole Debian GNU/Linux distribution or any other apt sources. Main features: * It uses a config similar to apts sources.list * It's fully pool comply * It supports multithreaded downloading * It supports multiple architectures at the same time * It can automatically remove unneeded files * It works well on overloaded channel to internet * It never produces an inconsistent mirror including while mirroring * It works on all POSIX complied systems with perl and wget -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464308] Review Request: apt-mirror - APT sources mirroring tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464308
manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 12:43:53
EDT ---
I would have allowed rpmbuild to compress the man page, but I guess that your
method works too.
A couple of questions :
- Why did you trim the sources list and not use the one included in the
package?
- Where did you get the license tag from? I see no mention of a specific
license anywhere in the tarball or on the project's web site. If there is none,
I am afraid that (please correct me if I am wrong) I cannot approve your
package until you get a clarification from the author (either via mail or by
releasing an updated version)
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
-- see issue 1
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: b6dc641f4f12871810280981abb7bdfa5b4dfbb8
apt-mirror_0.4.5.orig.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[!] Package must own all directories that it creates.
See issue 2
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:devel/x86_64
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
=== Issues ===
1. License tag
License type as declared by our spec : GPLv2
License type as declared by the sources : I have not find any place
specifying it
Could you please explain why did you use GPLv2 as license?
2. Your last line in %files packages only the folders below
/var/spool/apt-mirror but not the directory itself, thus leaving it unowned.
3. There is no need for perl as a specific Requires. rpmbuild adds
/usr/bin/perl automatically.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the
[Bug 463996] Review Request: tuxguitar - A multitrack tablature editor and player written in Java-SWT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463996 --- Comment #7 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 12:53:18 EDT --- If it is a separate source file, you should - package it separately (especially if tuxguitar can be built and runs without it), - make that package Require tuxguitar, - and probably add a line somewhere in the tuxguitar package recommending to install it. Maybe in the description (something along: for additional effects, please install blah-blah-blah) or in a Readme.fedora file. Alternatively you could add in tuxguitar a Requires for the plugin rpm, but this means that you have to push both packages simultaneously in the repository. Unfortunately our rpm lacks the ability of soft-requires (aka suggests) hence you have only the above two options. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459675] Review Request: python-sybase - new package request
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459675
Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 13:13:22 EDT
---
Some notes:
* License tag
- We do not allow BSD-style license tag, either BSD or BSD with
advertising, or
if not BSD, something else.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
In this package the license tag should be BSD.
* BuildRequires
- Without BuildRequies: python-devel python-setuptools, your srpm won't
build
(and fixes for 64 bits architecture is needed, see below)
* Requires
- Requires: freetds is not needed. rpmbuild checks library related
dependencies
and adds them to the rebuilt binary rpms.
* Macros
- Use macros for common directories:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros
For example, /usr must be %{_prefix}
* Directory description
* On 64 bits architecture site related files must be installed under
/usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages and your spec file won't work on 64 bits
architecture.
* Also %files entry
--
%files
%{_libdir}/*
--
cannot be allowed because of some reasons.
- This contains many subdirectories (directories themselves, not files)
which
are already listed in filesystem rpm and should not be listed in this
package:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
- This contains %{_libdir}/debug, which must be used only for -debuginfo
rpm
For python rpm please check
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#System_Architecture
Especially, please check %{python_sitearch} macro or so.
I guess it is better you use a skeleton spec file for python modules
and modify it. You can create such skeleton spec file by
--
$ rpmdev-newspec -t python python-sybase
--
(rpmdev-newspec is in rpmdevtools rpm).
* %changelog
- Please check %changelog format described in:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 218581] Review Request: mediawiki-openid - The OpenID extension for MediaWiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=218581 Peter Lemenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #33 from Peter Lemenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 13:30:17 EDT --- OK, finally branched for F-9. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 227191] Review Request: php-pear-Services-Yadis - PHP Yadis
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227191 Peter Lemenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||.net) --- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 13:34:13 EDT --- Axel, does this package superceded by php-pear-Auth-OpenID? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455211] Review Request: php-laconica - PHP tool for microblogging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455211 --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 13:39:35 EDT --- Still here. Sorry for the delay - I was at my vacation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 423821] Review Request: nagios-plugins-rsync - Nagios plugin to monitor remote rsync servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=423821 Peter Lemenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||rg) --- Comment #9 from Peter Lemenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 13:39:03 EDT --- Ping. Jima, are you still interested in packaging this? There is only a little way to go and push this package to Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459540] Review Request: mediawiki-imagemap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459540 Peter Lemenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo? --- Comment #13 from Peter Lemenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 13:53:32 EDT --- Ismael, any news since mid September? Are you already sponsored by someone or not? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459540] Review Request: mediawiki-imagemap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459540 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459540] Review Request: mediawiki-imagemap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459540 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo? | --- Comment #14 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 13:58:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) Ismael, any news since mid September? Are you already sponsored by someone or not? I am sponsoring him. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445126] Review Request: mirrormanager - Fedora MirrorManager server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445126 --- Comment #13 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 14:09:43 EDT --- Source URL seems incorrect: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/m/i/mirrormanager/mirrormanager-1.2.2.tar.bz2 gives: The requested URL /releases/m/i/mirrormanager/mirrormanager-1.2.2.tar.bz2 was not found on this server. Which is no surprise, since https://fedorahosted.org/releases/m/i/mirrormanager/ is empty Is /usr/share/mirrormanager/mirrors/mirrors really the intended path ? It looks a bit odd. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463400] Review Request: xmmsctrl - command line control utility for xmms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463400
Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 14:43:18 EDT
---
Some notes:
* Disttag
- Please consider to use %{?dist} tag for release number:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag
* ExclusiveArch
- Would you explain why these ExclusiveArch is needed?
* Optflags
- Build log shows that Fedora specific compilation flags
are not honored correctly. As the result debuginfo rpm is
currently not useful.
You can check what optflags are used by
$ rpm --eval %optflags
ref:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
* Parallel make
- Support parallel make if possible:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Parallel_make
If this package does not support parallel make, write as such
in the spec file as comments.
* File permission
- Usually normal (non-executable) files should have 0644 permission
(not 0444).
* %defattr
- We recommend %defattr(-,root,root,-)
* Comment in macros
---
#%defattr(0755,root,root)
---
- In comments and %changelog, use %% (instead of %) so that macros
won't be expanded in comments or %changelog.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 455211] Review Request: php-laconica - PHP tool for microblogging
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455211 --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 14:49:40 EDT --- Remarks: * use cp -a for copying (to preserve timestamps) * no need to mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT * I didn't understand a trick with %docdir. Why not to simply add the next line in %files section? %doc COPYING doc/* Other things looks sane. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445126] Review Request: mirrormanager - Fedora MirrorManager server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445126 --- Comment #14 from Matt Domsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 14:57:33 EDT --- wolfy: thanks for the review. I'll get the tarball posted soon; 1.2.2 was buggy and useless, so I didn't post the tarball. As for the mirrors/mirrors part, yes, that is intentional, though I understand it looks odd. It stems from the very earliest days of the code, before it was named mirrormanager. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464313] New: Review Request: memtester - Utility to test for faulty memory subsystem
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: memtester - Utility to test for faulty memory subsystem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464313 Summary: Review Request: memtester - Utility to test for faulty memory subsystem Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/memtester.spec SRPM URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/memtester-4.0.8-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: memtester is a utility for testing the memory subsystem in a computer to determine if it is faulty. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464190] Review Request: expendable - Home finances modeling program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464190 --- Comment #2 from Tim Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 16:09:33 EDT --- Thanks. Updated: Spec URL: http://twaugh.fedorapeople.org/expendable/expendable.spec SRPM URL: http://twaugh.fedorapeople.org/expendable/expendable-0.0.2-0.1.src.rpm 1. URL fixed. 2. No, no reason, changed. 3. Source0 comment added. 4. rpmlint comments fixed. 5. Added python as a build requirement. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463996] Review Request: tuxguitar - A multitrack tablature editor and player written in Java-SWT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463996 --- Comment #8 from Orcan Ogetbil [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 16:16:41 EDT --- The plugin is inside the same source file. But it is not enabled inside the compilation script. I had to patch the compilation script to enable the plugin. But compiling the plugin build-requires fluidsynth-devel and then running tuxguitar requires fluidsynth-libs . Tuxguitar won't run if it is compiled with the plugin and if fluidsynth-libs is not installed. So what do you think? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454664] Review Request: gupnp-ui - UPnP-UI is a collection of helpers for building user interfaces for gupnp apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454664 --- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 17:09:51 EDT --- New upstream release. SPEC is in same location. SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/gupnp-ui-0.1.1-1.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226136] Merge Review: mesa
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226136 --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 17:12:29 EDT --- Should we remove FE-LEGAL since SGI re-licensed? See: http://www.linux.com/feature/148339 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460838] Review Request: printoxx - Print image files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460838 --- Comment #5 from Nicoleau Fabien [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 17:12:16 EDT --- Update for 1.5 : Spec URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/printoxx.spec SRPM URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/printoxx-1.5-1.fc9.src.rpm rpmlint is silent and rebuild under mock is ok. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463996] Review Request: tuxguitar - A multitrack tablature editor and player written in Java-SWT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463996 --- Comment #9 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 17:45:03 EDT --- I for one see no reason at all to not enable the plugin, our usual policy is to provide the most enhanced version of whatever we provide, unless there is a very good reason to not do it. As of requiring other packages .. so what ? It is as normal as it could be. Therefore I suggest to go for building the plugin. Additional to that, if - as a bonus - you want to let other people build without it, you could use some build conditionals to disable it (i.e. disable BR, disable patch, etc) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464190] Review Request: expendable - Home finances modeling program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464190 manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464190] Review Request: expendable - Home finances modeling program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464190
--- Comment #3 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 18:12:23
EDT ---
As far as I can see, you have abused a bit your position as upstream of the
program and modified the source tarball in order to use fedora as vendor when
installing the desktop file. This is nice. What is not nice is that you have
not modified the name of the tarball, so people who have downloaded the file in
the past and those who would download it now would not know that there is a
difference between the two versions. The proper way would have been to release
a new version, maybe as a expendable-0.0.3.tar.bz2 or expendable-0.0.2a.tar.bz2
or whatever else you seem fit. And by the way, you do realize that by
hardcoding vendor=fedora in the Makefile, you make unhappy anyone else who
wants to package it for another distro, right ?
The URL provided in #2 for the src.rpm should have been
http://twaugh.fedorapeople.org/expendable/expendable-0.0.2-1.src.rpm
When you modify the spec file, please not only bump the release field but also
add a comment to the changelog. In this case, the new spec should have included
something similar to:
%changelog
* Fri Sep 26 2008 Tim Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.0.2-1
- fixed URL tag and rpmlint complaints, added python as a build requirement.
- new upstream version
* Fri Sep 26 2008 Tim Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.0.2-0.1
- Initial spec file.
And now the review:
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:GPLv2+
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[!] Sources used to build the package do not match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of source file included in the rpm:
a859d6a72fa7bcb3fa136a80919993bae86193cd
SHA1SUM of source file downloaded from the project page:
8495935d5795a492a05079eb6e3bc9756c9994d7
-- see issue below
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the excep
tions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:package is noarch, should work on any arch with a proper python
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
=== Issues ===
The tarball bundled in the
[Bug 463400] Review Request: xmmsctrl - command line control utility for xmms
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463400 --- Comment #2 from Orcan Ogetbil [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 18:37:05 EDT --- Thanks for the review. I fixed everything you said. The ExclusiveArch isn't needed, I took it off. One little question about the optflags: I added $RPM_OPT_FLAGS to the 'make'. Is that enough? Here are the updated files: Spec URL: http://6mata.com:8014/xmmsctrl/xmmsctrl.spec SRPM URL: http://6mata.com:8014/xmmsctrl/xmmsctrl-1.8-3.fc9.src.rpm Let me know if there's anything else to change. %changelog * Sat Sep 27 2008 Orcan Ogetbil orcanbahri[AT]yahoo[DOT]com - 1.8-3 - Added DistTag - Removed ExclusiveArch - Changed 0444 file permissions to 0644 - Changed %%defattr to (-,root,root,-) - Honored Fedora specific compilation flags - Support parallel make -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460786] Review Request: mediawiki-Cite - An extension to provide Citation tools for Mediawiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460786
Ian Weller [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Ian Weller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 20:17:21 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Per IRC, tar/bzip produce different md5sums for each creation (on my system at
least), the files do have the same md5sum
Noted. Call it good.
x specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
- s/$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{buildroot}
- Might be a good idea to change the svnrev to without an r and use it in
the
comment that tells us how you created the tarball.
It's created just like any other, as for $ vs %{} is really just cosmetic,
something I can fix upon import.
Noted. I was blocking on other issues.
x dist tag is present.
- Add %{?dist} to the end of the Release
Not a must -
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag#Do_I_Have_To_Use_the_Dist_Tag.3F
I don't understand the reasoning behind this, but sure. It's guidelines! ;)
x license text included in package.
- Fetch a copy of the GPLv2 in text form and shove it in %doc.
This is NOT a must/appropriate solution -
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Yeah, I forgot. Call it good.
== APPROVED ==
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 448201] Review Request: pyvnc2swf - Vnc screen recorder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448201 David Timms [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460786] Review Request: mediawiki-Cite - An extension to provide Citation tools for Mediawiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460786 --- Comment #6 from Nigel Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 21:25:28 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mediawiki-Cite Short Description: An extension to provide Citation tools for Mediawiki Owners: nigelj Branches: F-8 F-9 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460786] Review Request: mediawiki-Cite - An extension to provide Citation tools for Mediawiki
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460786 Nigel Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463996] Review Request: tuxguitar - A multitrack tablature editor and player written in Java-SWT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463996 --- Comment #10 from Orcan Ogetbil [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-27 21:37:56 EDT --- Alright, one last question: Most of the code is java. And AFAIK gcj doesn't take $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. But the code also contains some C files. Should I pass $RPM_OPT_FLAGS to gcc when compiling those files? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
