[Bug 795457] Review Request: jbossws-api - JBossWS 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=795457 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann 2012-03-13 02:55:07 EDT --- Thanks for review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jbossws-api Short Description: JBossWS API Owners:goldmann Branches: f17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785416] Review Request: python-xappy - A Python module providing an easy-to-use layer on top of the Xapian search 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=785416 Haïkel Guémar changed: What|Removed |Added 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785416] Review Request: python-xappy - A Python module providing an easy-to-use layer on top of the Xapian search 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=785416 Haïkel Guémar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785416] Review Request: python-xappy - A Python module providing an easy-to-use layer on top of the Xapian search 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=785416 --- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar 2012-03-13 02:44:24 EDT --- I will review this 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785416] Review Request: python-xappy - A Python module providing an easy-to-use layer on top of the Xapian search 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=785416 Haïkel Guémar changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797330] Review request: xsensors - An X11 interface to lm_sensors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797330 --- Comment #6 from Cédric OLIVIER 2012-03-13 02:22:01 EDT --- If this is only the debian project that keeps this project for a long time, it might well be asking them to formally regain control of xsensors. Packaging a death project is for me a problem. Usually every patch must be submitted to upstream. For me if debian isn't upstream for this project, they can't change copying file. Licence choice is made by upstream and nobody can alter its content, even to update a link. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800930] Review Request: redeclipse - Multiplayer FPS game based on Cube2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800930
--- Comment #29 from Martin Erik Werner 2012-03-13
02:22:58 EDT ---
- 1.2-5
- Add Icon Cache scriptlet snippet
- Add BuildArch: noarch for -data subpackage
- Use %%{version} for Source0 and in gen-tarball comment
spec URL: http://arand.fedorapeople.org/9/redeclipse.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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797706] Review Request: ghc-aeson - Fast JSON parsing and encoding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797706
Shakthi Kannan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from Shakthi Kannan 2012-03-13 01:36:35
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[-]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[-]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[-]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[!]: MUST Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: ghc-aeson-0.6.0.0-1.fc18.i686.rpm :
/usr/lib/ghc-7.0.4/aeson-0.6.0.0/libHSaeson-0.6.0.0-ghc7.0.4.so
[-]: MUST Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[!]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[!]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/ghc-aeson-0.6.0.0
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[!]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint ghc-aeson-devel-0.6.0.0-1.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint ghc-aeson-0.6.0.0-1.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint ghc-aeson-0.6.0.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/tmp/tmp/packaging/797706/aeson-0.6.0.0.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 8e1030ad37a7537ec438a30b15da90e1
MD5SUM upstream package : 8e1030ad37a7537ec438a30b15da90e1
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
up
[Bug 801865] Review Request: jboss-transaction-spi - JBoss Transaction SPI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801865 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 801865] Review Request: jboss-transaction-spi - JBoss Transaction SPI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801865 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-13 00:37:48 EDT --- jboss-transaction-spi-7.0.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-transaction-spi-7.0.0-2.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 801614] Review Request: jboss-connector-1.6-api - Java EE Connector Architecture 1.6 API classes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801614 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 801614] Review Request: jboss-connector-1.6-api - Java EE Connector Architecture 1.6 API classes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801614 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-13 00:35:52 EDT --- jboss-connector-1.6-api-1.0.1-0.1.20120310git9dc9a5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-connector-1.6-api-1.0.1-0.1.20120310git9dc9a5.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771252] Review Request: cinnamon - Window management and application launching for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 --- Comment #31 from Rahul Sundaram 2012-03-12 20:47:16 EDT --- FESCo has clearly approved forks as long as packages don't conflict and FPC has said that it doesn't see any necessity to issue additional guidelines on this topic. Both tickets are closed and this matter is settled conclusively. There are valid concerns with any forks surrounding maintenance etc but that is not part of the package review process. Let's keep the focus on packaging issues if any at this point. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 801092] Review Request: sumwars - a hack and slash role playing game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801092 --- Comment #5 from Bruno Wolff III 2012-03-12 19:38:21 EDT --- Some further notes. The icon name in the desktop file shouldn't include an extension (.png). It should just be the base file name. Font files should not be installed. For DejaVu stuff you should require the package(s) that provide the fonts you need and package symlinks to where they get installed. rpmlint will warn about dangling symlinks, but that's OK for this usage. It is reasonable to have the game and the data both require each other as one isn't useful without the other. But you might also want to allow for some version skew so that you can do minor fixes to the game without having to rebuild the game data package as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797330] Review request: xsensors - An X11 interface to lm_sensors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797330
--- Comment #5 from Jeremy Newton 2012-03-12 19:32:52
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> You can find here an informal review because I am not a sponsor :
Thanks much appreciated :)
> [+] mock build OK
> [+] source files match upstream
> 4f8fb83cfd03c0cc34967a73c6021531
> [+] package name according to the Package Naming Guidelines
> [+] specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
> consistently.
> [+] dist tag is present.
> [+] license field matches the actual license.
> [+] license is open source-compatible.
> GPLv2+
> [+] license text included in package.
> [+] latest version is being packaged.
> [+] BuildRequires are proper.
> [+] compiler flags are appropriate.
> [NA] handle locales properly
> [+] package installs properly
> [+] debuginfo package looks complete.
> [1] rpmlint is silent.
> [+] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
> [+] owns the directories it creates.
> [+] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
> [+] no duplicates in %files.
> [+] file permissions are appropriate.
> [+] scriptlets are present and sane.
> [+] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
> [+] GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
> [+] contain man pages for binaries/scripts
>
> (1) E: incorrect-fsf-address : non blocking, could you create a new bug for
> upstream.
As I said in comment #0 (Description), upstream is not active and is currently
maintained by debian in the meantime. I can submit a patch or a bug report with
debian; is this what you had in mind?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800930] Review Request: redeclipse - Multiplayer FPS game based on Cube2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800930 --- Comment #28 from Martin Erik Werner 2012-03-12 19:26:35 EDT --- Review done for Sumwars over at bug 801092. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 801092] Review Request: sumwars - a hack and slash role playing game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801092 Martin Erik Werner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||martinerikwer...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Martin Erik Werner 2012-03-12 19:23:38 EDT --- I was encouraged to do an informal review of this package (I am neither reviewer nor sponsor). Apart from things mentioned above, I have: CMAKE OPTIONS: For the bundled enet and tinyxml, it seems like there are cmake options: SUMWARS_NO_TINYXML SUMWARS_NO_ENET CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE:STRING="Release" might also be woth looking at (it's used in packaging/debian/rules) DESKTOP FILE: Icon: should be a basename, not a path, i.e. just "sumwars.png". Exec: -likewise Why are you not using the file available in packaging/sumwars.desktop? (would need to be modded with above fixes though). According to the review guidelines at least, the desktop file name should be sumwars and not fedora-sumwars, so I'm not sure if the --vendor option should be used when installing there... COPYRIGHT: These files seems to be part of ogre: ./tools/meshtest/ExampleApplication.h ./tools/meshtest/ExampleFrameListener.h ./tools/graphicengine/ExampleApplication.h ./tools/graphicengine/ExampleFrameListener.h And are under the custom license: "You may use this sample code for anything you like, it is not covered by the LGPL like the rest of the engine." Are these part of the source that builds Sumwars, or are they only used for the development tools? I guess they could be argued to be under GPLv3 as well, if they are incorporated by Sumwars, otherwise this license needs to be listed, I presume. ./share/resources/gui/imagesets/TaharezLook.tga is both MIT and CC-BY-SA according to ./share/resources/gui/imagesets/License.txt (maybe source was MIT, sumwars derivative is CC-BY-SA?) ./CMakeModules/FindCEGUIOGRE.cmake ./CMakeModules/FindOpenAL.cmake ./CMakeModules/FindCEGUI.cmake Are under the "BSD license" ./CMakeModules/FindLua51.cmake Is GPLv2+ ./src/core/nlfg.h ./src/core/nlfg.cpp Are MIT DEPENDENCY?: Is there a particular why there's a mutual dependency between game <-> data, I don't see why sumwars-data should depend on sumwars? (I'm not an rpm dependency expert, I may be wrong). Just include the %doc in both packages? STRAY FILES: What are these files doing here?: /usr/share/sumwars/resources/packs/OgreCore.zip (also includes 3 font files) /usr/share/sumwars/resources/gui/fonts/DejaVuSans.ttf /usr/share/sumwars/resources/gui/fonts/DejaVuSerif.ttf CHECK?: It might be nice to have a %check section where errorchecker.py is run agains the sumwars binary? That's all I've got so far :) I must say the spec file looks really nice, and I'm definitely going to steal a few things from there to my own in-review package Red Eclipse :D -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800930] Review Request: redeclipse - Multiplayer FPS game based on Cube2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800930 --- Comment #27 from Martin Erik Werner 2012-03-12 17:05:48 EDT --- Yeah, I'm up for having a look at it, will do so now. I made a warm-up review over at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769794 too -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795457] Review Request: jbossws-api - JBossWS 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=795457 Roland Grunberg changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795457] Review Request: jbossws-api - JBossWS 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=795457
--- Comment #1 from Roland Grunberg 2012-03-12 16:56:47
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[X] Rpmlint output:
jbossws-api.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US JBoss -> J Boss, Boss
jbossws-api.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/jbossws HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
jbossws-api.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jbossws-api-1.0.0.GA.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[X] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[X] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[X] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[X] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[X] Buildroot definition is not present
[X] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[X] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: LGPLv2+
[-] 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.
[-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[X] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[X] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package: d0621cc30923c10132ee7b80452f78d6
MD5SUM upstream package: N/A but individual sources match
[X] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[X] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[X] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[X] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[X] Permissions on files are set properly.
[X] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[X] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[X] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] 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] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[X] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[X] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[X] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[X] Package uses %global not %define
[X] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[X] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[X] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[X] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[X] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[X] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[X] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[X] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[X] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[X] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[X] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[X] Latest version is packaged.
[X] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:
fedora-rawhide-i386 for mock build
Looks good to me. Setting as 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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 801092] Review Request: sumwars - a hack and slash role playing game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801092 Bruno Wolff III changed: What|Removed |Added CC||br...@wolff.to --- Comment #3 from Bruno Wolff III 2012-03-12 16:55:34 EDT --- Note that sumwars is bunding tinyxml and enet. Make sure the package uses the system versions. Also note that enet is going to be updated to 1.3.3 this week sometime. (I'm waiting for the updated egoboo build to be ready to go so I can push both at the same time.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 769794] Review Request: rpm2targz - Convert a .rpm file to a .tar.gz archive
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769794
Martin Erik Werner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||martinerikwer...@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Martin Erik Werner 2012-03-12
16:41:58 EDT ---
Informal review:
rpmlint output:
rpm2targz.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gz -> g, z, gs
rpm2targz.src: E: no-description-tag
rpm2targz.src: E: no-changelogname-tag
rpm2targz.src: W: invalid-license as-is
rpm2targz.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/rpm2targz/rpm2targz
.README.Gentoo
rpm2targz.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/rpm2targz/rpm2targz
.README
rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2tarbz2
rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2tarlzma
rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2txz
rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2tarxz
rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2tar
rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpmunpack
rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2tgz
rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2tbz2
rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2targz
rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpmoffset
rpm2targz-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
rpm2targz-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license as-is
rpm2targz-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 17 warnings.
Please include a %description - section for your package, bits from the text in
rpm2targz.README might be appropriate.
The license "as-is" is not a valid license, It appears that the license for the
'rpm2targz' script is a custom one, but in essence seems to be equivalent to a
2-Clause BSD license. Please contact upstream and clarify that this is the
intention, and possibly aks them to use this well-know license instead of a
custom one.
Please also inquire about the license for the remaining files in the tarball,
since this license specifically refers to the 'script' and nothing more.
BuildRequires: xz
is superfluous, as per
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires
Are you targeting EPEL5?
If not you can remove the following bits:
###
BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
(in %install)
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
(all of)
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
(in %files)
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
###
Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag and
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
You should use the macro
%{_bindir}
instead of
/usr/bin
and you might want to use a wildcard (*) to include all binaries instead of
listing them one by one (unless you happen to need to have a comment with an
individual license or so).
Similarly you should use
%{_docdir}/%{name}/
in order to declare ownership over this new folder.
Don't use %{_docdir} as-is, this package should not own that folder, but rather
the rpm2targz subfolder, as per above.
Also, depending on the circumstance, it might be better to skip creating the
doc dir altogether and simply rely on the %doc macro, like so:
%doc rpm2targz.README rpm2targz.README.Gentoo
This will likely fix the permission errors reported by rpmlint, also.
In addition, the information in the .Gentoo README file seems to be outdated,
it might be an idea to not include it?
The debuginfo appears to have no surces, likely due to the binary being
compiled without the debug flag, please use
make %{?_smp_mflags} CXXFLAGS="%{optflags}"
in your %build section in order to enable this.
Please create a changelog, for a template you can use:
$ rpmdev-bumpspec -u "Your Name y...@email.com" rpm2targz.spec
and edit it accordingly, and bump it as you update your spec file (also during
the review iterations).
For bonus points: write a brief manpage for the different tools and submit this
upstream.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795457] Review Request: jbossws-api - JBossWS 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=795457 Roland Grunberg changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rgrun...@redhat.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797330] Review request: xsensors - An X11 interface to lm_sensors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797330
--- Comment #4 from Cédric OLIVIER 2012-03-12 16:24:22
EDT ---
You can find here an informal review because I am not a sponsor :
[+] mock build OK
[+] source files match upstream
4f8fb83cfd03c0cc34967a73c6021531
[+] package name according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
[+] dist tag is present.
[+] license field matches the actual license.
[+] license is open source-compatible.
GPLv2+
[+] license text included in package.
[+] latest version is being packaged.
[+] BuildRequires are proper.
[+] compiler flags are appropriate.
[NA] handle locales properly
[+] package installs properly
[+] debuginfo package looks complete.
[1] rpmlint is silent.
[+] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
[+] owns the directories it creates.
[+] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
[+] no duplicates in %files.
[+] file permissions are appropriate.
[+] scriptlets are present and sane.
[+] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
[+] GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
[+] contain man pages for binaries/scripts
(1) E: incorrect-fsf-address : non blocking, could you create a new bug for
upstream.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797330] Review request: xsensors - An X11 interface to lm_sensors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797330 Cédric OLIVIER changed: What|Removed |Added 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771252] Review Request: cinnamon - Window management and application launching for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 --- Comment #30 from leigh scott 2012-03-12 16:17:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #29) > Do you like maintaining code where upstream is unresponsive? No I don't. >I mean, you filed the > upstream bug a month ago, but so far there was no response from the > developers. I've filed bugs reports at gnome.org that never received any attention from the developers. I have found cinnamon upstream responsive, the gtk3 issue will be dealt with in time. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/17/Schedule Ubuntu will release gnome 3.4 before fedora 17 (4-6 weeks), hopefully this should be enough time for mint devs to correct some minor issues to cinnamon-settings (gnome dbus changes busted it, if not fixed upstream it should be quite easy to strip the time settings out), they have also incorporated alacarte into cinnamon (I still can't believe they did that, that will be easier to strip). https://github.com/linuxmint/Cinnamon/issues/515 https://github.com/linuxmint/Cinnamon/issues/494 > Are you able and willing to fix these kind of problems yourself when they > appear? I can only do my best, I also would welcome any co-maintainers wishing to help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 801092] Review Request: sumwars - a hack and slash role playing game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801092 --- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones 2012-03-12 16:11:45 EDT --- You need to fix the encoding of the AUTHORS file. Something like this should do the trick for file in AUTHORS; do sed 's|\r||' $file > $file.tmp iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF8 $file.tmp > $file.tmp2 touch -r $file $file.tmp2 mv -f $file.tmp2 $file done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795457] Review Request: jbossws-api - JBossWS 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=795457 Roland Grunberg changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799976] Review Request: hibernate-validator - Bean Validation (JSR 303) Reference Implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799976 --- Comment #2 from Andy Grimm 2012-03-12 15:54:52 EDT --- I think there are some deps missing here -- maven-anno-plugin, xsom, possibly more. Please make sure this builds in koji first, and then I'll continue the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561243] Review Request: meshlab - A system for processing and editing unstructured 3D triangular meshes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561243 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla 2012-03-12 15:51:10 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790805] Review Request: lcg-util - Command line tools for wlcg data management
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790805
--- Comment #3 from Mohamed El Morabity 2012-03-12
15:48:06 EDT ---
Sorry for this late answer, I got really busy these last days.
Is there a particular reason for this Provides in the python subpackage?
Provides: %{name}-py%{python_version_nodot} = %{version}
Such Provides are not common in Fedora packages.
You can remove automake from the BuildRequires list, it's already required by
libtool and voms-devel.
You *MUST* use the %configure macro, instead of calling explicitely the
./configure script:
- the macro sets the appropriate CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS to build the program
- it already set most of the options you pass to configure
By the way, I wonder why you set the following options:
* --enable-debug → the debug flags are already in RPM_OPT_FLAGS
* --enable-wall → already in RPM_OPT_FLAGS too
* --with-pythonrelease=%{python_version} → the ./configure script is able to
find the defaut Python version/libs
* --with-version=%{version} / --with-release=%{release} → do you really need to
set explicitely the version of lcg-util at build time? This is all but robust.
It looks like lcg-util requires an old and specific version of swig (1.3.0),
obviously no more available in latest Fedora releases. Is it a real lack not to
have swig support for Fedora packages?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800930] Review Request: redeclipse - Multiplayer FPS game based on Cube2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800930 --- Comment #26 from Brendan Jones 2012-03-12 15:42:13 EDT --- I've picked up another game for review, also using enet. This could be a good candidate for your informal review. Let me know though as I'm planning on finishing it off in the next day or so (bug 801092). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799089] Review Request: dyninst - An API for Run-time Code Generation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799089 --- Comment #2 from Frank Ch. Eigler 2012-03-12 15:38:55 EDT --- Created attachment 569495 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=569495 rpmlint results -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802549] New: Review Request: axis2 - Java-based Web Services / SOAP / WSDL engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: axis2 - Java-based Web Services / SOAP / WSDL engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802549 Summary: Review Request: axis2 - Java-based Web Services / SOAP / WSDL engine Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: agr...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Name: axis2 Version : 1.6.1 Group : Development/Libraries License : ASL 2.0 URL : http://axis.apache.org/axis2/java/core/ Summary : Java-based Web Services / SOAP / WSDL engine Description : Apache Axis2 is a Web Services / SOAP / WSDL engine, the successor to the widely used Apache Axis SOAP stack. There are two implementations of the Apache Axis2 Web services engine - Apache Axis2/Java and Apache Axis2/C. This is Axis2/Java. SPEC: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/SPECS/axis2.spec SRPM: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/sources/axis2-1.6.1-2.fc17.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 644135] Review Request: miglayout - Versatile and flexible Swing and SWT layout manager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=644135 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 15:25:22 EDT --- miglayout-4.0-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/miglayout-4.0-2.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559117] Review Request: lcdtest - display test pattern generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559117 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 15:22:48 EDT --- lcdtest-1.18-6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lcdtest-1.18-6.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 560380] Review Request: free42 - 42S Calculator 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=560380 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 14:52:57 EDT --- free42-1.4.70-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/free42-1.4.70-2.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 559856] Review Request: libbsd - Library providing BSD-compatible functions for portability
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559856 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 15:24:29 EDT --- libbsd-0.3.0-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libbsd-0.3.0-2.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561243] Review Request: meshlab - A system for processing and editing unstructured 3D triangular meshes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561243 Eric Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Eric Smith 2012-03-12 15:17:25 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: meshlab New Branches: el6 Owners: brouhaha -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 558061] Review Request: levmar - Levenberg-Marquardt nonlinear least squares optimization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=558061 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 15:21:06 EDT --- levmar-2.5-6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/levmar-2.5-6.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 590355] Review Request: golly - cellular automata 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=590355 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 15:12:56 EDT --- golly-2.3-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golly-2.3-3.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795069] Review Request: sugar-countries - Countries is a game to play with identifying countries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795069 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 15:09:08 EDT --- sugar-countries-33-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 794946] Review Request: XmlSchema - Lightweight schema object model
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794946 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 15:09:14 EDT --- XmlSchema-1.4.7-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790990] Review Request: annogen - Java framework for JSR-175 annotations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790990 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 15:09:51 EDT --- annogen-0.1.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802384] Review Request: perl-Language-Prolog-Types - Prolog types in Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802384 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 15:07:54 EDT --- perl-Language-Prolog-Types-0.10-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771252] Review Request: cinnamon - Window management and application launching for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 --- Comment #29 from Christoph Wickert 2012-03-12 15:07:15 EDT --- I don't think this is about being negative or positive but about code. Do you like maintaining code where upstream is unresponsive? I mean, you filed the upstream bug a month ago, but so far there was no response from the developers. Are you able and willing to fix these kind of problems yourself when they appear? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802035] Review Request: librabbitmq - Client library and command line tools for AMPQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802035 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 15:08:32 EDT --- librabbitmq-0.1-0.2.hgfb6fca832fd2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799089] Review Request: dyninst - An API for Run-time Code Generation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799089 Frank Ch. Eigler changed: What|Removed |Added 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 713923] Review Request: heybuddy - identi.ca and status.net client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713923 Martin Erik Werner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||martinerikwer...@gmail.com --- Comment #12 from Martin Erik Werner 2012-03-12 14:41:30 EDT --- One thing I noticed in passing: It seems you should be using the %find_lang macro instead of hardcoding locale paths, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 591365] Review Request: libexplain - Library functions to explain system call errors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591365 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 14:39:29 EDT --- libexplain-0.52.D002-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libexplain-0.52.D002-1.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799089] Review Request: dyninst - An API for Run-time Code Generation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799089 Frank Ch. Eigler changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|f...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799976] Review Request: hibernate-validator - Bean Validation (JSR 303) Reference Implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799976 Andy Grimm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|agr...@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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781260] Review Request: leechcraft - A Free Open Source Cross-Platform Modular Internet-Client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781260 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 14:31:59 EDT --- leechcraft-0.5.0-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/leechcraft-0.5.0-3.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781260] Review Request: leechcraft - A Free Open Source Cross-Platform Modular Internet-Client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781260 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 14:30:40 EDT --- leechcraft-0.5.0-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/leechcraft-0.5.0-3.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781260] Review Request: leechcraft - A Free Open Source Cross-Platform Modular Internet-Client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781260 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800930] Review Request: redeclipse - Multiplayer FPS game based on Cube2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800930 --- Comment #25 from Martin Erik Werner 2012-03-12 14:31:26 EDT --- There are no NonCommercial content in the RE archive, I was asking that on the account of egoboo. Yes, I'm well aware of that tool :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771252] Review Request: cinnamon - Window management and application launching for GNOME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771252 --- Comment #28 from leigh scott 2012-03-12 14:31:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #27) > As I understand it they delegated it to FPC and their ticket is still open. I > mean, we are not in a hurry, this review is stalled due to incompatibility > with > GTK+ 3.3.10 - again one of the issues that have already been addressed in > gnome-shell. Your negativity sucks. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/muffin-1.0.1-3.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 796346] Review Request: jboss-annotations-1.1-api - Common Annotations 1.1 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=796346 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-03-12 14:17:11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800930] Review Request: redeclipse - Multiplayer FPS game based on Cube2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800930 --- Comment #24 from Brendan Jones 2012-03-12 14:18:42 EDT --- Also have just seen Jon's reply to your question regarding the content license. You will need to remove those as well. There's also a tool included with rpmdevtools you can run on your source directory. It's not perfect but it may provide some help. licensecheck -r -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 796346] Review Request: jboss-annotations-1.1-api - Common Annotations 1.1 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=796346 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 14:16:26 EDT --- jboss-annotations-1.1-api-1.0.1-0.1.20120212git76e1a2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-annotations-1.1-api-1.0.1-0.1.20120212git76e1a2.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 801092] Review Request: sumwars - a hack and slash role playing game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801092 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brendan.jones...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|brendan.jones...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Brendan Jones 2012-03-12 14:11:31 EDT --- I will be reviewing this 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 796346] Review Request: jboss-annotations-1.1-api - Common Annotations 1.1 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=796346 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784605] Review Request: lv2-instance-access: An LV2 audio plug-in extension which enables plugin UIs access to an LV2 plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784605 --- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones 2012-03-12 14:07:46 EDT --- Thanks for the review - sorry bug 781687 is the one that should be listed. You are right - there's no compiled code here. This is a plugin module as described by the metadata. Plugins that use this will generally be built using the devel package and have an explicit requires on the the main package so that the host software has all it needs to instantiate the plugin. So I'm not sure that noarch is correct given that any plugin built using this may be multi-arch and will require the directory of this plugin owned correctly (ie /usr/lib/lv2 or /usr/lib64/lv2). I think it needs to own both. I think the dangling symlink error is OK There is another pending review which depends on this - it may give you some context (bug 788717) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800930] Review Request: redeclipse - Multiplayer FPS game based on Cube2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800930 --- Comment #23 from Brendan Jones 2012-03-12 13:54:18 EDT --- All looking pretty good. As this is your first package whoever sponsors you will want to have seen at least one informal review done by yourself of another package. You can "yum install fedora-review" and use that as your template - or choose one from here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers/Review_Template. Choose any review request you find interesting - just make sure its one that doesn't track the FE-NEEDSPONSER bug. Just list them here so your sponsor can find them easily. You are also free to adhoc comment on any package review you find. All in all I think you've done good work here - Fedora and Debian aren't too different when it comes to policy so you shouldn't have any issues grasping the way things are done around 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730232] Review Request: jboss-servlet-3.0-api - Java Servlet 3.0 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=730232
Andy Grimm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Andy Grimm 2012-03-12 13:34:05 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
jboss-servlet-3.0-api.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
jboss-servlet-3.0-api.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-servlet-3.0-api-1.0.1.20120312gitd4b6f2.tar.xz
jboss-servlet-3.0-api.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP
Error 403: Forbidden
jboss-servlet-3.0-api.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/jboss-servlet-3.0-api-1.0.1/LICENSE
jboss-servlet-3.0-api-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs
-> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
jboss-servlet-3.0-api-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org
HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
jboss-servlet-3.0-api-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/jboss-servlet-3.0-api-javadoc-1.0.1/LICENSE
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.
The FSF address should be fixed by upstream. All other warnings are normal.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: CDDL
[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] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Git source (unpacked tarball matches)
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] 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] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?
[Bug 730306] Review Request: jboss-interceptors-1.1-api - Interceptors 1.1 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=730306 Tomas Radej changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||730314 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730314] Review Request: jboss-invocation - JBoss Invocation 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=730314 Tomas Radej changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||730306 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800720] Review Request: resteasy - Framework for RESTful Web services and Java applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800720 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juan.hernan...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Juan Hernández 2012-03-12 13:18:13 EDT --- Now that all the dependencies are in rawhide I am taking it for 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795069] Review Request: sugar-countries - Countries is a game to play with identifying countries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795069 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 13:17:52 EDT --- sugar-countries-33-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-countries-33-2.fc15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795069] Review Request: sugar-countries - Countries is a game to play with identifying countries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795069 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795069] Review Request: sugar-countries - Countries is a game to play with identifying countries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795069 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 13:18:01 EDT --- sugar-countries-33-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-countries-33-2.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 795069] Review Request: sugar-countries - Countries is a game to play with identifying countries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795069 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 13:18:31 EDT --- sugar-countries-33-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-countries-33-2.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 796346] Review Request: jboss-annotations-1.1-api - Common Annotations 1.1 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=796346 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla 2012-03-12 13:13:17 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799976] Review Request: hibernate-validator - Bean Validation (JSR 303) Reference Implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799976 Bug 799976 depends on bug 796204, which changed state. Bug 796204 Summary: Review Request: maven-jaxb2-plugin - Provides the capability to generate java sources from schemas https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796204 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800720] Review Request: resteasy - Framework for RESTful Web services and Java applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800720 Bug 800720 depends on bug 796204, which changed state. Bug 796204 Summary: Review Request: maven-jaxb2-plugin - Provides the capability to generate java sources from schemas https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796204 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 796204] Review Request: maven-jaxb2-plugin - Provides the capability to generate java sources from schemas
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796204 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-03-12 13:12:01 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 796346] Review Request: jboss-annotations-1.1-api - Common Annotations 1.1 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=796346 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Juan Hernández 2012-03-12 13:04:44 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-annotations-1.1-api Short Description: Common Annotations 1.1 API Owners: jhernand Branches: f17 InitialCC: goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802443] Review Request: perl-Language-Prolog-Yaswi - Yet another interface to SWI-Prolog
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802443
Petr Šabata changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata 2012-03-12 12:59:19 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/contyk/src/review/802443/Language-Prolog-Yaswi-0.19.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 05035c6ac6069866dc65765bb83bc457
MD5SUM upstream package : 05035c6ac6069866dc65765bb83bc457
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all support
[Bug 796346] Review Request: jboss-annotations-1.1-api - Common Annotations 1.1 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=796346
Marek Goldmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Marek Goldmann 2012-03-12 12:58:23
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint SPECS/jboss-annotations-1.1-api.spec
SPECS/jboss-annotations-1.1-api.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-annotations-1.1-api-1.0.1.20120212git76e1a2.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint
SRPMS/jboss-annotations-1.1-api-1.0.1-0.1.20120212git76e1a2.fc17.src.rpm
jboss-annotations-1.1-api.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jboss-annotations-1.1-api.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP
Error 403: Forbidden
jboss-annotations-1.1-api.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-annotations-1.1-api-1.0.1.20120212git76e1a2.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint
RPMS/noarch/jboss-annotations-1.1-api-1.0.1-0.1.20120212git76e1a2.fc17.noarch.rpm
jboss-annotations-1.1-api.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jboss-annotations-1.1-api.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP
Error 403: Forbidden
jboss-annotations-1.1-api.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[X] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: CDDL or GPLv2 with exceptions
[!] 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.
See #1.
[-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package: 8f4a1da81248e840edfe30b45b1da6c8
MD5SUM upstream package: 8f4a1da81248e840edfe30b45b1da6c8
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] 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] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven
[Bug 784605] Review Request: lv2-instance-access: An LV2 audio plug-in extension which enables plugin UIs access to an LV2 plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784605
--- Comment #2 from Martin Preisler 2012-03-12 12:59:08
EDT ---
$ rpmlint lv2-instance-access.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint lv2-instance-access-1.4-1.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint lv2-instance-access-*
lv2-instance-access.x86_64: E: no-binary
lv2-instance-access.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
lv2-instance-access-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
lv2-instance-access-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/include/lv2/lv2plug.in/ns/ext/instance-access
../../../../../lib64/lv2/instance-access.lv2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
! If lv2-instance-access has no binaries in it, it should be noarch.
! http://lv2plug.in/spec/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 has "waf" binary blob in
it.
! dangling symlink
There is a typo in the bug referred, it is #781687
Also, perhaps I am blind but the archive seems to only contain packaging
metadata, not any code.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797165] Review Request: jboss-el-2.2-api - Expression Language 2.2 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=797165 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-03-12 12:50:17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797165] Review Request: jboss-el-2.2-api - Expression Language 2.2 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=797165 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 796204] Review Request: maven-jaxb2-plugin - Provides the capability to generate java sources from schemas
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796204 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla 2012-03-12 12:47:55 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797165] Review Request: jboss-el-2.2-api - Expression Language 2.2 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=797165 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 12:49:42 EDT --- jboss-el-2.2-api-1.0.1-0.1.20120212git2fabd8.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-el-2.2-api-1.0.1-0.1.20120212git2fabd8.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 723779] Review Request: lwjgl - LightWeight Java Game 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=723779
Andrew Robinson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Robinson 2012-03-12 12:38:56
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
lwjgl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crossplatform -> cross
platform, cross-platform, crosspatch
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
lwjgl.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/lwjgl/lwjgl-source-2.7.1.zip HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
[X] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[X] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[X] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[!] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[X] Buildroot definition is not present
[X] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[X] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: BSD
[-] 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] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[X] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[?] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package:
MD5SUM upstream package:
But recursive diff of untarred source shows no results.
[X] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[X] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[X] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[X] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[X] Permissions on files are set properly.
[X] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[X] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[X] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] 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] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[X] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[X] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[X] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[X] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[X] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[X] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[X] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[X] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[X] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[X] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[X] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[X] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[X] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[!] Latest version is packaged.
[!] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:
=== Issues ===
1. Package does not build on rawhide as it does not resolve the jar for the
maven depmap correctly.
2. Please use standard American English form of cross-platform.
3. This is currently not the most recent version of lwjgl. Please resubmit with
2.8.3 if possible.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_
[Bug 796204] Review Request: maven-jaxb2-plugin - Provides the capability to generate java sources from schemas
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796204 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Juan Hernández 2012-03-12 12:35:30 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: maven-jaxb2-plugin Short Description: Provides the capability to generate java sources from schemas Owners: jhernand Branches: f17 InitialCC: goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784605] Review Request: lv2-instance-access: An LV2 audio plug-in extension which enables plugin UIs access to an LV2 plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784605 Martin Preisler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mprei...@redhat.com AssignedTo|r...@davidcornette.com |mprei...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Martin Preisler 2012-03-12 12:29:56 EDT --- Taking this for a formal 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730314] Review Request: jboss-invocation - JBoss Invocation 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=730314 Tomas Radej changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tra...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tra...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Tomas Radej 2012-03-12 12:24:07 EDT --- Taking 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 801865] Review Request: jboss-transaction-spi - JBoss Transaction SPI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801865 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla 2012-03-12 12:26:13 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730232] Review Request: jboss-servlet-3.0-api - Java Servlet 3.0 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=730232 Andy Grimm changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Andy Grimm 2012-03-12 12:20:09 EDT --- Fixes look good. *** APPROVED *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802388] Review Request: perl-Language-Prolog-Sugar - Syntactic sugar for Prolog term constructors
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802388 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||perl-Language-Prolog-Sugar- ||0.06-1.fc18 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar 2012-03-12 12:17:36 EDT --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797165] Review Request: jboss-el-2.2-api - Expression Language 2.2 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=797165 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla 2012-03-12 12:19:24 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 796204] Review Request: maven-jaxb2-plugin - Provides the capability to generate java sources from schemas
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796204 Andy Grimm changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Andy Grimm 2012-03-12 12:21:16 EDT --- Fixes look good. *** APPROVED *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 730232] Review Request: jboss-servlet-3.0-api - Java Servlet 3.0 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=730232 Andy Grimm changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Andy Grimm 2012-03-12 12:20:42 EDT --- OOPS! Wrong 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802035] Review Request: librabbitmq - Client library and command line tools for AMPQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802035 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 12:07:46 EDT --- librabbitmq-0.1-0.2.hgfb6fca832fd2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/librabbitmq-0.1-0.2.hgfb6fca832fd2.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802035] Review Request: librabbitmq - Client library and command line tools for AMPQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802035 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 12:08:18 EDT --- librabbitmq-0.1-0.2.hgfb6fca832fd2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/librabbitmq-0.1-0.2.hgfb6fca832fd2.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 797165] Review Request: jboss-el-2.2-api - Expression Language 2.2 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=797165 Juan Hernández changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Juan Hernández 2012-03-12 12:10:11 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-el-2.2-api Short Description: Expression Language 2.2 API Owners: jhernand Branches: f17 InitialCC: goldmann -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802035] Review Request: librabbitmq - Client library and command line tools for AMPQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802035 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 12:08:36 EDT --- librabbitmq-0.1-0.2.hgfb6fca832fd2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/librabbitmq-0.1-0.2.hgfb6fca832fd2.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802035] Review Request: librabbitmq - Client library and command line tools for AMPQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802035 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2012-03-12 12:07:18 EDT --- librabbitmq-0.1-0.2.hgfb6fca832fd2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/librabbitmq-0.1-0.2.hgfb6fca832fd2.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802035] Review Request: librabbitmq - Client library and command line tools for AMPQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802035 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
