[Bug 541978] Review Request: pulseaudio-equalizer - PulseAudio Equalizer
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=541978 --- Comment #1 from Felix Kaechele fe...@fetzig.org 2009-11-30 03:03:05 EDT --- *** Bug 541738 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 541738] Review Request: pulseaudio-equalizer - PulseAudio Equalizer
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=541738 Felix Kaechele fe...@fetzig.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||fe...@fetzig.org Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Felix Kaechele fe...@fetzig.org 2009-11-30 03:03:05 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 541978 *** -- 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 542292] Review Request: mintmenu - gnome-panel menu from LinuxMint
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=542292
Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||terje...@phys.ntnu.no
--- Comment #4 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2009-11-30 03:02:31
EDT ---
Comments marked with ###
#%global _libdir /usr/lib
### Remove
Summary: Advanced Gnome menu
Name: mintmenu
Version: 4.9.0
### align Name tag?
BuildRequires: python-devel
Requires: deskbar-applet, tracker, python = 2.4, python 3.0, pyxdg,
gnome-python2-gnomedesktop, pygtk2, pygtk2-libglade, alacarte
### Split this line, many reviewers like only one package one each line.
%description
One of the most advanced menus under Linux. MintMenu supports filtering,
favorites, easy-uninstallation, autosession, and many other features
### You could be a bit more informative here.
%prep
%setup -q -n mintmenu
%install
rm -rf %{buildroot}
mkdir %{buildroot}
cp -R usr %{buildroot}/
### I would change that to cp -a ...
cp %SOURCE1 %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/linuxmint/mintMenu/
### And this to cp -a %{SOURCE1} ...
%post
%postun
### Remove these
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%attr(0755, root, root) %{_bindir}/mintmenu
%{_libdir}/bonobo/servers/mintMenu.server
%{_libdir}/linuxmint/mintMenu/applications.list
%{_libdir}/linuxmint/mintMenu/compile.py
### You have to redo the file listing, should the package own
### %{_libdir}/linuxmint and %{_libdir}/linuxmint/mintMenu?
### Remove the leading spaces.
%{_libdir}/linuxmint/mintMenu/compile.pyc
%{_libdir}/linuxmint/mintMenu/dotted.png
%{_libdir}/linuxmint/mintMenu/icon.png
--
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 542292] Review Request: mintmenu - gnome-panel menu from LinuxMint
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=542292 --- Comment #5 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2009-11-30 03:09:45 EDT --- Forgot, two more issues: - you should add a note why %build is empty. - seems like pure python code(?), then the package should be noarch -- 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 540539] Review Request: gpdftext - Ebook PDF editor
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=540539 Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cwick...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org 2009-11-30 03:13:08 EDT --- Why not use a quick sed fix as described in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackagingTricks#.desktop_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
[Bug 542580] New: Review Request: statusnet - Open Source microblogging platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: statusnet - Open Source microblogging platform https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542580 Summary: Review Request: statusnet - Open Source microblogging platform Product: Fedora Version: 12 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rpan...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Description: StatusNet is a Free and Open Source microblogging platform. It helps people in a community, company or group to exchange short (140 character) messages over the Web. Users can choose which people to follow and receive only their friends' or colleagues' status messages. SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/statusnet.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/statusnet-0.8.2-1.fc12.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 542580] Review Request: statusnet - Open Source microblogging platform
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=542580 Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||487388 -- 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 542580] Review Request: statusnet - Open Source microblogging platform
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=542580 Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||487391 -- 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 542580] Review Request: statusnet - Open Source microblogging platform
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=542580 Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||520771 -- 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 542580] Review Request: statusnet - Open Source microblogging platform
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=542580 Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||487389 -- 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 542580] Review Request: statusnet - Open Source microblogging platform
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=542580 --- Comment #1 from Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 03:57:18 EDT --- Few things to note down: 1. Rpmlint says: statusnet.noarch: E: non-executable-script /var/www/statusnet/extlib/DB/DataObject/createTables.php 0644 /usr/bin/php statusnet.noarch: E: non-executable-script /var/www/statusnet/scripts/sessiongc.php 0644 /usr/bin/env statusnet.noarch: E: non-executable-script /var/www/statusnet/scripts/uncache_users.php 0644 /usr/bin/env statusnet.noarch: E: non-executable-script /var/www/statusnet/scripts/deleteuser.php 0644 /usr/bin/env statusnet.noarch: E: non-executable-script /var/www/statusnet/scripts/decache.php 0644 /usr/bin/env statusnet.noarch: E: non-executable-script /var/www/statusnet/scripts/reportsnapshot.php 0644 /usr/bin/env statusnet.noarch: E: non-executable-script /var/www/statusnet/scripts/triminboxes.php 0644 /usr/bin/env statusnet.noarch: E: non-executable-script /var/www/statusnet/scripts/showcache.php 0644 /usr/bin/env statusnet.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/statusnet/scripts/update_pot.sh statusnet.noarch: E: non-executable-script /var/www/statusnet/scripts/makegroupadmin.php 0644 /usr/bin/env statusnet.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /var/www/statusnet/extlib/facebook/facebookapi_php5_restlib.php statusnet.noarch: E: non-executable-script /var/www/statusnet/scripts/pingqueuehandler.php 0644 /usr/bin/env statusnet.noarch: E: non-executable-script /var/www/statusnet/scripts/registeruser.php 0644 /usr/bin/env statusnet.noarch: E: non-executable-script /var/www/statusnet/scripts/createsim.php 0644 /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 14 errors, 0 warnings. These can be ignored. 2. extlib carries external libraries which needs to be removed and instead dependencies from already existing packages need to be used. Will work on second point in coming days and update next release bump. Feel free to start review. Thanks, -- 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 541512] Review Request: rubygem-ruby2ruby - Generate pure ruby from RubyParser compatible Sexps
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=541512 Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||542559 -- 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 542559] Review Request: rubygem-thor - Scripting framework that replaces rake, sake and rubigen
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=542559 Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||541807, 541512 -- 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 541807] Review Request: rubygem-ParseTree - Extracts the parse tree for a class/method and returns an s-expression
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=541807 Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||542559 -- 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 534168] Review Request: groovy - Agile dynamic language for the Java Platform
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=534168 --- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-11-30 04:10:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Some prereview question: * Why you have 'Reguires: groovy' on your package? Probably a mistake. * should 'Requires: ivy' be 'Requires apache-ivy'? apache-ivy provides ivy. At least in jpackage the package is called ivy, therefore I find this good for cross-distro compatibility. -- 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 225786] Merge Review: gd
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=225786
--- Comment #18 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-11-30
04:14:19 EDT ---
Problems in F-12:
gd.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libgd.so.2.0.0 e...@glibc_2.2.5
In previous review was mentioned problem with -f in these commands, but it's
okay now.
rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/libgd.la
rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/libgd.a
Could you comment the rpmlint's warning for finishing this review?
--
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 226546] Merge Review: wvdial
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=226546
--- Comment #4 from Michal Hlavinka mhlav...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 04:17:26
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
Comments:
1) Checking RPM_BUILD_ROOT != / is not necessary
per Packaging Guidelines (
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean ):
In the past, some packages checked that %{buildroot} was not / before
deleting it. This is not necessary in Fedora,
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is enough
Ok, changed...
improvement There's no need to check RPM_BUILD_ROOT != / in other sections too.
It can be removed from %install section. This section is executed during build,
not during package install, so it's not going to eat / neither.
2) %attr in %files section is used too much
%attr(0755,root,root) %{_bindir}/*
%attr(0644,root,root) %{_mandir}/man1/*
%attr(0644,root,root) %{_mandir}/man5/*
these are default permissions, thus not required to explicitly add there
Ok, removed...
verified
3) too much wildcards under %files section
If upstream makes some changes in tarball and add/remove some files, this is
not going to catch anything. It's good practice to list at least all files
under %{_bindir}. This will let you know if there is any new/missing one.
files under %{_bindir} and man pages listed more specifically.
verified
4) License
There is no license info in the package except COPYING - LGPL. This means
License tag should be set to LGPLv2+
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing :
A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version
that
it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is
technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the
version in whatever COPYING file they include. Note that this is LGPLv2+,
not
LGPL+, because version 2 was the first version of LGPL.
Ok, changed LGPLv2 to LGPLv2+
verified
5) Versioned requires (
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires )
First, if the lowest possible requirement is so old that nobody has a
version older than that installed on any target distribution release,
there's no need to include the version in the dependency at all. In that
case we know the available software is new enough. For example, the
version in gtk+-devel 1.2 dependency above is unnecessary for all Red Hat
Linux distributions since (at least) release 6.2. As a rule of thumb, if
the version is not required, don't add it just for fun.
all 'ppp' versions (even in old RHELs) are newer than version specified,
please
remove it
Removed versioned requires...
verified
6)Url and Source0 links does not work
wget http://alumnit.ca/download/wvdial-1.61.tar.gz
--2009-11-27 16:16:56-- http://alumnit.ca/download/wvdial-1.61.tar.gz
Resolving alumnit.ca... 69.196.152.118
Connecting to alumnit.ca|69.196.152.118|:80... failed: Connection refused.
wget 'http://alumnit.ca/wiki/?WvDial'
--2009-11-27 16:17:30-- http://alumnit.ca/wiki/?WvDial
Resolving alumnit.ca... 69.196.152.118
Connecting to alumnit.ca|69.196.152.118|:80... failed: Connection refused.
I guess it is temporary issue... we'll see on Monday...
Url link works, but Source0 link does not (http error 404). It seems sources
has been moved to http://wvstreams.googlecode.com/files/wvdial-1.61.tar.gz
$ curl -s http://wvstreams.googlecode.com/files/wvdial-1.61.tar.gz | md5sum
acd3b2050c9b65fff2aecda6576ee7bc -
$ cat sources
acd3b2050c9b65fff2aecda6576ee7bc wvdial-1.61.tar.gz
verified: sources matches latest upstream release,
but Source0 link needs to be fixed
7) Missing info for patches
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
Every patch in spec file should contain a comment describing:
* why is that patch used - bug number is enough
* upstream information - was it sent upstream (and when)? taken from
upstream?
was it accepted/rejected? is this patch fedora specific ?
I added the informations why the patch is used with bug numbers/short
comments.
Some patches - like remotename and 9nums are Fedora specific. Compuserve patch
is just change to use more new Compuserve style (which increases the chance of
succesful connection). That one wvdial.conf manpage patch - I don't know, I'll
try to submit it once the website will be up. Anyway the package is not really
alive - current update was just to fix issues with new gcc/glibc.
verified, but try to send them upstream
please fix 1) and 6) and we're done here
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the
[Bug 538327] Review Request: otpd - One Time Password daemon
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=538327 --- Comment #22 from Giuseppe Paterno gpate...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 04:29:49 EDT --- Sorry for the missing tar.gz, I'm always travelling and it's difficult to cope with everythihg :) I strongly suggest to try to get out of SVN the tree if the tar.gz is not in googlecode. the resynctool stuff is not a bug, it's an output of the sequence of OTPs, therefore only the last line has to be taken into consideration to be put in the status file. However, since it's more practical to script resynctool, I might decide to put a verbose flag into resynctool and get rid of that output if not requested. -- 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 541807] Review Request: rubygem-ParseTree - Extracts the parse tree for a class/method and returns an s-expression
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=541807 --- Comment #2 from Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com 2009-11-30 04:33:20 EDT --- Spec URL: http://magoazul.com/wip/SPECS/rubygem-ParseTree.spec SRPM URL: http://magoazul.com/wip/SRPMS/rubygem-ParseTree-3.0.4-3.fc13.src.rpm * Mon Nov 30 2009 Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com - 3.0.4-3 - Remove exclude for gauntlet_parsetree.rb, let user deal with dependencies if they need it. -- 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 541491] Review Request: rubygem-ruby_parser - A ruby parser written in pure ruby
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=541491 --- Comment #6 from Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com 2009-11-30 04:34:02 EDT --- Spec URL: http://magoazul.com/wip/SPECS/rubygem-ruby_parser.spec SRPM URL: http://magoazul.com/wip/SRPMS/rubygem-ruby_parser-2.0.4-3.fc13.src.rpm * Mon Nov 30 2009 Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com - 2.0.4-3 - Remove exclude for gauntlet_rubyparser.rb, let user deal with dependencies if they need it. -- 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 541491] Review Request: rubygem-ruby_parser - A ruby parser written in pure ruby
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=541491 --- Comment #5 from Matthew Kent mk...@magoazul.com 2009-11-30 04:33:29 EDT --- Spec URL: http://magoazul.com/wip/SPECS/rubygem-ruby_parser.spec SRPM URL: http://magoazul.com/wip/SRPMS/rubygem-ruby_parser-2.0.4-2.fc13.src.rpm (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #2) What's the correct approach here, %exclude the script? Add a note about it and leave dependencies as is? Will go on the assumption you'd rather it be excluded. - If you are sure that no one would need this script, then simply exclude the script. However if there may be some people who wants this script, rather leave this script as it is (and also leave the dependency as it is). Those who want to use this script can install the needed dependency by him/herself ( note that I don't know how this script is to be used, so I would keep this script as it is ) Yeah I suppose I can't be certain no one would use it. I'll leave it in. -- 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 226546] Merge Review: wvdial
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=226546 --- Comment #5 from Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 04:51:26 EDT --- 1) and 6) fixed in wvdial-1.61-3.fc13. -- 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 226546] Merge Review: wvdial
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=226546 Michal Hlavinka mhlav...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Michal Hlavinka mhlav...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 05:08:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) 1) and 6) fixed in wvdial-1.61-3.fc13. verified, no other objections thanks -- 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 539480] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL - Simple http server class with SSL support
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=539480
--- Comment #1 from Gerd Pokorra g...@zimt.uni-siegen.de 2009-11-30 05:24:39
EDT ---
It looks good for me.
I only would change %{_mandir}/man3/* to
%{_mandir}/man3/HTTP::Daemon::SSL.3pm.gz because it is only one file.
Gerd
--
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 226546] Merge Review: wvdial
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=226546 --- Comment #7 from Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 05:53:33 EDT --- Thanks for review... -- 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 504405] Review Request: jaxodraw - A Java program for drawing Feynman diagrams
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=504405 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-11-30 05:57:54 EDT --- jaxodraw-2.0.1-4.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jaxodraw-2.0.1-4.fc12 -- 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 504405] Review Request: jaxodraw - A Java program for drawing Feynman diagrams
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=504405 --- Comment #20 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-11-30 05:57:13 EDT --- Whoops, slipped under my radar. -- 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 504405] Review Request: jaxodraw - A Java program for drawing Feynman diagrams
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=504405 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-11-30 05:58:00 EDT --- jaxodraw-2.0.1-4.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jaxodraw-2.0.1-4.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 538327] Review Request: otpd - One Time Password daemon
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=538327 --- Comment #23 from Antoine Brenner brenner-redhatbugzi...@gymglish.com 2009-11-30 06:02:55 EDT --- Hello, If the resynctool output is not a bug, then the bug is in the manpage of resynctool, that states that the output CAN be used to generate the status file. I agree with you that a verbose flag in resynctool would be a nicer way of fixing the problem. Regards, Antoine PS: Concerning the bugtracker choice, should I continue to report all my issues here ? -- 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 539480] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL - Simple http server class with SSL support
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=539480 --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2009-11-30 06:04:39 EDT --- Hi Gerd, Updates for Comment #1 http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL/perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL.spec http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL/perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL-1.04-2.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 540653] Review Request: jazzy - Java-based spell checker
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=540653
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-11-30
06:14:12 EDT ---
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: 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: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26]
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27]
Once the issue in comment #2 is fixed package is 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 541765] Review Request: NanoEngineer-1 - Nano-composite modeling and simulation 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=541765
Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mefos...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mefos...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com 2009-11-30 06:22:56
EDT ---
Summary: a few minor points, and one more major one:
- Can you verify that the license really is GPLv2+ and not GPLv2?
- It would be helpful to add comments indicating what each of the patches does
- The rpmlint output warns on the explicit Require: libgle after the renaming;
please verify that it's really needed
- Please create a .desktop file for the GUI application
- My local build of this package segfaults when I run the NanoEngineer-1
executable. :(
Here's the full checklist:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
With the s/gle/libgle/ modification, I get this:
NanoEngineer-1.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libgle
This is probably not an issue, as the package doesn't have an automatic
dependency on libgle from anything else, but can you confirm that it really
does need libgle at runtime?
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
-- As far as I can tell, the combined package is GPLv2 -- how do you get the +?
(I'm prepared to be convinced because of all of the other License files shipped
for libraries that it links against)
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
-- md5sum Downloads/NanoEngineer-1_Suite_v1.1.1.12.tar.gz
rpmbuild/SOURCES/NanoEngineer-1_Suite_v1.1.1.12.tar.gz
65646dc685d14156631d6c31d95b1b56
Downloads/NanoEngineer-1_Suite_v1.1.1.12.tar.gz
65646dc685d14156631d6c31d95b1b56
rpmbuild/SOURCES/NanoEngineer-1_Suite_v1.1.1.12.tar.gz
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
-- Looks good, and it was nice of upstream to create the page you reference.
Don't forget to change gle to libgle
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. [14]
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [15]
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16]
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17]
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18]
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. [19]
[-] 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.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26]
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27]
[*] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [30]
-- Can't test this yet until libgle gets accepted
[-] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not
[Bug 526426] Review Request: OpenGL-gle - A Tubing and Extrusion Library for OpenGL
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=526426 --- Comment #12 from Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com 2009-11-30 06:26:58 EDT --- I've made a couple more updates to the package following the above comments: - use --disable-static on the build - tidy up the BuildRequires - rename to libgle The result is here: http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/libgle/libgle-3.1.0-3.src.rpm http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/libgle/libgle.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 526426] Review Request: libgle - A Tubing and Extrusion Library for OpenGL
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=526426 Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: OpenGL-gle |Review Request: libgle - A |- A Tubing and Extrusion|Tubing and Extrusion |Library for OpenGL |Library for OpenGL -- 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 539480] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL - Simple http server class with SSL support
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=539480 Gerd Pokorra g...@zimt.uni-siegen.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |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 540653] Review Request: jazzy - Java-based spell checker
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=540653 --- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-11-30 07:04:20 EDT --- Thank you. New package: SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/jazzy.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/jazzy-0.5.2-2.fc12.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 541694] Review Request: php-phpunit-File-Iterator - FilterIterator implementation that filters files based on a list of suffixes
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=541694 --- Comment #7 from Christof Damian chris...@damian.net 2009-11-30 07:03:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) MUST fix: - own /usr/share/pear/File I changed it to own all files and directories including and below /usr/share/pear/File Spec URL: http://rpms.damian.net/SPECS/php-phpunit-File-Iterator.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.damian.net/SRPMS/php-phpunit-File-Iterator-1.1.0-4.fc12.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 539480] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL - Simple http server class with SSL support
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=539480 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2009-11-30 07:05:04 EDT --- Thanks for the review. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL Short Description: Simple http server class with SSL support Owners: stevetraylen Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5 EL-4 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
[Bug 540653] Review Request: jazzy - Java-based spell checker
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=540653 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 07:16:26 EDT --- Thanks, 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 226661] Merge Review: yaboot
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=226661 Ivana Varekova varek...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rra...@redhat.com, ||varek...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|varek...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Ivana Varekova varek...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 07:23:38 EDT --- My comments: - BAD: rpmlint flags an error: yaboot.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Linux bootloader for Power Macintosh New World computers. yaboot.src:48: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes ybin yaboot.src:110: E: hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/yaboot/ yaboot.src:123: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/yaboot/addnote yaboot.src:124: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/yaboot/ofboot yaboot.src:125: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot yaboot.src:126: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot.debug yaboot.ppc: W: summary-ended-with-dot Linux bootloader for Power Macintosh New World computers. yaboot.ppc: W: obsolete-not-provided ybin yaboot.ppc: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot yaboot.ppc: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot yaboot.ppc: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot.debug yaboot.ppc: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot.debug yaboot.ppc: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot.debug yaboot.ppc: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/yaboot-1.3.14/yaboot-howto.de.sgml - GOOD: package is named according to guidelines - GOOD: spec file named properly - BAD: wrong build root see Packaging/Guidelines - GOOD: package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines - GOOD: the License field in the package spec file does not match the actual license - GOOD: license files are shipped, but not marked as documentation (see below) - CHECK: spec file must be written in American English () - CHECK: The spec file is legible summary ends with dot - should not be there - GOOD: source upstream - GOOD: builds in mock - CHECK: no build dependencies necessary beyond base packages is ybin necessary, isn it obsolete - GOOD: doesn't ship locale files - GOOD: no libraries shipped - BAD: package is not relocatable see rpmlint output - BAD: shipped directories owned by package, direct dependency or filesystem: /usr/lib/yaboot/ is not owned - GOOD: no duplicates in %files - CHECK: wrong location of files -rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 6132 Oct 29 12:02 /usr/lib/yaboot/addnote -rw-r--r--1 rootroot11410 Oct 29 12:02 /usr/lib/yaboot/ofboot -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 198192 Oct 29 12:02 /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 454294 Oct 29 12:02 /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot.debug is the location of these files ok? smoreover the last three have no executable permissions - seems to be bogus location for me - CHECK: permissions on files are set properly see the previous - GOOD: package has a %clean section - GOOD: package uses macros consistently - GOOD: no large documentation files - GOOD: header files - GOOD: no static libraries - GOOD: no pkgconfig files - GOOD: no libraries included - GOOD: no devel package - GOOD: no *.la libtool archives - GOOD: no desktop file - GOOD: owns files or directories owned by other packages: - BAD: build root is cleaned at the beginning of %install is not cleaned - GOOD: all file names are valid UTF-8 /usr/share/doc/yaboot-1.3.14/README.man.patch and /usr/share/doc/yaboot-1.3.14/Makefile should not be in documentation -- 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 541589] Review Request: sqljet - Pure Java SQLite
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=541589
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-11-30
07:38:51 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
0.) The -javadoc subpackage should requires jpackage-utils
...that owns %_javadocdir
Fixed.
1.) Does not build
you probably meant to add junit4 to the classpath
Fixed.
2.) You don't use macros consistently
please use either $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} macro but not both
Fixed.
The rest is just matter of clean style. Just for your considerations, probably
nothing that would block the review:
You can do this in one shot, without calling rm:
-find -name '*.class' -exec rm -f '{}' \;
-find -name '*.jar' -exec rm -f '{}' \;
+find \( -name '*.class' -o -name '*.jar' \) -delete
Fixed.
(In reply to comment #2)
3.) You do not run the test suite
Please do so, ideally in %check section. Seems like you'd need to add a
dependency on hamcrest.
Test suite is failing for me and upstream build is a nightmare. I've submitted
a few issues about that but no response yet. Hopefully this is not a blocker.
I'd also suggest replacing Summary with something more descriptive, (i.e.
adding database library at the end or something like that).
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand what you want. I picked the first paragraph of
sqljet.com assuming upstream devs will describe their work best.
The rest looks well
* Named and versioned in accordance with guidelines
* License ok, license tag correct, license present in package documentation
* spec file clean and legible
* filelist sane
New package:
Spec URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/sqljet.spec
SRPM URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/sqljet-1.0.1-2.fc12.src.rpm
Koji build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1837449
--
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 457279] Review Request: cerebro - Cerebro provides mesh network services and presence 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=457279 Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DEFERRED -- 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 457279] Review Request: cerebro - Cerebro provides mesh network services and presence 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=457279 Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) -- 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 540653] Review Request: jazzy - Java-based spell checker
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=540653 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-11-30 08:03:38 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: jazzy Short Description: Java-based spellchecker Owners: lkundrak Branches: F-11 F-12 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 541589] Review Request: sqljet - Pure Java SQLite
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=541589 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-11-30 08:02:30 EDT --- Thanks for the fixes. (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) 3.) You do not run the test suite Please do so, ideally in %check section. Seems like you'd need to add a dependency on hamcrest. Test suite is failing for me and upstream build is a nightmare. I've submitted a few issues about that but no response yet. Hopefully this is not a blocker. Sounds fair. I'd also suggest replacing Summary with something more descriptive, (i.e. adding database library at the end or something like that). Hmm, I'm not sure I understand what you want. I picked the first paragraph of sqljet.com assuming upstream devs will describe their work best. That was just a suggestion, feel free to keep your Summary if you feel it's better; definitely not a blocker or anything. 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 527706] Review Request: mingw32-libgeotiff - MinGW port of libgeotiff Georeferenced image 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=527706 Dave Ludlow d...@adsllc.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(d...@adsllc.com) | --- Comment #18 from Dave Ludlow d...@adsllc.com 2009-11-30 08:12:50 EDT --- Thanks for the ping... I now seem to be stuck. I've gotten to Tag Or Update Your Branches on this list: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join But I'm getting this error: [da...@myth F-12]$ make tag rpm: no arguments given for query cvs tag -c mingw32-libgeotiff-- ERROR: Tag mingw32-libgeotiff-- is not in name-version-release format cvs tag: Pre-tag check failed cvs [tag aborted]: correct the above errors first! make: *** [tag] Error 1 I've never seen this with any previous packages - suggestions? -- 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 529544] Review Request: php-phpunit-bytekit - A command-line tool built on the PHP Bytekit 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=529544 Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com 2009-11-30 08:16:27 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: php-phpunit-bytekit Short Description: A command-line tool built on the PHP Bytekit extension Owners: llaumgui cdamian Branches: F-11 F-12 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 528469] Review Request: php-ezc-EventLogDatabaseTiein - eZ Components EventLogDatabaseTiein
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=528469 Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Guillaume Kulakowski llaum...@gmail.com 2009-11-30 08:17:19 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: php-ezc-EventLogDatabaseTiein Short Description: Contains the database writer backend for the EventLog component Owners: llaumgui Branches: F-11 F-12 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 541589] Review Request: sqljet - Pure Java SQLite
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=541589 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 08:20:36 EDT --- Thanks for the review. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: sqljet Short Description: Pure Java SQLite Owners: akurtakov Branches: 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 539863] Review Request: perl-Pod-PseudoPod - Extending the POD tags for book manuscripts
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=539863 --- Comment #3 from Gerd Pokorra g...@zimt.uni-siegen.de 2009-11-30 08:43:35 EDT --- Changed the basis to an autogenerated specfile. ExtUtils::MakeMaker is replaced with Module::Build. The file under the URLs are updated: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/parrot.rpms/PseudoPod/perl-Pod-PseudoPod.spec ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/parrot.rpms/PseudoPod/perl-Pod-PseudoPod-0.15-1.fc11.src.rpm The latest scratch build is: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1838062 The rpmlint output reports: 0 errors, 0 warnings -- 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 527706] Review Request: mingw32-libgeotiff - MinGW port of libgeotiff Georeferenced image 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=527706 --- Comment #19 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-11-30 08:57:01 EDT --- It seems that you forgot to checkout spec-file first. $ ./common/cvs-import.sh -b branch name -m message ~/path/to/mingw32-libgeotiff.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 540539] Review Request: gpdftext - Ebook PDF editor
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=540539 --- Comment #5 from Rahul Sundaram sunda...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 09:14:30 EDT --- I prefer not using sed since the file can change upstream without me noticing with undesirable side effects. Anyway, it is temporary workaround since upstream is releasing a new version 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 226661] Merge Review: yaboot
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=226661 --- Comment #2 from Roman Rakus rra...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 09:12:22 EDT --- - BAD: rpmlint flags an error: yaboot.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Linux bootloader for Power Macintosh New World computers. fixed yaboot.src:48: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes ybin fixed yaboot.src:110: E: hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/yaboot/ yaboot.src:123: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/yaboot/addnote yaboot.src:124: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/yaboot/ofboot yaboot.src:125: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot yaboot.src:126: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot.debug This is special case. Yaboot binaries are needed to be in /usr/lib/yaboot dir. yaboot.ppc: W: summary-ended-with-dot Linux bootloader for Power Macintosh New World computers. fixed yaboot.ppc: W: obsolete-not-provided ybin fixed yaboot.ppc: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot yaboot.ppc: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot yaboot.ppc: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot.debug yaboot.ppc: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot.debug yaboot.ppc: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot.debug Special case. Yaboot is bootloader, is not linux executable file, is meant to be executed only by OpenFirmware yaboot.ppc: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/yaboot-1.3.14/yaboot-howto.de.sgml fixed - GOOD: package is named according to guidelines - GOOD: spec file named properly - BAD: wrong build root see Packaging/Guidelines fixed - GOOD: package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines - GOOD: the License field in the package spec file does not match the actual license - GOOD: license files are shipped, but not marked as documentation (see below) - CHECK: spec file must be written in American English () Is or isn't? - CHECK: The spec file is legible summary ends with dot - should not be there fixed - GOOD: source upstream - GOOD: builds in mock - CHECK: no build dependencies necessary beyond base packages is ybin necessary, isn it obsolete fixed - GOOD: doesn't ship locale files - GOOD: no libraries shipped - BAD: package is not relocatable see rpmlint output see above - BAD: shipped directories owned by package, direct dependency or filesystem: /usr/lib/yaboot/ is not owned fixed - GOOD: no duplicates in %files - CHECK: wrong location of files -rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 6132 Oct 29 12:02 /usr/lib/yaboot/addnote -rw-r--r--1 rootroot11410 Oct 29 12:02 /usr/lib/yaboot/ofboot -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 198192 Oct 29 12:02 /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 454294 Oct 29 12:02 /usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot.debug is the location of these files ok? smoreover the last three have no executable permissions - seems to be bogus location for me See above. - CHECK: permissions on files are set properly see the previous - GOOD: package has a %clean section - GOOD: package uses macros consistently - GOOD: no large documentation files - GOOD: header files - GOOD: no static libraries - GOOD: no pkgconfig files - GOOD: no libraries included - GOOD: no devel package - GOOD: no *.la libtool archives - GOOD: no desktop file - GOOD: owns files or directories owned by other packages: - BAD: build root is cleaned at the beginning of %install is not cleaned fixed - GOOD: all file names are valid UTF-8 /usr/share/doc/yaboot-1.3.14/README.man.patch and /usr/share/doc/yaboot-1.3.14/Makefile should not be in documentation fixed See task http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1838144 -- 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 225729] Merge Review: enscript
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=225729 --- Comment #1 from Adam Tkac at...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 09:18:12 EDT --- Package enscript-1.6.4-15.fc13 should be fine, there is only one warning: enscript.spec:27: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes nenscript I wasn't able to figure which version of nenscript was the latest existing so I think warning is acceptable. -- 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 540984] Review Request: aduna-root-poms - Root POMs for Aduna projects
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=540984 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 09:22:46 EDT --- I'm taking this 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 540984] Review Request: aduna-root-poms - Root POMs for Aduna projects
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=540984 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 09:26:50 EDT --- In order to make the maven builds behave normally i.e. correct dependencies you have to make this package depend on the packages providing the following artifacts (all listed in root pom): artifactIdslf4j-api/artifactId artifactIdslf4j-simple/artifactId artifactIdjcl-over-slf4j/artifactId artifactIdlogback-core/artifactId artifactIdlogback-classic/artifactId artifactIdjunit/artifactId If you don't do that you will have to guess these dependencies on all the child poms because they expect to be satisfied from this pom. -- 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 225889] Merge Review: htdig
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=225889 --- Comment #1 from Adam Tkac at...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 09:38:35 EDT --- Package htdig-3.2.0-0.9.b6.fc13 should be fine. -- 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 538327] Review Request: otpd - One Time Password daemon
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=538327 --- Comment #24 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com 2009-11-30 09:48:46 EDT --- The question was asked about how to unpack a SRPM made by a later RPM version -- the '--nomd5' sub option solved that, by omitting the checksum test. I see no problems with the packaging at this point. As I am not eligible to 'sign off' on a packaging, I will ask a friend to do the formal review. Was it possible to get the 'resynctool' added here, or in a side packaging? -- Russ herrold [herr...@centos-5 ~]$ cd build [herr...@centos-5 build]$ cd otpd/ [herr...@centos-5 otpd]$ wget http://www.gpaterno.com/external/otpd-3.2.4-2.src.rpm --2009-11-30 09:43:59-- http://www.gpaterno.com/external/otpd-3.2.4-2.src.rpm Resolving www.gpaterno.com... 78.46.44.108 Connecting to www.gpaterno.com|78.46.44.108|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 1198392 (1.1M) [application/x-rpm] Saving to: `otpd-3.2.4-2.src.rpm' 100%[==] 1,198,392280K/s in 5.4s 2009-11-30 09:44:06 (218 KB/s) - `otpd-3.2.4-2.src.rpm' saved [1198392/1198392] [herr...@centos-5 otpd]$ rpm -Uvh --nomd5 otpd-3.2.4-2.src.rpm 1:otpd ### [100%] [herr...@centos-5 otpd]$ rpmbuild -ba ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/otpd.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 226379] Merge Review: rsh
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=226379 --- Comment #1 from Adam Tkac at...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 09:51:26 EDT --- Package rsh-0.17-59.fc13 should be fine. -- 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 540986] Review Request: logback - A Java logging 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=540986 Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||540984 -- 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 540984] Review Request: aduna-root-poms - Root POMs for Aduna projects
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=540984 Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||540986 --- Comment #3 from Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com 2009-11-30 09:46:57 EDT --- Done -- good point. I've also fixed the versions in the changelog (cut-and-paste error). I guess this will now depend on the logback review ... http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~mef3/soprano-sesame/aduna-root-poms.spec http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~mef3/soprano-sesame/aduna-root-poms-11-2.fc12.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 527706] Review Request: mingw32-libgeotiff - MinGW port of libgeotiff Georeferenced image 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=527706 --- Comment #20 from Dave Ludlow d...@adsllc.com 2009-11-30 09:50:17 EDT --- I had done ./common/cvs-import.sh ~/path/to/mingw32-libgeotiff.srpm. To be safe, I just did ./common/cvs-import.sh -b F-12 -m Initial F-12 import /home/davel/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.fc12.src.rpm and ./common/cvs-import.sh -b F-11 -m Initial F-11 import /home/davel/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.fc12.src.rpm per your suggestion. I still get the same error. -- 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 225286] Merge Review: aspell
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=225286 Roman Rakus rra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rra...@redhat.com AssignedTo|varek...@redhat.com |rra...@redhat.com -- 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 225243] Merge Review: amanda
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=225243 --- Comment #18 from Daniel Novotny dnovo...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 10:14:59 EDT --- hello Orion, All changes for the package review are made. Do you think it's enough (and you can do fedora-review+) or do I need to change something more? -- 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 538327] Review Request: otpd - One Time Password daemon
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=538327 --- Comment #25 from Giuseppe Paterno gpate...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 10:16:22 EDT --- I put a more confortable -d (debug) in resynctool in the new version. SPEC: http://www.gpaterno.com/external/otpd.spec SRPM: http://www.gpaterno.com/external/otpd-3.2.5-2.src.rpm Sources: http://otpd.googlecode.com/files/otpd-3.2.5.tar.gz Thank you all for your cooperation!!! @Antoine: if are related to this package, please do. If they are related to features/general issues, please consider also on http://code.google.com/p/otpd/issues/list Thanks! -- 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 540986] Review Request: logback - A Java logging 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=540986 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 10:24:32 EDT --- Few questions: * What is the maven problem that caused the need to use build.xml from debian? Please open a bug report against maven for that. * Is updating javamail out of question? Sounds like a way better option than patching out methods.With this patch we will be using text/plain mime type always which will break HTMLLayout of the the smtp appender. -- 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 541346] Review Request: polkit-kde - PolicyKit integration for KDE Desktop
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=541346
--- Comment #7 from Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 10:28:30
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
#1 issue in this package: this needs a .desktop file so it actually get
started!
Ops, you're right! How should obsoletes look then? As in kdebase-workspace
there's %{version}-%{release} part - is it OK just to match current
kdebase-workspace version/release?
--
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 226552] Merge Review: xdelta
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=226552 --- Comment #5 from Adam Tkac at...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 10:36:02 EDT --- All issues should be fixed in xdelta-1.1.4-8.fc13. -- 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 537897] Review Request: mingw32-openjpeg - mingw32 package for openjpeg
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=537897 Adam Goode a...@spicenitz.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Adam Goode a...@spicenitz.org 2009-11-30 10:43:12 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-openjpeg Short Description: mingw32 package for openjpeg Owners: agoode Branches: F-11 F-12 -- 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 225286] Merge Review: aspell
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=225286
Roman Rakus rra...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #18 from Roman Rakus rra...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 10:46:40 EDT
---
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.[1]
rpmlint ~/Download/aspell-* aspell.spec
aspell.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/nroff-filter.so ['/usr/lib64']
aspell.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/sgml-filter.so ['/usr/lib64']
aspell.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/context-filter.so ['/usr/lib64']
aspell.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/email-filter.so ['/usr/lib64']
aspell.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/tex-filter.so ['/usr/lib64']
aspell.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/texinfo-filter.so ['/usr/lib64']
aspell.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/aspell ['/usr/lib64']
aspell.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libpspell.so.15.1.4
['/usr/lib64']
aspell.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/aspell-0.60.6/aspell-import
aspell.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency
/usr/share/doc/aspell-0.60.6/aspell-import /usr/bin/perl
aspell-devel.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion pspell-devel 0.13 obsoletes
pspell-devel 0.13
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 3 warnings.
# 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. [2] .
ok
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
ok
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
BAD
# 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.[4]
ok
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
ok
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
ok
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
ok
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
ok
# MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
ok
# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
ok
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
BAD
# 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. [10]
ok
# MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
ok
# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
ok
# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]
ok
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. [14]
ok
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [15]
ok
---
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16]
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17]
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18]
# MUST: Large documentation
[Bug 538327] Review Request: otpd - One Time Password daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538327 Giuseppe Paterno gpate...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 541462] Review Request: rasmol - Molecular Graphics Visualization Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541462 --- Comment #4 from Carl Byington c...@five-ten-sg.com 2009-11-30 10:55:19 EDT --- scratch build koji reference: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1838391 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 538327] Review Request: otpd - One Time Password daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538327 --- Comment #26 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com 2009-11-30 10:58:09 EDT --- I see that even though I had disabled the otpd, it was started by a upgrade -- should there be a '[condrestart]' rather than an a formal [stop and start always] here? [herr...@centos-5 otpd]$ sudo rpm -Uvh /home/herrold/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/otpd-3.2.5-2.x86_64.rpm Password: Preparing...### [100%] 1:otpd ### [100%] Stopping /usr/sbin/otpd: [FAILED] Starting /usr/sbin/otpd: [ OK ] [herr...@centos-5 otpd]$ An admin might want the man pages or the resynctool, but not the daemon, I think This is sort of discussed with implementations, at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484345 -- Russ herrold -- 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 226521] Merge Review: uucp
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=226521 Adam Tkac at...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||at...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|at...@redhat.com -- 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 225901] Merge Review: inn
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=225901 Adam Tkac at...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||at...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|at...@redhat.com -- 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 538327] Review Request: otpd - One Time Password daemon
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=538327 --- Comment #27 from Giuseppe Paterno gpate...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 11:13:24 EDT --- I'm working to update the sources and the spec for a condrestart. I don't agree with you on splitting the package, IMHO in this release it doesn't have much sense to have resynctool and man pages without daemon. In next releases, where I think to use DB support, it might have sense to split packages. I'll wait for more feedbacks before regenerating the 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 542715] New: Review Request: RabbitVCS - Easy version control
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: RabbitVCS - Easy version control https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542715 Summary: Review Request: RabbitVCS - Easy version control Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nus...@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://nushio.fedorapeople.org/rabbitvcs/rabbitvcs.spec SRPM URL: http://nushio.fedorapeople.org/rabbitvcs/rabbitvcs-0.12-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: RabbitVCS is a set of graphical tools written to provide simple and straightforward access to the version control systems you use. Currently, it is integrated into the Nautilus file manager and only supports Subversion, but their goal is to incorporate other version control systems as well as other file managers. -- 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 541694] Review Request: php-phpunit-File-Iterator - FilterIterator implementation that filters files based on a list of suffixes
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=541694 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2009-11-30 11:36:37 EDT --- All must fixed * 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 540986] Review Request: logback - A Java logging 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=540986 --- Comment #2 from Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com 2009-11-30 11:47:22 EDT --- Good point about Maven -- I originally this package before I understood Maven very well. I was kind of scared of the (apparently optional) requirement for geronimo-jms in a couple of the POMs because geronimo-specs frankly scares me. The issue with javamail is: Fedora currently has classpathx-javamail, which has only ever implemented the 1.3 spec as far as I can tell (http://www.gnu.org/software/classpathx/javamail/javamail.html). I don't think there's currently a 1.4 implementation packaged for Fedora, so that would be a completely new package (see http://java.sun.com/products/javamail/FAQ.html#source). I guess I was feeling lazy, but I guess I really should address 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 542077] Review Request: php-pear-HTTP-Request2 - Provides an easy way to perform HTTP requests
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=542077 David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2009-11-30 11:50:38 EDT --- OK - thanks for the work 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 541694] Review Request: php-phpunit-File-Iterator - FilterIterator implementation that filters files based on a list of suffixes
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=541694 Christof Damian chris...@damian.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Christof Damian chris...@damian.net 2009-11-30 11:53:08 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: php-phpunit-File-Iterator Short Description: FilterIterator implementation that filters files based on a list of suffixes Owners: cdamian Branches: F-11 F-12 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 527706] Review Request: mingw32-libgeotiff - MinGW port of libgeotiff Georeferenced image 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=527706 --- Comment #21 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-11-30 11:56:16 EDT --- Perhaps you forgot to type $ cvs up in the mingw32-libgeotiff cvs directory. Since my last comment I see that you're uploaded all necessary files, and it's time to download them locally :) -- 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 542084] Review Request: php-pear-HTTP-OAuth - Implementation of the OAuth spec
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=542084 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 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 542084] Review Request: php-pear-HTTP-OAuth - Implementation of the OAuth spec
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=542084 --- Comment #6 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2009-11-30 12:00:34 EDT --- Thanks for the review New Package CVS Request === Package Name: php-pear-HTTP-OAuth Short Description: Implementation of the OAuth spec Owners: remi Branches: F-12, F-11 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 542087] Review Request: php-pear-Services-Twitter - PHP interface to Twitter's API
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=542087 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2009-11-30 12:02:01 EDT --- Thanks for the review New Package CVS Request === Package Name: php-pear-Services-Twitter Short Description: PHP interface to Twitter's API Owners: remi Branches: F-12, F-11 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 542077] Review Request: php-pear-HTTP-Request2 - Provides an easy way to perform HTTP requests
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=542077 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com 2009-11-30 11:59:51 EDT --- Thanks for the review New Package CVS Request === Package Name: php-pear-HTTP-Request2 Short Description: Provides an easy way to perform HTTP requests Owners: remi Branches: F-12, F-11 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 534168] Review Request: groovy - Agile dynamic language for the Java Platform
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=534168 --- Comment #5 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-11-30 12:21:14 EDT --- The project homepage of groovy offer groovy-1.6.6 as the current stable release. It may be nice, if you can offer a new package based on this release. -- 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 542292] Review Request: mintmenu - gnome-panel menu from LinuxMint
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=542292
--- Comment #6 from William Witt will...@witt-family.net 2009-11-30 12:20:07
EDT ---
I copied the description tag directly from upstream. I can update it with
something more descriptive if there is no reason to tay in sync with the
description from them.
How does one specify /usr/lib in a no arch package without using an absolute
path? This is where upstream places the files.
[unama...@gimli ~]$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/mintmenu-4.9.0-5.fc12.src.rpm
mintmenu.src:68: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%{_libdir}/bonobo/servers/mintMenu.server
mintmenu.src:69: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%{_libdir}/linuxmint
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1838646
Spec URL: http://www.witt-family.net/mintmenu.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.witt-family.net/mintmenu-4.9.0-5.fc12.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 542740] New: Review Request: f2c - The f2c Fortran to C/C++ conversion program and static libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: f2c - The f2c Fortran to C/C++ conversion program and static libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542740 Summary: Review Request: f2c - The f2c Fortran to C/C++ conversion program and static libraries Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: c...@five-ten-sg.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://five-ten-sg.com/f2c.spec SRPM URL: http://five-ten-sg.com/f2c-20031026-3.0.2.fc12.src.rpm Description: F2c converts Fortran 77 source code to C or C++ source files. If no Fortran files are named on the command line, f2c can read Fortran from standard input and write C to standard output. koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1838661 This is part of my project to get ghemical and its dependencies into Fedora. ghemical buildrequires: f2c libSC-devel mopac7-devel oglappth-devel libghemical-data libghemical buildrequires: f2c libSC-devel mopac7-devel mopac7 buildrequires: f2c mpqc provides libSC7, libSC-devel oglappth provides oglappth-devel f2c provides f2c -- 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 542292] Review Request: mintmenu - gnome-panel menu from LinuxMint
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=542292
--- Comment #7 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2009-11-30 12:37:12
EDT ---
You might want to move to %{_datadir}. You then need to patch sources,
/usr/lib seems to be hard coded.
--
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 542740] Review Request: f2c - The f2c Fortran to C/C++ conversion program and static libraries
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=542740 --- Comment #1 from Carl Byington c...@five-ten-sg.com 2009-11-30 12:35:42 EDT --- It helps if I use the proper URLs. Spec URL: http://www.five-ten-sg.com/f2c.spec SRPM URL: http://www.five-ten-sg.com/f2c-20031026-3.0.2.fc12.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 542747] New: Review Request: oglappth - Libraries for the oglappth chemistry package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: oglappth - Libraries for the oglappth chemistry package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542747 Summary: Review Request: oglappth - Libraries for the oglappth chemistry package Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: c...@five-ten-sg.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.five-ten-sg.com/oglappth.spec SRPM URL: http://www.five-ten-sg.com/oglappth-0.98-2.fc12.src.rpm Description: Library for creating portable OpenGL applications with easy-to-code scene setup and selection operations. koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1838670 This is part of my project to get ghemical and its dependencies into Fedora. ghemical buildrequires: f2c libSC-devel mopac7-devel oglappth-devel libghemical-data libghemical buildrequires: f2c libSC-devel mopac7-devel mopac7 buildrequires: f2c mpqc provides libSC7, libSC-devel oglappth provides oglappth-devel f2c provides f2c -- 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 541491] Review Request: rubygem-ruby_parser - A ruby parser written in pure ruby
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=541491
Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-11-30
12:42:21 EDT ---
One comment:
-
+# Script creates a circular dependency and is primarily for development
+# Included, but it's dependencies aren't met.
+%{geminstdir}/lib/gauntlet_rubyparser.rb
-
- This %files entry causes duplicate %files entry:
-
120 warning: File listed twice:
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/ruby_parser-2.0.4/lib/gauntlet_rubyparser.rb
-
as this file is already included in
-
%{geminstdir}/lib
-
Just leave the line as a comment and avoid duplicate %files
entry.
--
This package (rubygem-ruby_parser) is APPROVED by mtasaka
--
--
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 524379] Review Request: gscribble - A desktop blogging client 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=524379 --- Comment #39 from Roshan Singh singh.rosha...@gmail.com 2009-11-30 12:59:57 EDT --- Here is my new review request for 'artha': https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542754 -- 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 542754] New: Review Request: artha - A handy thesaurus based on WordNet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: artha - A handy thesaurus based on WordNet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542754 Summary: Review Request: artha - A handy thesaurus based on WordNet Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: singh.rosha...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha.spec SRPM URL: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/artha/artha-0.9.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Artha is a thesaurus that works completely off-line and is based on WordNet. Key features include hot key lookup, suggestions for incorrectly typed words, synonyms, antonyms and other similar words and notifications. Details can be found at http://artha.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Home . -- 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 527706] Review Request: mingw32-libgeotiff - MinGW port of libgeotiff Georeferenced image 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=527706 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-11-30 13:03:57 EDT --- mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.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 527706] Review Request: mingw32-libgeotiff - MinGW port of libgeotiff Georeferenced image 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=527706 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-11-30 13:04:03 EDT --- mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-libgeotiff-1.3.0-0.1.svn1664.fc12 -- 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 542759] New: Review Request: mpqc - Ab-inito chemistry program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mpqc - Ab-inito chemistry program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542759 Summary: Review Request: mpqc - Ab-inito chemistry program Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: c...@five-ten-sg.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.five-ten-sg.com/mpqc.spec SRPM URL: http://www.five-ten-sg.com/mpqc-2.3.1-11.fc12.src.rpm Description: MPQC is the Massively Parallel Quantum Chemistry Program. It computes properties of atoms and molecules from first principles using the time independent Schrödinger equation. It runs on a wide range of architectures ranging from individual workstations to symmetric multiprocessors to massively parallel computers. Its design is object oriented, using the C++ programming language. koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1838765 This is part of my project to get ghemical and its dependencies into Fedora. ghemical buildrequires: f2c libSC-devel mopac7-devel oglappth-devel libghemical-data libghemical buildrequires: f2c libSC-devel mopac7-devel mopac7 buildrequires: f2c mpqc provides libSC7, libSC-devel oglappth provides oglappth-devel f2c provides f2c -- 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 527706] Review Request: mingw32-libgeotiff - MinGW port of libgeotiff Georeferenced image 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=527706 --- Comment #24 from Dave Ludlow d...@adsllc.com 2009-11-30 13:07:47 EDT --- Thanks Peter. You were spot-on. I swear I tried that before. -- 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 542760] Review Request: mopac7 - Semi-empirical quantum mechanics suite
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=542760 Carl Byington c...@five-ten-sg.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||542740 -- 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
