[Bug 538296] Review Request: openvas-libnasl - Support for NASL scripting language in OpenVAS Server
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=538296 --- Comment #1 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala huzai...@redhat.com 2009-12-03 03:01:43 EDT --- Hi, I am going to the co-maintainer for the openvas stack koji devel build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1845347 SPEC: http://huzaifas.fedorapeople.org/spec/openvas-libnasl.spec SRPM: http://huzaifas.fedorapeople.org/srpms/openvas-libnasl-2.0.2-2.fc10.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 226050] Merge Review: libtool
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=226050 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kk...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kk...@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 226441] Merge Review: sudo
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=226441 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kk...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kk...@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 542740] Review Request: f2c - Fortran to C/C++ conversion 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=542740 --- Comment #19 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2009-12-03 03:13:56 EDT --- I wonder if this -libs -devel split makes sense for this package. Using f2c means that you want to convert Fortran code to C code, to actually compile the result of that you need -libs *and* -devel package as f2c will always add #include f2c.h to C output. Only f2c and f2c-devel is not useful, you have to add f2c-devel to make use of f2c-libs. f2c alone is only useful if you want to see the ugly converted output and do nothing more (very unlikely). Splitting f2c will be the same as splitting gcc in gcc (/usr/bin/gcc), gcc-libs (for the object files) and gcc-devel (headers). To me this don't make sense. -- 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 - Fortran to C/C++ conversion 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=542740 --- Comment #20 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2009-12-03 03:16:29 EDT --- Umm.. what about the spec and srpm? Click links under Descendent Tasks build. Then scroll down and you see a link to a srpm. This works ok for some days untill koji removes the links :-) -- 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 225980] Merge Review: latex2html
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=225980 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kk...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kk...@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 #31 from Antoine Brenner brenner-redhatbugzi...@gymglish.com 2009-12-03 03:20:57 EDT --- I agree with comment #30, it would really be nice to have all the required actions in the init script... (It did look very weird to not have at least status...) -- 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 226213] Merge Review: openjade
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=226213 Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kk...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kk...@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 542740] Review Request: f2c - Fortran to C/C++ conversion 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=542740 --- Comment #22 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-12-03 03:24:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) Umm.. what about the spec and srpm? Click links under Descendent Tasks build. Then scroll down and you see a link to a srpm. This works ok for some days untill koji removes the links :-) Yes, but still I don't want to build (or install) the srpm just to have a look at the spec file. -- 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 - Fortran to C/C++ conversion 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=542740 --- Comment #21 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-12-03 03:23:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) I wonder if this -libs -devel split makes sense for this package. It does. Using f2c means that you want to convert Fortran code to C code, to actually compile the result of that you need -libs *and* -devel package as f2c will always add #include f2c.h to C output. Only f2c and f2c-devel is not useful, you have to add f2c-devel to make use of f2c-libs. No, you have to add f2c-devel to use f2c. So actually one could unite f2c-devel with f2c, which would just have a virtual Provides: f2c-devel. Anyway, if you build something with f2c, then the resulting package will only need the shared library, that is provided by f2c-libs. -- 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 543425] Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization
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=543425
--- Comment #7 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2009-12-03
03:34:32 EDT ---
Siddhesh, I had a look to your spec file. A few thoughts and comments:
- You are currently mixing $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}, choose one and
please keep it consistent
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS)
- I can't see a reason to have the Requires: lines inside of the spec file.
If your software links to a library, rpmbuild is catching up the dependency
in the end of the build process and adds Requires: to the required libs.
- Why do you do %configure --prefix=/usr rather %configure? Is there a real
reason for? If you do rpm --eval '%configure', you see what %configure will
be expanded to.
- You want to use parallel make for making your package. If the software does
not support it right now, please make a comment and otherwise please use it:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Parallel_make
- You might want to preserve timestamps by appending INSTALL=install -p to
the make install command. As Ralf agreed with me, it is not required on a
technically base, Guidelines just suggest it, see e.g.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Timestamps
- As far as I can see, you're missing BuildRequires: freetype-devel,
otherwise
I had trouble to rebuild the package
- Can you please choose a valid BuildRoot tag from the available list?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot_tag
- You are missing the pareparation of BuildRoot in %install section, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Prepping_BuildRoot_For_.25install
- I'm wondering about the following lines in your spec file:
%dir %{_datadir}/gource/*
%dir %{_mandir}/man*/*
%dir %{_datadir}/gource/fonts/*
Have a look at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
- Can you please communicate with upstream and ensure that your patch really
makes it into the next release of gource? Thank you.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 542740] Review Request: f2c - Fortran to C/C++ conversion 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=542740 --- Comment #23 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-12-03 03:38:56 EDT --- Besides, you haven't increased the release tag. Increment the release and add relevant comments to the changelog every time you make changes to the spec file. -- 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 541992] Review Request: perl-PDF-Create - Create PDF files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541992 --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2009-12-03 03:37:06 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i686). koji Build =http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1842889 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url (sha1sum) 474428dcbf1833d71a4dff5fc84cda6916d95aba PDF-Create-1.04.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=5, Tests=9, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.04 usr 0.01 sys + 0.32 cusr 0.04 csys = 0.41 CPU) + Package perl-PDF-Create-1.04-1.fc13.noarch = Provides: perl(PDF::Create) = 1.04 perl(PDF::Create::Outline) = 1.00 perl(PDF::Create::Page) = 1.00 perl(PDF::Image::GIF) = 1.00 perl(PDF::Image::JPEG) = 1.00 Requires: /usr/bin/perl perl(CGI) perl(Carp) perl(Data::Dumper) perl(Exporter) perl(FileHandle) perl(PDF::Create) perl(PDF::Create::Outline) perl(PDF::Create::Page) perl(PDF::Image::GIF) perl(PDF::Image::JPEG) perl(integer) perl(strict) perl(vars) + Not a GUI application I can't find licence information. Can you point me if I have missed it? If its not there then ask upstream to include it in each .pm file and/or also in README or separate license text file. -- 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 543425] Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization
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=543425 Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) AssignedTo|redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.d |nob...@fedoraproject.org |e | Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #8 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2009-12-03 03:40:38 EDT --- According to FAS, you're not yet a packager, so we need to block FE-NEEDSPONSOR bug report according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process. I'm resetting the fedora‑review flag to empty, as only the reviewer, not the packager should ever set and change it. Sorry, but I'm not a sponsor for packaging, so I'm now removing myself from assigned. Nevertheless you should have a look to my comments and work on 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 528150] Review Request: invulgotracker - Tasks projects tracking 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=528150 --- Comment #12 from Tareq Al Jurf talj...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 03:45:15 EDT --- Fixed and updated to 0.60 SRPM http://taljurf.fedorapeople.org/Packages/i586/invulgotracker/invulgotracker-0.60-1.fc13.src.rpm SPEC http://taljurf.fedorapeople.org/Packages/i586/invulgotracker/invulgotracker.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 542740] Review Request: f2c - Fortran to C/C++ conversion 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=542740
--- Comment #24 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-12-03 03:46:45
EDT ---
Make the link as instructed in comment #10. It fixes the rpmlint error
f2c-libs.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libf2c.so.0.22
Actually, you might want to change the arguments of the link commands from -sf
to -s, since the latter is safer.
**
You don't need to patch the makefile for CFLAGS, running
make CFLAGS=%{optflags}
overrides them in any case. Also the change of CC is not necessary.
And you can drop the MFLAG declaration, it isn't used anywhere!
**
The patch still needs a comment in the spec file.
--
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 #7 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-12-03 03:51:07 EDT --- scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1845439 SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/groovy.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/groovy-1.6.6-2.fc13.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] Review Request: f2c - Fortran to C/C++ conversion 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=542740
--- Comment #25 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-12-03 03:49:56
EDT ---
And the Requires are still not perfect. So, actually the main package has to
also
Requires: %{name}-devel = %{version}-%{release}
since the headers are needed for normal operation.
Change the summary to A Fortran 77 to C/C++ conversion program, since f2c
doesn't work with any of the more modern versions of Fortran.
--
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 - Fortran to C/C++ conversion 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=542740
--- Comment #26 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-12-03 03:59:21
EDT ---
And for the sake of consistency I'd use
%{_libdir}/libf2c.so.*
in %files :)
After these have been fixed, the review should pass with flying colors.
--
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 - Fortran to C/C++ conversion 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=542740
--- Comment #27 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-12-03 04:08:11
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #26)
And for the sake of consistency I'd use
%{_libdir}/libf2c.so.*
in %files :)
and for the same reason use f2c instead of %{name} in
%{_bindir}/%{name}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543425] Review Request: gource - Software version control visualization
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=543425 --- Comment #9 from Siddhesh Poyarekar spoya...@redhat.com 2009-12-03 04:18:47 EDT --- The upstream developer has accepted the patch, so we should see it in the next upstream version: http://code.google.com/p/gource/issues/detail?id=21 I'll work on the spec file and revert with an update (with a bumped release number this time :) ). Thanks Robert, Rakesh and Ralf! -- 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 #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 04:37:18 EDT --- perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL-1.04-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL-1.04-2.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 04:36:49 EDT --- perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL-1.04-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL-1.04-2.el5 -- 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 #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 04:36:23 EDT --- perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL-1.04-2.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL-1.04-2.el4 -- 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 #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 04:37:45 EDT --- perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL-1.04-2.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-HTTP-Daemon-SSL-1.04-2.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 543840] Review Request: udis86 - A x86 disassembler 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=543840 Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.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 543549] Review Request: rubygem-haml - XHTML/XML templating engine
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=543549 Michal Babej mba...@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 543840] New: Review Request: udis86 - A x86 disassembler library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: udis86 - A x86 disassembler library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543840 Summary: Review Request: udis86 - A x86 disassembler library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: scottt...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora NOTE: This is my first package and I'm seeking a sponsor. Spec URL: http://scottt.tw/fedora/udis86.spec SRPM URL: http://scottt.tw/fedora/udis86-1.7-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: udis86 is a disassembler library (libudis86) for x86 and x86-64. The primary intent is to aid binary code analysis. The no-documentation warning from rpmlint: udis86.x86_64: W: no-documentation is there because udis86 has no COPYING or AUTHORS file and its README file only contains a single line See docs/udis86.pdf and the sited udis86.pdf is included in the -devel package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 537431] Review Request: mono-bouncycastle - Bouncy Castle Crypto Package for Mono
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=537431 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 04:49:35 EDT --- mono-bouncycastle-1.5-4.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mono-bouncycastle-1.5-4.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 537431] Review Request: mono-bouncycastle - Bouncy Castle Crypto Package for Mono
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=537431 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 04:50:22 EDT --- mono-bouncycastle-1.5-4.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mono-bouncycastle-1.5-4.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 525927] Review Request: incollector - Information collector for various kinds of 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=525927
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03
04:53:16 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Thanks for the review Kalev.
+ The stated license (GPLv2+) is a Fedora approved license
! The license doesn't match actual package license
Every source file contains the following lines:
* Copyright (C) 2006-2007 Marcin Krystian Krzywonos
* License: GNU/GPL version 2
I think this means that the license tag should read 'GPLv2'
Some of the source, like the file 'missing' and 'config.guess' are GPLv2+.
! The following pushd/popd commands in the spec file without anything in
between seem useless and should be removed:
pushd po
popd
Removed.
! You have the following sed command to fix lib64 dir:
sed -i 's|/usr/lib|%{_libdir}|' %{name}
I think a proper way to do that is fix script.in instead (that's something you
could also send upstream):
-exec @MONO@ @prefix@/lib/incollector/incollector.exe $MONO_EXTRA_ARGS $@
+exec @MONO@ @pkglibdir@/incollector.exe $MONO_EXTRA_ARGS $@
Attaching the patch to the bug report in a separate file too.
Thanks for the patch. It's not a blocker to use sed, though i changed it to use
patch since there was already a patch, for consistency.
! Consider removing %{_datadir}/pixmaps/%{name}.ico at the end of %install. I
very much doubt anything uses .ico files in Fedora when there's a matching
.png
file in %{_datadir}/pixmaps/.
The ico is used inside the app it seems. Removing it breaks the compiling. I
dont want to patch the software to make it use a png.
Spec URL: http://thomasj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/incollector.spec
SRPM URL:
http://thomasj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/incollector-1.2-2.fc11.src.rpm
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1845565
--
Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
--
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 534135] Review Request: xstream - Java XML serialization 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=534135 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #13 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-12-03 04:56:38 EDT --- Imported and built. -- 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 Bug 534168 depends on bug 534135, which changed state. Bug 534135 Summary: Review Request: xstream - Java XML serialization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=534135 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #8 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-12-03 04:56:55 EDT --- Imported and built. Thanks for review and 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 525927] Review Request: incollector - Information collector for various kinds of 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=525927 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 05:04:17 EDT --- Man.. Coffee is missing: SRPM URL:http://thomasj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/incollector-1.2-3.fc11.src.rpm -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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 525927] Review Request: incollector - Information collector for various kinds of 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=525927 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 05:03:37 EDT --- Changed the license to read GPLv2 Spec URL: http://thomasj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/incollector.spec SRPM URL:http://thomasj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/incollector-1.2-2.fc11.src.rpm -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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 Roman Rakus rra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Roman Rakus rra...@redhat.com 2009-12-03 05:16:03 EDT --- Commited. Please check. -- 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 525927] Review Request: incollector - Information collector for various kinds of 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=525927
Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Kalev Lember ka...@smartlink.ee 2009-12-03 05:37:08 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #5)
Thanks for the patch. It's not a blocker to use sed, though i changed it to
use
patch since there was already a patch, for consistency.
Of course, using sed is no problem. However, the sed command was just a
workaround. The reason why I came up with the patch is that it fixes the root
cause, and I am sure upstream is glad to apply it. For you personally using sed
is probably easier, but if you submit the patch to upstream, you might be able
to eventually remove the workaround in a future release.
! Consider removing %{_datadir}/pixmaps/%{name}.ico at the end of %install.
I
very much doubt anything uses .ico files in Fedora when there's a matching
.png
file in %{_datadir}/pixmaps/.
The ico is used inside the app it seems. Removing it breaks the compiling. I
dont want to patch the software to make it use a png.
Yes, the .ico file gets embedded in the .exe file during %build section.
However, what I was saying is that you might want to remove it at the end of
%install from %{buildroot} (compiling is all done by that time). As I
understand it, the .ico file gets embedded in the .exe during build, and
nothing else uses it afterwards in %{_datadir}/pixmaps/. The .png is used for
desktop integration, but since .ico files are mostly Windows-specific, I very
much doubt Gnome or KDE would load them, especially if the .png file is
present. There's a small chance that incollector itself might load the .ico at
runtime, but grepping through the source gave me the impression that this is
not the case.
But this is nothing serious, and I am not sure if it's even worth removing it.
Just pointed it out for you.
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 543861] New: Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-ActionDispatch - Adds attribute based support for parsing the PATH_INFO of an HTTP request
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-ActionDispatch - Adds attribute based support for parsing the PATH_INFO of an HTTP request https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543861 Summary: Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-ActionDispatch - Adds attribute based support for parsing the PATH_INFO of an HTTP request Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-ActionDispatch/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-ActionDispatch.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-ActionDispatch/perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-ActionDispatch-0.97-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: CGI::Application::Plugin::ActionDispatch adds attribute based support for parsing the PATH_INFO of the incoming HTTP request. For those who are familiar with Catalyst, the interface works very similar. -- 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 543863] New: Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Structured-Tools - Tools to generate and maintain CGI::Application::Structured based web apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Structured-Tools - Tools to generate and maintain CGI::Application::Structured based web apps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543863 Summary: Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Structured-Tools - Tools to generate and maintain CGI::Application::Structured based web apps Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-CGI-Application-Structured-Tools/perl-CGI-Application-Structured-Tools.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-CGI-Application-Structured-Tools/perl-CGI-Application-Structured-Tools-0.007-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: A simple, medium-weight, MVC, DB web micro-framework built on CGI::Application. The framework combines tested, well known plugins, templates and helper scripts to provide a rapid development environment. -- 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 225693] Merge Review: dialog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225693 --- Comment #17 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-12-03 06:08:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) What about my comments on the API? It's not a merge review blocker in my opinion and should be tracked in as a separate bug. -- 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 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #7 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-12-03 06:09:11 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=144190 -- 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 Bug 540986 depends on bug 542730, which changed state. Bug 542730 Summary: Please add Maven depmap fragments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542730 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #7 from Adam Tkac at...@redhat.com 2009-12-03 06:22:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) Indeed, most of the issues are solved. However there are 2 cosmetic issues left which would be nice to see fixed (especially the first one): - please either remove the buildroot line completely or use one of the forms accepted by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag Fixed. Closing the review as done and fixed. Thank you, Adam. Thank you for the 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 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 Flag||needinfo?(varek...@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #22 from Roman Rakus rra...@redhat.com 2009-12-03 06:49:43 EDT --- Still problems with rpath: rpmlint aspell.spec aspell-0_60_6-9_fc13/*.rpm 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'] 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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 225851] Merge Review: gob2
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=225851 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Novotny dnovo...@redhat.com 2009-12-03 06:53:21 EDT --- so the only problem is the Source: URL. fixed in rawhide and F-12 -built F12 release candidate gob2-2.0.16-5.fc12, rawhide gob2-2.0.16-4.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 225851] Merge Review: gob2
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=225851 Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com 2009-12-03 07:01:51 EDT --- Approved. -- 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 467655] Review Request: yafaray - a raytracer for Blender.
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=467655 --- Comment #77 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti pro...@gmail.com 2009-12-03 07:12:40 EDT --- I am NOT having any selinux issue on F12 (enforcing policy). Anyone still having problems? -- 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 542165] Review Request: testng - Java-based testing framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542165 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-12-03 07:24:02 EDT --- Do we really need the jdk14 jar? We are not shipping 1.4 jdk and TBH I don't believe it is even used nowadays. -- 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 530090] Review Request: emacs-goodies - Miscellaneous add-ons for Emacs
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=530090 --- Comment #44 from Peter Galbraith p...@debian.org 2009-12-03 07:40:58 EDT --- New version: http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/e/emacs-goodies-el/emacs-goodies-el_31.2.orig.tar.gz http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/e/emacs-goodies-el/emacs-goodies-el_31.2-1.diff.gz -- 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 542165] Review Request: testng - Java-based testing framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542165 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-12-03 07:40:16 EDT --- Also I would like to see javadoc subpackage. For me the correct ant call to build only java 5 and javadocs is `ant dist-15 javadocs`. -- 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 530772] Review Request: pxe-kexec - Linux boots Linux via network
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=530772
Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-12-03 07:45:54
EDT ---
pxe-kexec.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 26)
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Fix this. You don't actually need any indentation on the make line, since the
whole command fits nicely on one line.
- The changelog is messed up. Fix it.
- If you updated the version from Ed's 0.1.7 to 0.2.3, you should have reset
the release tag to 1. So the following should be release 2.
Review:
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. NEEDSWORK
- Macro consistency problem.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
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.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
Fix the spec file before import to CVS. The package has been
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 543861] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-ActionDispatch - Adds attribute based support for parsing the PATH_INFO of an HTTP request
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543861 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 543863] Review Request: perl-CGI-Application-Structured-Tools - Tools to generate and maintain CGI::Application::Structured based web apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543863 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #8 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2009-12-03 08:26:25 EDT --- Yes, just copy the Obsoletes line from kdebase-workspace. -- 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 543840] Review Request: udis86 - A x86 disassembler 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=543840
Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-12-03 08:32:34
EDT ---
A few notes:
- The source url should be
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL. (Mark this as Source0.)
- Remove the commented empty Requires: line.
- The summary should read A disassembler Library for x86 and x86-64 (not just
for x86).
- Move
# test the libudis86 we just built this is the only part that requires yasm
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$(pwd)/libudis86/.libs
make check
to the %check phase.
- Remove the documentation installed by make install at the end of %install
with
rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_docdir}
and list the relevant files instead as %doc, i.e.
%doc docs/x86optable.* docs/udis86.* docs/index.html docs/ss.jpg docs/style.css
--
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 543917] New: Review Request: check_postgres - PostgreSQL monitoring script
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: check_postgres - PostgreSQL monitoring script https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543917 Summary: Review Request: check_postgres - PostgreSQL monitoring script Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dev...@gunduz.org QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://projects.commandprompt.com/public/pgcore/repo/rpm/redhat/8.5/check_postgres/F-12/check_postgres.spec SRPM URL: http://yum.pgsqlrpms.org/srpms/8.4/fedora/fedora-12-i386/check_postgres-2.12.0-1.f12.src.rpm Description: check_postgres.pl is a script for checking the state of one or more Postgres databases and reporting back in a Nagios-friendly manner -- 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 226324] Merge Review: psutils
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=226324 --- Comment #4 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-12-03 09:20:07 EDT --- few initial notes: - I've found the homepage at http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~ajcd/psutils/ and downloadable archive as ftp://ftp.knackered.org/pub/psutils/psutils-p17.tar.gz, so the URL and Source tags can be filled - I see a licensing problem with the md??_0.ps files that should be copyrighted by Apple per the author The spec file looks good overall. -- 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 543840] Review Request: udis86 - A x86 disassembler 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=543840 --- Comment #2 from Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com 2009-12-03 09:44:38 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=375797) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=375797) diff-r1-r2 spec file diff after incorporating fixes suggested in comment #1 -- 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 543840] Review Request: udis86 - A x86 disassembler 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=543840 --- Comment #3 from Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com 2009-12-03 09:46:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Thanks a lot for the quick feed back! Fixed here: Spec URL: http://scottt.tw/fedora/udis86.spec SRPM URL: http://scottt.tw/fedora/udis86-1.7-2.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 543940] New: Review Request: libmpdclient - Library for interfacing Music Player Daemon
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: libmpdclient - Library for interfacing Music Player Daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=543940 Summary: Review Request: libmpdclient - Library for interfacing Music Player Daemon Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: adr...@lisas.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://lisas.de/~adrian/rpm/libmpdclient.spec SRPM URL: http://lisas.de/~adrian/rpm/libmpdclient-2.0-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: A stable, documented, asynchronous API library for interfacing MPD in the C, C++ Objective C languages. rpmlint libmpdclient-2.0-1.fc12.src.rpm libmpdclient-2.0-1.fc12.i686.rpm libmpdclient-devel-2.0-1.fc12.i686.rpm libmpdclient-debuginfo-2.0-1.fc12.i686.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. mock build successful libmpdclient is needed to update mpc to 0.18 -- 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 543940] Review Request: libmpdclient - Library for interfacing Music Player 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=543940 Adrian Reber adr...@lisas.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||543797 -- 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 226442] Merge Review: swig
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=226442
--- Comment #1 from Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com 2009-12-03 10:16:43
EDT ---
OK source files match upstream:
2df766c9e03e02811b1ab4bba1c7b9cc swig-1.3.40.tar.gz
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
NO specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
- both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{_builddir} are used
OK dist tag is present.
OK build root is correct.
NO license field matches the actual license.
- the actual license seems to be BSD and MIT
OK license is open source-compatible.
NO License text included in package
- the text is included in -doc subpackage, but I think should be in the main
package with all other files except Doc and Examples directory.
OK latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK compiler flags are appropriate.
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock.
OK debuginfo package looks complete.
NO rpmlint is silent.
swig.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Connects C/C++/Objective C to some
high-level programming languages.
swig.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/swig/1.3.40/ocaml/swigp4.ml
swig.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/swig/1.3.40/perl5/noembed.h
swig.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/swig/1.3.40/ocaml/swig.ml
swig.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/swig/1.3.40/ocaml/swig.mli
- the summary should be fixed. The rest is ok as swig is a development package.
OK final provides and requires look sane.
NO %check is present and all tests pass.
- the package contains a testsuite, but it seems to fail, so it's disabled. It
would be nice to get it working, but I don't think this is a blocker. Adding a
%check with #make check and a comment why it's currently disabled should be
fine.
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
NO scriptlets are sane
- the ldconfig calls are unnecessary, there are no libraries installed.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is large, -docs subpackage used.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK no headers.
- there are actually some headers installed but they are used only by swig.
OK no pkgconfig files.
OK no libtool .la droppings.
OK not a GUI app.
--
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 226664] Merge Review: ypserv
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=226664 Nikola Pajkovsky npajk...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||npajk...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|npajk...@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 516523] Review Request: globus-duct-common - Globus Toolkit - Globus Duct Common
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=516523 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:19:55 EDT --- globus-duct-common-2.1-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-duct-common-2.1-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516525] Review Request: globus-duroc-common - Globus Toolkit - DUROC Common 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=516525 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:20:00 EDT --- globus-duroc-common-2.1-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-duroc-common-2.1-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516525] Review Request: globus-duroc-common - Globus Toolkit - DUROC Common 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=516525 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:19:54 EDT --- globus-duroc-common-2.1-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-duroc-common-2.1-1.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 516525] Review Request: globus-duroc-common - Globus Toolkit - DUROC Common 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=516525 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:19:57 EDT --- globus-duroc-common-2.1-1.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-duroc-common-2.1-1.el4 -- 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 516535] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-scripts - Globus Toolkit - GRAM Job ManagerScripts
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=516535 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:20:13 EDT --- globus-gram-job-manager-scripts-0.7-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-gram-job-manager-scripts-0.7-1.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 516531] Review Request: globus-gass-cache-program - Globus Toolkit - Tools to manipulate local and remote GASS caches
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=516531 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:20:05 EDT --- globus-gass-cache-program-2.7-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-gass-cache-program-2.7-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516535] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-scripts - Globus Toolkit - GRAM Job ManagerScripts
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=516535 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:20:18 EDT --- globus-gram-job-manager-scripts-0.7-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-gram-job-manager-scripts-0.7-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516523] Review Request: globus-duct-common - Globus Toolkit - Globus Duct Common
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=516523 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:19:58 EDT --- globus-duct-common-2.1-1.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-duct-common-2.1-1.el4 -- 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 #32 from Giuseppe Paterno gpate...@redhat.com 2009-12-03 11:22:35 EDT --- I've tried to implemented what you asked, please try again: SPEC: http://www.gpaterno.com/external/otpd.spec SRPM: http://www.gpaterno.com/external/otpd-3.2.6-1.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 516523] Review Request: globus-duct-common - Globus Toolkit - Globus Duct Common
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=516523 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:19:49 EDT --- globus-duct-common-2.1-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-duct-common-2.1-1.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 516523] Review Request: globus-duct-common - Globus Toolkit - Globus Duct Common
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=516523 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:19:53 EDT --- globus-duct-common-2.1-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-duct-common-2.1-1.el5 -- 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 516531] Review Request: globus-gass-cache-program - Globus Toolkit - Tools to manipulate local and remote GASS caches
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=516531 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:20:00 EDT --- globus-gass-cache-program-2.7-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-gass-cache-program-2.7-1.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 516531] Review Request: globus-gass-cache-program - Globus Toolkit - Tools to manipulate local and remote GASS caches
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=516531 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:20:02 EDT --- globus-gass-cache-program-2.7-1.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-gass-cache-program-2.7-1.el4 -- 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 543566] Review Request: tsocks - Library to allow transparent SOCKS proxying
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=543566 --- Comment #1 from Jean-Francois Saucier jfsauc...@infoglobe.ca 2009-12-03 11:23:29 EDT --- * Thu Dec 3 2009 Jean-Francois Saucier jfsauc...@infoglobe.ca - 1.8-2.beta5.fc12 - Fix Source0 URL as per the guidelines Spec URL: http://jfsaucier.fedorapeople.org/packages/tsocks.spec SRPM URL: http://jfsaucier.fedorapeople.org/packages/tsocks-1.8-2.beta5.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 516535] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-scripts - Globus Toolkit - GRAM Job ManagerScripts
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=516535 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:20:13 EDT --- globus-gram-job-manager-scripts-0.7-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-gram-job-manager-scripts-0.7-1.fc12 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:20:14 EDT --- globus-gram-job-manager-scripts-0.7-1.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/globus-gram-job-manager-scripts-0.7-1.el4 -- 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 530090] Review Request: emacs-goodies - Miscellaneous add-ons for Emacs
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=530090 --- Comment #45 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-12-03 11:35:48 EDT --- @Arun, Please tag the files from Peter and create a proper SPEC file and source rpm package, so we may continue this package review. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt -- 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 504077] Review Request: gnusim8085 - Intel 8085 assembly language simulator
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=504077 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@danny.cz --- Comment #14 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-12-03 11:37:39 EDT --- FYI - the recent build uses completely wrong version-release info - gnusim8085-svn.141-5.fc13 -- 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 542075] Review Request: php-pear-Net-URL2 - Class for parsing and handling URL
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=542075 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:51:06 EDT --- php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 542075] Review Request: php-pear-Net-URL2 - Class for parsing and handling URL
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=542075 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:52:13 EDT --- php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.el5 -- 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 542075] Review Request: php-pear-Net-URL2 - Class for parsing and handling URL
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=542075 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 11:50:00 EDT --- php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-Net-URL2-0.3.0-1.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 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 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 12:08:39 EDT --- php-pear-HTTP-Request2-0.5.1-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-HTTP-Request2-0.5.1-1.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 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 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 12:10:50 EDT --- php-pear-HTTP-Request2-0.5.1-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-HTTP-Request2-0.5.1-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #17 from Thomas Fitzsimmons fitz...@fitzsim.org 2009-12-03 12:26:57 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=375849) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=375849) Patch to make libgle's Makefile.examples libtool-independent. Here is a patch to examples/Makefile.examples to allow building the examples after the -devel package has been installed. cp -r /usr/share/doc/libgle-devel-3.1.0/examples/ ~ cd ~/examples make -f Makefile.examples Mary, can you add this patch to the RPM? Here's a sample compilation (resulting binary worked on i586): gcc -c -o mainsimple.o mainsimple.c ... gcc -c -o helix.o helix.c cc -g -O2 -Wall -o helix helix.o mainsimple.o -lgle -lglut -lGLU -lGL -lXmu -lXi -lXext -lXmu -lXt -lX11 -lm I think this answers the questions of what -devel packages libgle-devel should require, and also that it should not own /usr/include/GL since it will be installed by the libX11-devel - xorg-x11-proto-devel dependency chain. -- 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 #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 12:38:53 EDT --- php-pear-HTTP-OAuth-0.1.6-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-HTTP-OAuth-0.1.6-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 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 #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 12:39:38 EDT --- php-pear-HTTP-OAuth-0.1.6-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-HTTP-OAuth-0.1.6-1.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 544016] New: Review Request: cbpolicyd - Postfix anti-spam policy server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: cbpolicyd - Postfix anti-spam policy server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544016 Summary: Review Request: cbpolicyd - Postfix anti-spam policy server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: chris.a.st.pie...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/stpierre/cbpolicyd.spec SRPM URL: http://www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/stpierre/cbpolicyd-2.0.8-2.fc11.src.rpm Description: Policyd v2 (codenamed cluebringer) is a multi-platform policy server for popular MTAs. This policy daemon is designed mostly for large scale mail hosting environments. The main goal is to implement as many spam combating and email compliance features as possible while at the same time maintaining the portability, stability and performance required for mission critical email hosting of today. Currently, the package has no SELinux magic, but I've found someone to help me write 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 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 Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-12-03 12:48:21 EDT --- Good: + Basename of the SPEC file matches with package name + Name of the package fullfill naming guidelines + Consistently usage of rpm macros + URL tag shows to proper project homepage + License tag state ASL 2.0 as valid OSS license + License in the copyright notes on the top of the source files matches license stated by the license tag + Could download upstream sources via spectool -g + Package sources matches with upstream (md5sum: d50466fab035b9c4eaff87e8eadb119d) + Package contains a javadoc subpackage + Package has proper BuildRoot definition + BuildRoot will be cleaned at the beginning of %clean and %install + Local build works fine. + Rpmlint is silent on source package + Rpmlint is silent on binary package + Rpmlint is silent on javadoc subpackage + Scratch build on koji works fine + Local install and uninstall works fine + Start of application works without a crash + GUI menu works fine + Fies have proper permissions + Files stanza has no duplicated entries + All package files and dirs are own by the package + No file or dir may belong to another package + %doc stanza is small + Package has proper changelog Bad: - File LICENSE.txt doesn't contains a verbatin copy of the license text. Insteand you find a link to the license text provided by a website. - Not all source files seems to have a copyright notice. - It may be nice, if can the chose a shrter text for the GenericName tag in the desktop file -- 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 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 13:01:03 EDT --- php-pear-Services-Twitter-0.4.0-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-Services-Twitter-0.4.0-1.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 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 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-12-03 13:01:47 EDT --- php-pear-Services-Twitter-0.4.0-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-pear-Services-Twitter-0.4.0-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226211] Merge Review: openhpi
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=226211
Michal Hlavinka mhlav...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Michal Hlavinka mhlav...@redhat.com 2009-12-03 13:02:22
EDT ---
in short:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
- MUST[1]: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review
+ MUST: package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
+ MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
+ MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
+ MUST: The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines
+ MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
+ 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]
+ MUST[2]: The spec file must be written in American English.
+ MUST[3]: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- MUST[4]: 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
+ MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture
+ MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch
+ MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines
+ MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro
+ 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]
+ MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
+ MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker
+ MUST: Package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory
+ MUST: Package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings
+ MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must
include a %defattr(...) line.
+ MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ MUST: Each package must consistently use macros
+ MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content
0 MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
+ MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application
+ MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
0 MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
+ MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
- MUST[1]: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package
+ MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built
+ 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)
fails, but this is no longer required (
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PreppingBuildRootForInstall
)
+ MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
comments:
1) rpmlint *.spec *.src.rpm x86_64/*
openhpi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/openhpi/libsnmp_bc.so
openhpi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/openhpi/libipmi.so
openhpi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/openhpi/libsimulator.so
openhpi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/openhpi/libwatchdog.so
openhpi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/openhpi/libipmidirect.so
openhpi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/openhpi/liboa_soap.so
openhpi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
[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 #9 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-12-03 13:17:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) Bad: - File LICENSE.txt doesn't contains a verbatin copy of the license text. Insteand you find a link to the license text provided by a website. Upstream was informed, this seems to be allowed per packaging guidelines though. - Not all source files seems to have a copyright notice. Sent a mail to upstream mailing list. - It may be nice, if can the chose a shrter text for the GenericName tag in the desktop file Will do that for next package spin. Does this block review (or any of the above two?) -- 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 543549] Review Request: rubygem-haml - XHTML/XML templating engine
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=543549
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-12-03
13:23:10 EDT ---
Some notes:
* %define - %global
- Now Fedora prefers to use %global over %define.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
* License
- test/haml/spec/README.md is under WTFPL so the license tag
should be MIT and WTFPL.
* Requires
- Please add the needed rubygem related dependency.
For example, lib/haml/html.rb contains:
62 require 'hpricot'
So this package may need Requires: rubygem(hpricot) (here
not speaking of BuildRequires).
Note that I don't know if this dependency is optional or not.
Also please check other dependency (if any).
* %check
- I think
* hardcoding test files as %test_files is not preferable.
It is difficult to see what this file list came from.
* also even if hardcoding these files is needed, defining %test_files
is not needed because
- %test_files is in essence used only in one place (in %check)
- Whether adding executable permission to a script or not should
be determined (for this case) by checking if the script has
shebang or not, and should not be determined by hardcoded file list.
I think
- fixing Rakefile and execute rake test
- or using
pushd %{buildroot}%{geminstdir}
# The following -path list is from Rakefile
find * \
-path 'test/*/*_test.rb' \
-not -path 'test/rails/*' \
-not -path 'test/plugins/*' \
-not -path 'test/haml/spec/*' | \
while read f
do
ruby $f
done
is better.
* Macros
- As %geminstdir is already defined, use the macro in %files.
* %changelog style
- When using Fedora CVS system, it is convenient when you put one line
between each %changelog entry (for make clog, for example), like
%changelog
* Wed Dec 02 2009 Michal Babej mba...@redhat.com - 2.2.15-1
- Update to new upstream release
* Wed Dec 02 2009 Michal Babej mba...@redhat.com - 2.2.14-1
- Initial package
-
By the way it is appreciated if you post the full URL of the new
spec/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 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 #10 from Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de 2009-12-03 13:38:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) Will do that for next package spin. Does this block review (or any of the above two?) It may be nice, if we can do it in the package which we want to introduced into Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 538190] Review Request: unicornscan - Scalable, accurate, flexible and efficient network probing
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=538190 Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||544039 --- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2009-12-03 14:00:52 EDT --- Bah, this is a fscking autoconf bug as it seems. Autoconf creates a busted configure file on Rawhide, can you please try e.g. Fedora 11 for reviewing? In the meantime, we've hopefully solved bug #544039 (which I opened now for this). Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226049] Merge Review: libtiff
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=226049 --- Comment #5 from Tom Lane t...@redhat.com 2009-12-03 14:00:31 EDT --- All the above items are dealt with as of libtiff-3.9.2-1. -- 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 538190] Review Request: unicornscan - Scalable, accurate, flexible and efficient network probing
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=538190
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro|
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wo...@nobugconsulting.ro
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-12-03
15:19:17 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: F10 and F11/x86_64. fails at the moment in devel due to bug
#544039
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: unicornscan.src:39: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
- benign
binary RPM:
unicornscan.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/unicornscan/modules.conf
unicornscan
unicornscan.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/unicornscan/modules.conf
unicornscan
unicornscan.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/unicornscan/modules.conf 0640
- intended for security reasons
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Optional buildroot tag is correct (
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) )
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:GPLv2+
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of source file: 5361150afa999e68076a453072830dd23dd9bfee
/home/wolfy/unicornscan-0.4.7-2.tar.bz2
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[-] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
- existing .la files are needed by the plugins
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, i
f available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: F10 and F11/x86_64 x86
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:F10 and F11/x86_64 x86
[x] Package functions as described (in F10)
[x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[x] File based requires are sane.
[-] %check is present and the test passes.
=== Issues ===
1. The current version cannot be compiled in fedora rawhide, as pointed out in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=
538190#c1 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544039
2. It would be nice if you could also compile a version with mysql support
(maybe by compiling twice, once with mysql suppo
rt and once with pgsql support --having both does not really make sense despite
being theoretically possible (and done by o
ther apps)
3. If it
