[Bug 506581] Review Request: xscope - X Window Protocol Viewer
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=506581 --- Comment #3 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com 2009-06-28 03:26:48 EDT --- * Sun Jun 28 2009 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com 1.1-3.gitfccbbd6 - The software has a MIT not BSD license SPEC: http://www.declera.com/~yaneti/xscope/xscope.spec SRPM: http://www.declera.com/~yaneti/xscope/xscope-1.1-3.gitfccbbd6.fc12.src.rpm Sorry about that. -- 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 456684] Review Request: pathfinder - X.509 Path Discovery and Validation
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=456684 Bug 456684 depends on bug 479144, which changed state. Bug 479144 Summary: Please build libwvstreams --with-dbus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479144 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- 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 506844] Review Request: audex - kde4 audio ripper
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=506844 --- Comment #22 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2009-06-28 04:45:31 EDT --- Beta 5 is released: http://opensource.maniatek.de/audex/download.html Please send a email upstream so they can add Fedora to the list on that page too. -- 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 508518] New: Review Request: Meiga - Easy tool for file sharing and content publishing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: Meiga - Easy tool for file sharing and content publishing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508518 Summary: Review Request: Meiga - Easy tool for file sharing and content publishing Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rajeeshknamb...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/meiga.spec SRPM URL: http://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/meiga-0.2.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Meiga is a lightweight, easy to use, network friendly and also application friendly content server for desktop. Client side does not need to install any software, as the shared files can be accessed using web browser. The ultimate goal is to serve as a common publishing pont for desktop applications, such as file manager, picture viewers or music players -- 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 504475] Review Request: rubygem-polyglot - Allow hooking of language loaders for specified extensions into require
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=504475 --- Comment #5 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-06-28 05:56:35 EDT --- Well, the Rakefile requres the gem to rebuild for the tests to run, and the only existing test is about being completely useless. class TestPolyglot Test::Unit::TestCase def setup end def test_truth assert true end end -- 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 504475] Review Request: rubygem-polyglot - Allow hooking of language loaders for specified extensions into require
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=504475 Michal Ingeli m...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Michal Ingeli m...@v3.sk 2009-06-28 06:36:23 EDT --- Hmm, that test doesn't really make sense. So it's probably OK to skip it. 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 504475] Review Request: rubygem-polyglot - Allow hooking of language loaders for specified extensions into require
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=504475 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-06-28 06:38:29 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: rubygem-polyglot Short Description: Allow hooking of language loaders for specified extensions into require Owners: lkundrak Branches: F-10 F-11 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 508521] New: Review Request: jettison - A JSON StAX implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jettison - A JSON StAX implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508521 Summary: Review Request: jettison - A JSON StAX implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: s...@sandro-mathys.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/jettison.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/jettison-1.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Jettison is a collection of Java APIs (like STaX and DOM) which read and write JSON. This allows nearly transparent enablement of JSON based web services in services frameworks like CXF or XML serialization rpmlint on spec, srpm and noarch-rpms finishes checking without any warnings or errors. -- 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 508523] New: Review Request: miredo - Tunneling of IPv6 over UDP through NATs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: miredo - Tunneling of IPv6 over UDP through NATs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508523 Summary: Review Request: miredo - Tunneling of IPv6 over UDP through NATs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bugzilla-red...@jens.kuehnel.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.kuehnel.org/miredo.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kuehnel.org/miredo-1.1.6-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Miredo is an implementation of the Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs proposed Internet standard (RFC4380). It can serve either as a Teredo client, a stand-alone Teredo relay, or a Teredo server. It is meant to provide IPv6 connectivity to hosts behind NAT devices, most of which do not support IPv6, and not even IPv6-over-IPv4 (including 6to4). This is my first package and I'm looking at cwickert for a sponsor. :-) rpmlint error: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/miredo/client-hook This is a script that have to be changed sometimes, for example when problems with MTU. -- 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 508523] Review Request: miredo - Tunneling of IPv6 over UDP through NATs
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=508523 Jens Kuehnel bugzilla-red...@jens.kuehnel.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugzilla-red...@jens.kuehne ||l.org, ||fed...@christoph-wickert.de Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- 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 508453] Review Request: rubygem-test-spec - Behaviour Driven Development interface for Test::Unit
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=508453 Michal Ingeli m...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||m...@v3.sk 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 508318] Review Request: mutter - A window manager based on metacity and clutter
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=508318 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||508525 -- 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 508525] New: Review Request: gjs - Javascript Bindings for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: gjs - Javascript Bindings for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508525 Summary: Review Request: gjs - Javascript Bindings for GNOME Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pbrobin...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Blocks: 506446,508318 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC: SRPM: Gjs is a Javascript binding for GNOME. It's mainly based on Spidermonkey javascript engine and the GObject introspection framework. -- 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 508523] Review Request: miredo - Tunneling of IPv6 over UDP through NATs
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=508523 Jens Kuehnel bugzilla-red...@jens.kuehnel.org changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||miredo -- 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 508523] Review Request: miredo - Tunneling of IPv6 over UDP through NATs
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=508523 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||stjepan.g...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-06-28 07:19:05 EDT --- *** Bug 437626 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 437626] Review Request: miredo - Implementation of Teredo proposed standard
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=437626 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@christoph-wickert.de Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE Alias|miredo | --- Comment #8 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-06-28 07:19:05 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 508523 *** -- 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 508523] Review Request: miredo - Tunneling of IPv6 over UDP through NATs
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=508523 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@christoph-wickert.de 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 508453] Review Request: rubygem-test-spec - Behaviour Driven Development interface for Test::Unit
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=508453
--- Comment #1 from Michal Ingeli m...@v3.sk 2009-06-28 08:52:47 EDT ---
* naming ok
* spec file clean, american english
* file lists ok, examples in documentation
* builds in mock
* rpmlint silent
* source matches upstream
work to do:
- package is distributed in the same terms as ruby is. So it should have ruby
license or GPLv2. Not GPLv2+.
- Consistent build root reference. In %clean stare it's referred to build root
as %{buildroot} and other stages uses $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
- add BuildRequires: ruby(abi) = 1.8 (maybe should be checked by rpmlint)
--
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 508453] Review Request: rubygem-test-spec - Behaviour Driven Development interface for Test::Unit
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=508453 Michal Ingeli m...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@v3.sk -- 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 504475] Review Request: rubygem-polyglot - Allow hooking of language loaders for specified extensions into require
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=504475 Michal Ingeli m...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@v3.sk -- 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 504480] Review Request: rubygem-configuration - Pure Ruby scoped configuration 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=504480 Michal Ingeli m...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||m...@v3.sk AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@v3.sk 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 508525] Review Request: gjs - Javascript Bindings for GNOME
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=508525 Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yan...@declera.com --- Comment #1 from Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com 2009-06-28 09:03:51 EDT --- Let me fix that for you ;) SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/gjs.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/gjs-0.2-1.fc11.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 504521] Review Request: SevenZip - Java SDK for LZMA
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=504521 --- Comment #17 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2009-06-28 09:23:29 EDT --- Huh? In the mailing list thread, the submitter (Orcan Ogetbil) was the only one who thinks SevenZip is the correct name. -- 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 508523] Review Request: miredo - Tunneling of IPv6 over UDP through NATs
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=508523
--- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-06-28
09:44:00 EDT ---
REVIEW for 997ca4f3248908082d1246912f93de9a miredo-1.1.6-1.fc11.src.rpm
OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
$ rpmlint Downloads/miredo-*
miredo.i586: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/miredo/client-hook
miredo.i586: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/miredo $prog
miredo.i586: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/miredo-server $prog
miredo-devel.i586: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
All these are ok to ignore.
OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+
OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by
MD5 bf49c1ddc068746760787d0cf76e40de
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
x86_64
N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
OK - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro.
OK - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates.
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes
a %defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content.
OK - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig'.
OK - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
OK - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by
other packages.
OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: The the package builds in mock, see
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1439650
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described.
OK - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg.
N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin,
[Bug 508523] Review Request: miredo - Tunneling of IPv6 over UDP through NATs
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=508523 --- Comment #3 from Jens Kuehnel bugzilla-red...@jens.kuehnel.org 2009-06-28 09:48:55 EDT --- Spec URL: http://www.kuehnel.org/miredo.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kuehnel.org/miredo-1.1.6-2.fc11.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 508523] Review Request: miredo - Tunneling of IPv6 over UDP through NATs
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=508523 --- Comment #4 from Jens Kuehnel bugzilla-red...@jens.kuehnel.org 2009-06-28 09:58:25 EDT --- Of course the release 2 fixed all the above mentioned issue -- 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 508523] Review Request: miredo - Tunneling of IPv6 over UDP through NATs
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=508523 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-06-28 10:03:55 EDT --- Release -2 fixes all outstanding issues and therefor is APPROVED. Congrats! -- 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 508549] New: Review Request: xml-writer - Java filter class designed to work with SAX2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: xml-writer - Java filter class designed to work with SAX2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508549 Summary: Review Request: xml-writer - Java filter class designed to work with SAX2 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: s...@sandro-mathys.ch QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/xml-writer.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/xml-writer-0.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: With this filter one can use it to take a snapshot of any point in a SAX2 filter chain, as well as serializing the final result to XML (this may be important for auditing as well). rpmlint on spec, srpm and noarch-rpms finishes checking without any warnings or errors. There's no license header in the source files and even thought this is 0.2 the COPYING only says something about 0.1 being public domain. I showed this to spot during FUDCon and he said this'd be okay and should be tagged public domain. -- 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 507475] Review Request: skanlite - Scanning 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=507475 Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Christoph Wickert fed...@christoph-wickert.de 2009-06-28 10:25:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) - Remove the empty common symlinks or make them point to something that is actually there, as Mamoru already said in bug 479147. Not fixed - please see bug 491247. My bad, I did not look into the bug. This is a general issue for all kde-packages - my /usr/share/HTML-directory has 117 dangling common-symlinks currently. Yeah, I knew there is a reason I was not reviewing KDE stuff... Hmm - I've added lightweight. Adding for KDE doesn't really add any value to the summary IMO. Ok for me. No more issues, the package 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 468516] Review Request: verilator - A fast simulator of synthesizable Verilog HDL
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=468516 Bug 468516 depends on bug 478759, which changed state. Bug 478759 Summary: Review Request: perl-SystemPerl - SystemPerl Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478759 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #35 from Lane dir...@gmail.com 2009-06-28 10:48:13 EDT --- New files available that address the three issues in #34: Spec URL: http://brooks.nu/~lane/verilator.spec SRPM URL: http://brooks.nu/~lane/verilator-3.711-1.fc11.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 507703] Review Request: perl-Proc-Simple - Launch and control background processes
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=507703 --- Comment #5 from Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com 2009-06-28 11:47:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) 1.) Please remove Require: perl(Test::More) dependency, the runtime does not depend on the testing framework. - Fixed 2.) Licensing Proc/Simple.pm contains this: # This program is free software, you can redistribute it and/or # modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. Neither README nor POD documentation contains it -- please ask upstream to include the licensing conditions there. - fixed, upstream provided new version Spec URL: http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Proc-Simple.spec SRPM URL: http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Proc-Simple-1.25-1.fc11.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 504474] Review Request: rubygem-rack-test - Simple testing API built on Rack
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=504474 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-06-28 12:06:27 EDT --- Basically okay, however 0.4.0 is released on 2009-06-25. Would you upgrade this srpm? -- 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 507110] Review Request: openal-soft - OpenAL-Soft lib
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=507110 --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-06-28 12:11:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) I think openal need to be replaced with openal-soft as it is in debian/ubuntu? The devs and communtiy is talking about this sicene F10 was under dev. What you think about that? - In such case (i.e. if you think openal should complete by replaced by openal-soft), would you contact openal maintainer? (Filing a bug against openal component is better with mentioning this review request on the filed bug). When i will rename all wo openal-soft the tools that need oal-soft header and libs will don´t find them. - This is okay because in such case it just means that such apps should be patched on 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 504470] Review Request: rubygem-syntax - Ruby library for performing simple syntax highlighting
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=504470
--- Comment #2 from Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com 2009-06-28 12:27:59 EDT ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
1] rpmlint complaining
rubygem-syntax.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/syntax-1.0.0/test/ALL-TESTS.rb 0644
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
- OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
- OK, rubygem package
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
- OK, meets packaging guidelines and ruby specific packaging guidelines
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines
- OK, public domain
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
- OK, attached LICENSE file
MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
- OK
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- OK
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
- OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
- OK, http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1439866
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture
- OK, noarch package, builded ok
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
- OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
- OK, no locales available
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
- OK, no shared library
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable
- OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
- OK
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
- OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
- OK
MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- OK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
- OK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
- OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
- OK, no large documentation
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application.
- OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
- OK, no header files
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
- OK, no static libraries
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
- OK, no .pc files
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix ...
- OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package
- OK, no -devel package
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
- OK
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
- OK, no gui
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
- OK
MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- OK
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
-OK
TODO:
rpmlint
--
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 508188] Review Request: pywbem - Python WBEM Client and Provider Interface
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=508188 --- Comment #5 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2009-06-28 12:51:05 EDT --- As in the other review, I would urge some elaboration of the acronym stew that is the description. I left the common stuff such as SNMP and HTTP but added acronym expansions for CIM and WBEM, and a brief explanation of WBEM. You could drop BuildRequires: python, although it doesn't hurt anything to have it. Done Are you sure it's wise to rename the executables? Of course, the other review renamed the executables to mofcomp and pywbemcli, so perhaps there's simply no standard for the names of these executables. Maybe it's worth checking with upstream about this. I renamed the executables per: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Unnecessary_Byte_compilation That said, the pyc and pyo in question still get generated by setup.py, just not in bin_dir, they remain in python_sitelib. I suppose I could rename the two scripts in question in %prep. But that isn't the bug directly referenced by the packaging guidelines note. That said, I assume since Tim is at least part of upstream that his naming is ok, and thus I changed mine to reflect what his symlink names were. twisted_client.py seems to depends on python-twisted; should that be a runtime dependency? It should be, thanks for catching that. It's added in the next version. lots snipped http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/pywbem.spec http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/pywbem-0.7.0-2.fc11.src.rpm Thanks for the 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 226309] Merge Review: postgresql-jdbc
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=226309 --- Comment #2 from Tom Lane t...@redhat.com 2009-06-28 13:23:29 EDT --- AFAIK postgresql-jdbc.jar is a perfectly good JDBC4 driver, or at least it has as much JDBC4 support as is available from upstream. It is not my intention to ship a postgresql-jdbc4.jar symlink, unless someone explains to me why one is needed. -- 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 469553] Review Request: asleap - Recovering tool for weak LEAP and PPTP passwords
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=469553 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-06-28 13:42:29 EDT --- It's been another month. I'll go ahead and close this ticket if nothing happens in a week. -- 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 508188] Review Request: pywbem - Python WBEM Client and Provider Interface
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=508188 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-06-28 13:40:37 EDT --- Hmm, note that page on unnecessary byte compilation includes a link to the bug, which you may note was closed back in March. I know the issue was fixed in rawhide; I'm pretty sure that happened before F11 branched, so F11 should have the fix as well. Note that you picked up a new rpmlint warning: pywbem.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 13) which I don't care at all about, but you might. I suppose you could fix setup.py to install those executables in the proper place for executables, or petition upstream to do so, or do what Tim's package did and just link to them. Or leave things the way you have them; I don't think it makes a significant difference, although the current method has the dangling .pyc and .pyo files with no corresponding .py file which does seem a bit odd. Otherwise this still builds and installs, and the major issues have been fixed, so I think this is fine. 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 501960] Review Request: webinject - Web/HTTP Test 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=501960 Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(david.hanneq...@g ||mail.com) --- Comment #4 from Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com 2009-06-28 13:57:39 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 504481] Review Request: rubygem-builder - Provide a simple way to create XML markup and data structures
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=504481 --- Comment #3 from Jan Klepek jan.kle...@hp.com 2009-06-28 13:56:08 EDT --- 1] during build following error is shown: ERROR: While generating documentation for builder-2.1.2 ... MESSAGE: Unhandled special: Special: type=17, text=!-- HI -- 2] rpmlint is complaining rubygem-builder.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/builder-2.1.2/test/performance.rb -- 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 508188] Review Request: pywbem - Python WBEM Client and Provider Interface
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=508188 David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2009-06-28 14:02:00 EDT --- Thanks for the review. I'll fix the space/tab issue before the spec hits CVS. I'll talk to upstream about how they'd like to see the executables handled. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: pywbem Short Description: Python WBEM Client and Provider Interface Owners: ke4qqq Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5 InitialCC: -- 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 504475] Review Request: rubygem-polyglot - Allow hooking of language loaders for specified extensions into require
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=504475 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-06-28 14:09:38 EDT --- CVS done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 508188] Review Request: pywbem - Python WBEM Client and Provider Interface
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=508188 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-06-28 14:10:13 EDT --- CVS done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 247482] Review Request: pwsafe - A unix command line utility that manages encrypted password databases
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=247482 --- Comment #18 from Jonathan Steffan jonathanstef...@gmail.com 2009-06-28 14:27:49 EDT --- I'd maintain it. I'll go ahead and request access to the existing branches. Go ahead and also add me as the owner of the EL branches. This program is very useful. -- 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 247482] Review Request: pwsafe - A unix command line utility that manages encrypted password databases
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=247482 --- Comment #19 from Ralf Ertzinger redhat-bugzi...@camperquake.de 2009-06-28 15:09:42 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: pwsafe New Branches: EL-4 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 471575] Review Request: libnautilus-vcards - Nautilus vcard context menu extension
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=471575 --- Comment #14 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-06-28 15:12:45 EDT --- I will close this bug if no response is received from the reporter within ONE WEEK. -- 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 504470] Review Request: rubygem-syntax - Ruby library for performing simple syntax highlighting
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=504470 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 508452] Review Request: rubygem-bacon - A ruby-based testing framework
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=508452 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-06-28 15:11:38 EDT --- Assigning. -- 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 504473] Review Request: rubygem-rubigen - A framework to allow Ruby applications to generate file/folder stubs
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=504473 --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-06-28 15:11:20 EDT --- Some notes for 1.5.2-3: * License tag - As website/javascripts/rounded_corners_lite.inc.js is under LGPLv2+, license tag should be MIT and LGPLv2+. * Requires - rubygem(hoe) doesn't seem to be needed. Would you check this? * Test - I think as this gem file contains test/ directory, it is preferable to add %check section and execute some tet program there (another gem seems needed, though) By the way, I would appreciate it if you would review my review requests (bug 508416 or bug 508417, both are rubygem related) -- 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 247482] Review Request: pwsafe - A unix command line utility that manages encrypted password databases
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=247482 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs- |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-06-28 15:13:36 EDT --- CVS done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472696] Review Request: vcards-daemon - manage evolution contacts as vcards
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=472696 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-06-28 15:13:29 EDT --- I will close this bug if no response is received from the reporter within ONE WEEK. -- 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 506721] Package Review: nbtk - A toolkit for moblin NetBooks
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=506721 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #13 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-06-28 15:18:49 EDT --- Pushed to rawhide -- 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 506855] Review Request hornsey - The moblin media player
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=506855 Bug 506855 depends on bug 506721, which changed state. Bug 506721 Summary: Package Review: nbtk - A toolkit for moblin NetBooks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506721 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ON_QA |CLOSED -- 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 507223] Review Request: dalston - Moblin System Information Icons
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=507223 Bug 507223 depends on bug 506721, which changed state. Bug 506721 Summary: Package Review: nbtk - A toolkit for moblin NetBooks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506721 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ON_QA |CLOSED -- 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 507243] Review Request carrick - Moblin GUI for Connection Manger
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=507243 Bug 507243 depends on bug 506721, which changed state. Bug 506721 Summary: Package Review: nbtk - A toolkit for moblin NetBooks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506721 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ON_QA |CLOSED -- 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 506804] Package Review: anerley - Moblin widgets for people information
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=506804 Bug 506804 depends on bug 506721, which changed state. Bug 506721 Summary: Package Review: nbtk - A toolkit for moblin NetBooks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506721 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|ON_QA |CLOSED -- 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 508188] Review Request: pywbem - Python WBEM Client and Provider Interface
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=508188 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-06-28 15:28:37 EDT --- pywbem-0.7.0-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pywbem-0.7.0-2.fc11 -- 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 508188] Review Request: pywbem - Python WBEM Client and Provider Interface
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=508188 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-06-28 15:28:42 EDT --- pywbem-0.7.0-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pywbem-0.7.0-2.fc10 -- 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 496433] Tracker: packages from Russian Fedora Remix
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=496433 Bug 496433 depends on bug 495001, which changed state. Bug 495001 Summary: Review Request: bareftp - File transfer client supporting the FTP, FTP over SSL/TLS (FTPS) and SSH File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495001 What|Old Value |New Value 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 495001] Review Request: bareftp - File transfer client supporting the FTP, FTP over SSL/TLS (FTPS) and SSH File Transfer Protocol (SFTP)
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=495001 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||lemen...@gmail.com Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #17 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-06-28 15:44:52 EDT --- I think, we may close this ticket. Anyway, F-9 will be EOLed very soon. -- 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 506721] Package Review: nbtk - A toolkit for moblin NetBooks
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=506721 --- Comment #14 from Nikolay Vladimirov niko...@vladimiroff.com 2009-06-28 16:02:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) Pushed to rawhide Please make the changes I noted in my previous comments. -- 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 247482] Review Request: pwsafe - A unix command line utility that manages encrypted password databases
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=247482 Jonathan Steffan jonathanstef...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #21 from Jonathan Steffan jonathanstef...@gmail.com 2009-06-28 16:19:21 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=112018 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=112023 -- 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 506721] Package Review: nbtk - A toolkit for moblin NetBooks
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=506721 --- Comment #15 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-06-28 16:59:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) (In reply to comment #13) Pushed to rawhide Please make the changes I noted in my previous comments. The one about the git snapshots? I'm not using git snapshots. You can see all the releases here http://git.moblin.org/cgit.cgi/nbtk/refs/ The URL is correct. Also there is no HACKING file in the 0.11.1 tar ball and the README contains information for building it, which given its a binary package, isn't relevant to the RPM. There is also no plan to push any of the moblin stuff to F-11 or earlier as there are too many missing dependencies. I don't believe I've missed anything 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 506721] Package Review: nbtk - A toolkit for moblin NetBooks
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=506721 --- Comment #16 from Nikolay Vladimirov niko...@vladimiroff.com 2009-06-28 17:16:29 EDT --- The one about the git snapshots? I'm not using git snapshots. You can see all the releases here http://git.moblin.org/cgit.cgi/nbtk/refs/ The URL is correct. Ok, sorry about that. Also there is no HACKING file in the 0.11.1 tar ball and the README contains information for building it, which given its a binary package, isn't relevant to the RPM. Ok. There is also no plan to push any of the moblin stuff to F-11 or earlier as there are too many missing dependencies. I don't believe I've missed anything else. Even that you do not plan to push moblin to F-11 someone else can try to rebuild the package for his own purpose. It's better to have the version listed. It's a minor thing that can save someone's time. Also the changelog in the .spec states that the last version of the package is 0.9.3 . -- 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 506721] Package Review: nbtk - A toolkit for moblin NetBooks
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=506721 --- Comment #17 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2009-06-28 17:31:11 EDT --- Even that you do not plan to push moblin to F-11 someone else can try to rebuild the package for his own purpose. It's better to have the version listed. It's a minor thing that can save someone's time. I'm updated it although I really don't see much point as they're going to run into lots of other issues as most of the entire stack isn't supported on F11 and its not much use for much else. Also the changelog in the .spec states that the last version of the package is 0.9.3 . Oops. Updated. -- 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 439772] Review Request: x11vnc - VNC server for the current X11 session
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=439772 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pa...@hubbitus.info --- Comment #24 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2009-06-28 17:40:05 EDT --- Is there any movement??? -- 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 506844] Review Request: audex - kde4 audio ripper
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=506844 --- Comment #23 from Roland Wolters wolters.li...@gmx.net 2009-06-28 17:42:31 EDT --- Terje: I am in close tontact with upstream and will inform them about the packages once they are available. Also, I will build the Beta 5 when the current, approved version beta 4 has been build successfully. -- 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 506844] Review Request: audex - kde4 audio ripper
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=506844 Roland Wolters wolters.li...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #24 from Roland Wolters wolters.li...@gmx.net 2009-06-28 17:45:59 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: audex Short Description: Audio ripper Owners: liquidat Branches: F-10 F-11 -- 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 507916] Review Request: javanotes - Introduction to Programming Using Java, By David J. Eck
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=507916 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-06-28 19:12:19 EDT --- There's not much to this package. You're right that the dist tag isn't necessary, but do keep in mind that not having it will not reduce download time as each release is signed with a different key (and hence the packages are different anyway), and you will be responsible for making sure that the release you push to F11 has a different version than what you push to F10 (and from what you push to devel). But that's up to you; the dist tag only makes this convenient. Just don't be surprised when you get tag already exists errors. Packaging-wise there's not much to talk about; the package just unpacks a tarball and drops it under /usr/share/doc. One issue that bothers me, though, is that the directory isn't versioned, unlike essentially every other directory in /usr/share/doc. The package I'd compare this against, diveintopython, versions its directory. Did you consider doing that? * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 74f5c1a2525ea735f2f460dd36f416b6728ad7cdf4ef2d4a42a2d0e6686c5d43 javanotes5.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: javanotes = 5.1-1 = (none) * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * acceptable content. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one. -- 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 502614] Review Request: stfl - STFL implements a curses-based widget set for text terminals
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=502614 --- Comment #11 from Byron Clark by...@theclarkfamily.name 2009-06-28 22:25:43 EDT --- New upstream version. Should be rpmlint clean. Spec URL: http://theclarkfamily.name/fedora/stfl.spec SRPM URL: http://theclarkfamily.name/fedora/stfl-0.21-1.fc11.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 426752] Review Request: ghc-X11-xft - Haskell binding to Xft
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=426752 --- Comment #15 from Zach Oglesby oglesb...@gmail.com 2009-06-28 22:43:21 EDT --- Updated http://zoglesby.fedorapeople.org/ghc-X11-xft-0.2-3.fc11.src.rpm http://zoglesby.fedorapeople.org/ghc-X11-xft.spec -- 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 503336] Review Request: newsbeuter - console based feed reader
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=503336 Byron Clark by...@theclarkfamily.name changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(by...@theclarkfam | |ily.name) | --- Comment #7 from Byron Clark by...@theclarkfamily.name 2009-06-28 23:30:40 EDT --- Updated. Spec URL: http://theclarkfamily.name/fedora/newsbeuter.spec SRPM URL: http://theclarkfamily.name/fedora/newsbeuter-2.0-6.fc11.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 508373] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-SQLite - Parse and format SQLite dates and times
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=508373 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-06-29 00:29:52 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i586). koji Build =http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1437534 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 0ec5881a3260262bdb9bab67befff8076e68633a DateTime-Format-SQLite-0.10.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=6, Tests=51, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.04 usr 0.01 sys + 0.59 cusr 0.06 csys = 0.70 CPU) + Package perl-DateTime-Format-SQLite-0.10-1.fc12.noarch = Provides: perl(DateTime::Format::SQLite) = 0.10 Requires: perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) + Not a GUI application 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 507771] Review Request: python-ctags - A python wrapper to read tags 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=507771 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-06-29 01:40:37 EDT --- python-ctags-1.0.5-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-ctags-1.0.5-1.fc11 -- 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 508373] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-SQLite - Parse and format SQLite dates and times
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=508373 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 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 508373] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-SQLite - Parse and format SQLite dates and times
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=508373 --- Comment #2 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-06-29 01:57:26 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-DateTime-Format-SQLite Short Description: Parse and format SQLite dates and times Owners: cweyl Branches: F-10 F-11 devel InitialCC: perl-sig -- 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
