[Bug 804824] Review Request: jboss-jsp-2.2-api - JavaServer(TM) Pages 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=804824 --- Comment #11 from Anthony Sasadeusz sasad...@umbc.edu 2012-03-23 02:04:25 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-jsp-2.2-api Short Description: JavaServer(TM) Pages 2.2 API Owners: sasadeu1 Branches: f17 InitialCC: mgoldmann -- Configure 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 804824] Review Request: jboss-jsp-2.2-api - JavaServer(TM) Pages 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=804824 --- Comment #12 from Anthony Sasadeusz sasad...@umbc.edu 2012-03-23 02:20:09 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-jsp-2.2-api Short Description: JavaServer(TM) Pages 2.2 API Owners: cerberus Branches: f17 InitialCC: mgoldmann -- Configure 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 752169] Review Request: zukitwo - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity, GNOME Shell and Xfvm4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752169 Mattia Meneguzzo hal8...@hotmail.it changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: zukitwo - |Review Request: zukitwo - |Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3,|Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, |Metacity and GNOME Shell|Metacity, GNOME Shell and ||Xfvm4 -- Configure 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 752169] Review Request: zukitwo - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity, GNOME Shell and Xfwm4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752169 Mattia Meneguzzo hal8...@hotmail.it changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: zukitwo - |Review Request: zukitwo - |Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3,|Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, |Metacity, GNOME Shell and |Metacity, GNOME Shell and |Xfvm4 |Xfwm4 -- Configure 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 752169] Review Request: zukitwo - Themes for GTK+2, GTK+3, Metacity, GNOME Shell and Xfwm4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752169 --- Comment #15 from Mattia Meneguzzo hal8...@hotmail.it 2012-03-23 03:55:36 EDT --- Packages updated to the 2011.12.29 version of the theme: Spec URL: http://db.tt/xOZgxcBz SRPM URL: http://db.tt/XoDkNQnb _ For those who want to install the themes, here are the RPM packages for Fedora 16: GTK+2 theme: http://db.tt/vzf2JnoU GTK+3 theme: http://db.tt/ast9bEmg Metacity theme: http://db.tt/MRH5FyzA GNOME Shell theme: http://db.tt/UKtzafdQ Xfwm4 theme: http://db.tt/QMxORubq -- Configure 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 754246] Review Request: TV-Browser - A TV Browsing application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754246 --- Comment #12 from Rudolf Kastl che...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 04:20:45 EDT --- sven could you please publish your latest spec file + patches (if needed) so i can take a closer look? sorry for the delays, but i have been rather busy. -- Configure 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 803350] Review Request: python-django-simple-captcha - Django application to add captcha images to any Django form
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803350
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-23
04:46:24 EDT ---
Thank you for the review. I corrected the issues, updated URLs at the bottom.
[mrunge@sofja SPECS]$ diff -u python-django-simple-captcha.spec-2
python-django-simple-captcha.spec
--- python-django-simple-captcha.spec-2 2012-03-14 14:52:16.0 +0100
+++ python-django-simple-captcha.spec 2012-03-23 09:40:15.365177512 +0100
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
Summary: Django application to add captcha images to any Django form
Name: python-django-simple-captcha
Version: 0.3.0
-Release: 2%{?dist}
+Release: 3%{?dist}
License: MIT
Group: Development/Libraries
URL: http://code.google.com/p/django-simple-captcha/
@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@
BuildRequires: python-setuptools
BuildRequires: gettext
+Requires: python-django
+
Provides: %{pkgname} = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: %{pkgname} %{obs_ver}
@@ -35,24 +37,23 @@
%install
%{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root=%{buildroot}
--prefix=%{_prefix}
-# Handling locale files
-# This is adapted from the %%find_lang macro, which cannot be directly
-# used since Django locale files are not located in %%{_datadir}
-#
-# The rest of the packaging guideline still apply -- do not list
-# locale files by hand!
-(cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT find . -name 'django*.mo') | %{__sed} -e 's|^.||' |
-%{__sed} -e \
- 's:\(.*/locale/\)\([^/_]\+\)\(.*\.mo$\):%lang(\2) \1\2\3:' \
-%{pkgname}.lang
+# copy language files
+# reported isssue upstream
+# http://code.google.com/p/django-simple-captcha/issues/detail?id=60
+mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{python_sitelib}/captcha/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES
+cp -p captcha/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/django.?o
%{buildroot}/%{python_sitelib}/captcha/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES
+%find_lang django
-%files -f %{pkgname}.lang
+%files -f django.lang
%doc LICENSE MANIFEST.in PKG-INFO
%{python_sitelib}/captcha/
%{python_sitelib}/django_simple_captcha-%{version}-py2*
%changelog
+* Fri Mar 23 2012 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de - 0.3.0-3
+- minor spec cleanup
+
* Wed Mar 14 2012 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de - 0.3.0-2
- rename package to python-django-simple-captcha
Updated SPEC:
http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-simple-captcha.spec
Updated SRPM:
http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-simple-captcha-0.3.0-3.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 805416] Review Request: croscore-fonts - The width-compatible fonts for improved on-screen readability
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805416
Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ta...@redhat.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ta...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 04:48:26 EDT ---
I'll take this for review. BTW isn't it better using %{version} in Source0? and
you better follow up the steps in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle too. I don't see this font
in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:In-progress_fonts.
--
Configure 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 801680] Review Request: picketbox - Security framework for 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=801680 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 04:55:07 EDT --- *** 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 803350] Review Request: python-django-simple-captcha - Django application to add captcha images to any Django form
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803350 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 04:53:58 EDT --- Great, this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800756] Review Request: infinispan - Data grid platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800756 Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 04:55:53 EDT --- The updated package build correctly in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3925273 And the issues have been fixed: $ rpm -qlp infinispan-5.1.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm /usr/share/doc/infinispan-5.1.2 /usr/share/doc/infinispan-5.1.2/LICENSE.txt /usr/share/doc/infinispan-5.1.2/README.mkdn /usr/share/java/infinispan /usr/share/java/infinispan/infinispan-cachestore-jdbc.jar /usr/share/java/infinispan/infinispan-cachestore-remote.jar /usr/share/java/infinispan/infinispan-client-hotrod.jar /usr/share/java/infinispan/infinispan-core.jar /usr/share/maven-fragments/infinispan /usr/share/maven-poms/JPP.infinispan-infinispan-cachestore-jdbc.pom /usr/share/maven-poms/JPP.infinispan-infinispan-cachestore-parent.pom /usr/share/maven-poms/JPP.infinispan-infinispan-cachestore-remote.pom /usr/share/maven-poms/JPP.infinispan-infinispan-client-hotrod.pom /usr/share/maven-poms/JPP.infinispan-infinispan-core.pom /usr/share/maven-poms/JPP.infinispan-infinispan-parent.pom /usr/share/maven-poms/JPP.infinispan-infinispan.pom Muchas gracias Ricardo! *** 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 740799] Review Request: jboss-jad-1.2-api - JavaEE Application Deployment 1.2 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=740799 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||akurt...@redhat.com Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | -- Configure 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 791247] Review Request: jboss-remote-naming - JBoss Remote Naming
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=791247 --- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 05:09:09 EDT --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-remote-naming/2/jboss-remote-naming.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-remote-naming/2/jboss-remote-naming-1.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3925371 -- Configure 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 803350] Review Request: python-django-simple-captcha - Django application to add captcha images to any Django form
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803350 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-23 05:11:35 EDT --- Thank you! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-django-simple-captcha Short Description: Django application to add captcha images to any Django form Owners: mrunge Branches: devel -- Configure 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 795479] Review Request: jboss-negotiation - JBoss Negotiation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795479 Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||juan.hernan...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juan.hernan...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 05:19:04 EDT --- I take this 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 803546] Review Request: hibernate3 - Relational persistence and query service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803546
Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||juan.hernan...@redhat.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juan.hernan...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-03-23
05:18:01 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
Output of rpmlint of the source packages:
$ rpmlint hibernate3-3.6.10-1.fc17.src.rpm
hibernate3.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.hibernate.org/ HTTP Error 403:
Forbidden
hibernate3.src: W: invalid-url Source0: hibernate-orm-3.6.10.Final.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Output of rpmlint of the binary packages:
$ rpmlint hibernate3-3.6.10-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
hibernate3-javadoc-3.6.10-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
hibernate3.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.hibernate.org/ HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
hibernate3.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/hibernate3-3.6.10/lgpl.txt
hibernate3-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.hibernate.org/ HTTP
Error 403: Forbidden
hibernate3-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/hibernate3-javadoc-3.6.10/lgpl.txt
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
The warnings are acceptable.
Upstream should be asked to fix the FSF address in the license file.
[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.
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3923729
[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.
Some of the files in the test suite state in their license header that the
license is ASL 2.0, in particular the following:
hibernate-testsuite/src/test/java/org/hibernate/test/annotations/derivedidentities/DependentId.java
hibernate-testsuite/src/test/java/org/hibernate/test/annotations/derivedidentities/EmployerId.java
hibernate-testsuite/src/test/java/org/hibernate/test/annotations/derivedidentities/MedicalHistory.java
hibernate-testsuite/src/test/java/org/hibernate/test/annotations/derivedidentities/Person.java
hibernate-testsuite/src/test/java/org/hibernate/test/annotations/derivedidentities/Employer.java
hibernate-testsuite/src/test/java/org/hibernate/test/annotations/derivedidentities/Dependent.java
hibernate-testsuite/src/test/java/org/hibernate/test/annotations/access/Closet.java
hibernate-testsuite/src/test/java/org/hibernate/test/annotations/access/xml/Driver.java
hibernate-testsuite/src/test/java/org/hibernate/test/annotations/access/xml/Boy.java
hibernate-testsuite/src/test/java/org/hibernate/test/annotations/access/xml/Crew.java
hibernate-testsuite/src/test/java/org/hibernate/test/annotations/access/xml/Waiter.java
hibernate-testsuite/src/test/java/org/hibernate/test/annotations/access/xml/Knive.java
hibernate-testsuite/src/test/java/org/hibernate/test/annotations/access/xml/Tourist.java
hibernate-testsuite/src/test/java/org/hibernate/test/annotations/access/xml/Cook.java
hibernate-testsuite/src/test/java/org/hibernate/test/annotations/access/xml/RentalCar.java
hibernate-testsuite/src/test/java/org/hibernate/test/annotations/access/Foobar.java
We are not currently packaing or even using those tests. If we eventually do
the license of the package should be changed to LGPLv2+ and ASL 2.0.
License type: LGPLv2+
[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.
MD5SUM this package: 0a2fc55adc48915b53b0ac29d877093d
MD5SUM upstream package: 0a2fc55adc48915b53b0ac29d877093d
[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
[Bug 789615] Review Request: apache-sshd - Apache SSHD
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789615 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mgold...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgold...@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 806233] New: Review Request: python-django-robots - Robots exclusion application for Django, complementing Sitemaps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-django-robots - Robots exclusion application for Django, complementing Sitemaps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806233 Summary: Review Request: python-django-robots - Robots exclusion application for Django, complementing Sitemaps Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mru...@matthias-runge.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-robots.spec SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-robots-0.8.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Django application to manage robots.txt files following the robots exclusion protocol, complementing the Django Sitemap contrib app. This is a package rename request, a review is required. [mrunge@sofja SPECS]$ rpmlint ./python-django-robots.spec ../SRPMS/python-django-robots-0.8.1-1.fc17.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/python-django-robots-0.8.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm python-django-robots.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US txt - text, ext, tit python-django-robots.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US contrib - cont rib, cont-rib, contribute python-django-robots.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US txt - text, ext, tit python-django-robots.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US contrib - cont rib, cont-rib, contribute 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. koji-scratchbuild http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3925476 there seems to be a problem handling locale files. find_lang doesn't find those. The used scriptlet was already used by django-robots. -- Configure 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 806233] Review Request: python-django-robots - Robots exclusion application for Django, complementing Sitemaps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806233 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||736776 -- Configure 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 789615] Review Request: apache-sshd - Apache SSHD
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789615
Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) |
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 05:39:27
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint SPECS/apache-sshd.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ goldmann@JBOSS-AS ~/work/review/apache-sshd rpmlint
SRPMS/apache-sshd-0.6.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
apache-sshd.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ goldmann@JBOSS-AS ~/work/review/apache-sshd rpmlint
RPMS/noarch/apache-sshd-0.6.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
apache-sshd.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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: ASL 2.0
[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.
MD5SUM this package: 6b7a2dace1e2305c2072fc28f10257d0
MD5SUM upstream package: 6b7a2dace1e2305c2072fc28f10257d0
[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.
[x] 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
[-] 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
See #1.
[-] 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?taskID=3925460
=== Issues ===
1. Please change the reasoning on skipping tests to the appropriate one
mentioning incompatibility with jsch.
*** APPROVED
[Bug 789615] Review Request: apache-sshd - Apache SSHD
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789615 Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 05:43:29 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: apache-sshd Short Description: Apache SSHD Owners: jhernand Branches: f17 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 611372] Review Request: perl-Net-Twitter - Perl interface to Twitter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372 --- Comment #14 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 05:49:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) (In reply to comment #12) Hi Petr, I think I've fixed all these problems, and I have one question before asking for a re-review. To your last point about whether the package needs specific versions of runtime libraries: Is that something that I should infer from the software's Makefile.PL? The actual code doesn't use any particular versions of the libraries upon which it depends. Well, that depends. You should always inspect the code, the project Makefile.PL/Build.PL and META.* files before you decide. In this case, LWP::UserAgent 5.819 is used in tests so it should be buildrequired instead of 2.032 specified in Makefile.PL (and META.yml). -- Configure 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 802182] Review Request: ironjacamar - Java Connector Architecture 1.6 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=802182 Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||juan.hernan...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juan.hernan...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? Bug 802182 depends on bug 730227, which changed state. Bug 730227 Summary: Review Request: jboss-transaction-1.1-api - Transaction 1.1 API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730227 What|Old Value |New Value Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED --- Comment #1 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 05:50:36 EDT --- I take this 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 804980] Review Request: python-dingus - A record-then-assert mocking 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=804980
Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-23
05:54:14 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
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
[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.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-dingus-0.3.4-1.fc18.src.rpm
python-dingus.src: W: invalid-url Source1: dingus-tests-0.3.4.tgz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint python-dingus-0.3.4-1.fc18.noarch.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.
/home/mrunge/review/804980/dingus-0.3.4.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 5c26a789dcd054bf140985759865749e
MD5SUM upstream package : 5c26a789dcd054bf140985759865749e
[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.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: 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 SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: 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 supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages
[Bug 805015] Review Request: jboss-jts - Distributed Transaction 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=805015
--- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 06:17:45
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint SPECS/jboss-jts.spec
SPECS/jboss-jts.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-jts-4.16.2.Final.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/jboss-jts-4.16.2-2.fc17.src.rpm
jboss-jts.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jboss-jts.src: W: file-size-mismatch jbossjta-integration-4.16.2.Final.pom =
15429,
https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/service/local/repositories/releases/content/org/jboss/jbossts/jbossjta-integration/4.16.2.Final/jbossjta-integration-4.16.2.Final.pom
= 15439
jboss-jts.src: W: file-size-mismatch jbossjta-4.16.2.Final.pom = 15405,
https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/service/local/repositories/releases/content/org/jboss/jbossts/jbossjta/4.16.2.Final/jbossjta-4.16.2.Final.pom
= 15415
jboss-jts.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-jts-4.16.2.Final.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/jboss-jts-4.16.2-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
jboss-jts.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jboss-jts.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.16.12-2
['4.16.2-2.fc17', '4.16.2-2']
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
See #1.
[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.
[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.
MD5SUM this package:
MD5SUM upstream package:
[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.
[x] 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, ...)
[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)
[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
[Bug 805995] Review Request: jboss-jaxb-2.2-api - Java Architecture for XML Binding 2.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805995 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgold...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 06:25:27 EDT --- I'll take 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 761619] Review Request: cross-binutils - Multiple cross-build binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=761619 David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dw...@infradead.org -- Configure 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 766166] Review Request: cross-gcc - Multiple cross-build gcc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=766166 David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dw...@infradead.org -- Configure 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 805995] Review Request: jboss-jaxb-2.2-api - Java Architecture for XML Binding 2.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805995
Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) |
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 06:50:10
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint SPECS/jboss-jaxb-2.2-api.spec
SPECS/jboss-jaxb-2.2-api.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-jaxb-2.2-api-1.0.4.Final.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/jboss-jaxb-2.2-api-1.0.4-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
jboss-jaxb-2.2-api.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jboss-jaxb-2.2-api.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
jboss-jaxb-2.2-api.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/jboss-jaxb-2.2-api-1.0.4/LICENSE
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/jboss-jaxb-2.2-api-1.0.4-1.fc17.src.rpm
jboss-jaxb-2.2-api.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jboss-jaxb-2.2-api.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
jboss-jaxb-2.2-api.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-jaxb-2.2-api-1.0.4.Final.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Upstream was informed about the FSF address issue.
[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
[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.
MD5SUM this package: 925a14ab56bc8197ee1ff3ff095338eb
MD5SUM upstream package: 925a14ab56bc8197ee1ff3ff095338eb
[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
[Bug 805999] Review Request: jboss-saaj-1.3-api - SOAP with Attachments API for Java 1.3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805999 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgold...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 06:54:58 EDT --- I'll take 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 805995] Review Request: jboss-jaxb-2.2-api - Java Architecture for XML Binding 2.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805995 Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 06:54:04 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-jaxb-2.2-api Short Description: Java Architecture for XML Binding 2.2 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 804055] Review Request: spring-ldap - Java library for simplifying LDAP operations
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804055 --- Comment #2 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 06:57:17 EDT --- Updated to upstream version 1.3.1. The updated spec and source package are available here: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/spring-ldap/1.3.1-1 Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3925805 -- Configure 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 805015] Review Request: jboss-jts - Distributed Transaction 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=805015 --- Comment #3 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 07:01:42 EDT --- Issues have been addressed. The updated spec and SRPM are available here: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/jboss-jts/4.16.2-3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 802182] Review Request: ironjacamar - Java Connector Architecture 1.6 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=802182 --- Comment #2 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 07:18:16 EDT --- Ricardo, can you please update to upstream 1.0.9 (was released on Mar 8 2012), then I will complete 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 805999] Review Request: jboss-saaj-1.3-api - SOAP with Attachments API for Java 1.3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805999
Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 07:19:27
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint SPECS/jboss-saaj-1.3-api.spec
SPECS/jboss-saaj-1.3-api.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-saaj-1.3-api-1.0.2.Final.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/jboss-saaj-1.3-api-1.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm
jboss-saaj-1.3-api.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jboss-saaj-1.3-api.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
jboss-saaj-1.3-api.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-saaj-1.3-api-1.0.2.Final.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/jboss-saaj-1.3-api-1.0.2-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
jboss-saaj-1.3-api.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jboss-saaj-1.3-api.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
jboss-saaj-1.3-api.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/jboss-saaj-1.3-api-1.0.2/LICENSE
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Upstream informed about the FSF address issue.
[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
[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.
MD5SUM this package: a560b846b8b15e3a92287098c455ef46
MD5SUM upstream package: a560b846b8b15e3a92287098c455ef46
[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.
[x] 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
[Bug 804980] Review Request: python-dingus - A record-then-assert mocking 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=804980 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 07:21:51 EDT --- Thanks for your review, I'll remove the egg-info before comitting. -- Configure 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 804980] Review Request: python-dingus - A record-then-assert mocking 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=804980 --- Comment #4 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 07:23:06 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-dingus Short Description: A record-then-assert mocking library Owners: bkabrda Branches: InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 806089] Review Request: jboss-rmi-1.0-api - Java Remote Method Invocation 1.0 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=806089 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgold...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 07:23:55 EDT --- I'll take 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 805999] Review Request: jboss-saaj-1.3-api - SOAP with Attachments API for Java 1.3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805999 Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 07:23:18 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-saaj-1.3-api Short Description: SOAP with Attachments API for Java 1.3 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 804824] Review Request: jboss-jsp-2.2-api - JavaServer(TM) Pages 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=804824 --- Comment #13 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 07:28:28 EDT --- Anthony, in SCM request you should always use FAS usernames, as described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#New_Packages My FAS username is goldmann, please change (yes, by adding a new comment) the InitialCC field. -- Configure 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 806299] New: Review Request: python-django-registration - A user-registration application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-django-registration - A user-registration application for Django https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806299 Summary: Review Request: python-django-registration - A user-registration application for Django Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/registration/python-django-registration.spec SRPM URL: http://kumarpraveen.fedorapeople.org/registration/python-django-registration-0.7-4.fc16.src.rpm Description: This is a fairly simple user-registration application for Django_, designed to make allowing user signups as painless as possible. It requires a functional installation of Django 1.0 or newer, but has no other dependencies. Koji : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3925891 Please note: this is a rename review request for an existing 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 806299] Review Request: python-django-registration - A user-registration application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806299 Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com 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 806299] Review Request: python-django-registration - A user-registration application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806299 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 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 806299] Review Request: python-django-registration - A user-registration application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806299 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mru...@matthias-runge.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@matthias-runge.de Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-23 08:09:01 EDT --- I'll take this -- Configure 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 766166] Review Request: cross-gcc - Multiple cross-build gcc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=766166 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 761619] Review Request: cross-binutils - Multiple cross-build binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=761619 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-23 08:14:18 EDT --- cross-binutils-2.22.52.0.1-8.1.fc16,cross-gcc-4.7.0-0.11.4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cross-binutils-2.22.52.0.1-8.1.fc16,cross-gcc-4.7.0-0.11.4.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 766166] Review Request: cross-gcc - Multiple cross-build gcc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=766166 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-23 08:16:06 EDT --- cross-binutils-2.22.52.0.1-8.1.fc16, cross-gcc-4.7.0-0.11.4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cross-binutils-2.22.52.0.1-8.1.fc16,cross-gcc-4.7.0-0.11.4.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 761619] Review Request: cross-binutils - Multiple cross-build binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=761619 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 805015] Review Request: jboss-jts - Distributed Transaction 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=805015 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 08:26:46 EDT --- *** 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 805015] Review Request: jboss-jts - Distributed Transaction 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=805015 Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 08:29:11 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-jts Short Description: Distributed Transaction Manager 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 789615] Review Request: apache-sshd - Apache SSHD
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789615 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 08:46:22 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 805015] Review Request: jboss-jts - Distributed Transaction 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=805015 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 08:48:37 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 804824] Review Request: jboss-jsp-2.2-api - JavaServer(TM) Pages 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=804824 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 08:47:50 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Fixed initialcc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 805999] Review Request: jboss-saaj-1.3-api - SOAP with Attachments API for Java 1.3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805999 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 08:49:17 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 804980] Review Request: python-dingus - A record-then-assert mocking 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=804980 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 08:48:18 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 805995] Review Request: jboss-jaxb-2.2-api - Java Architecture for XML Binding 2.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805995 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 08:48:59 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 803350] Review Request: python-django-simple-captcha - Django application to add captcha images to any Django form
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803350 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 08:46:53 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 806089] Review Request: jboss-rmi-1.0-api - Java Remote Method Invocation 1.0 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=806089
Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) |
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 08:52:04
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint SPECS/jboss-rmi-1.0-api.spec
SPECS/jboss-rmi-1.0-api.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-rmi-1.0-api-1.0.4.Final.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/jboss-rmi-1.0-api-1.0.4-1.fc17.src.rpm
jboss-rmi-1.0-api.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jboss-rmi-1.0-api.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error 403:
Forbidden
jboss-rmi-1.0-api.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-rmi-1.0-api-1.0.4.Final.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/jboss-rmi-1.0-api-1.0.4-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
jboss-rmi-1.0-api.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jboss-rmi-1.0-api.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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: GPLv2 with exceptions
[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.
MD5SUM this package: 77b9d418bf52ce0fbe44ba7e9931dea1
MD5SUM upstream package: 77b9d418bf52ce0fbe44ba7e9931dea1
[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.
[x] 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
[Bug 806089] Review Request: jboss-rmi-1.0-api - Java Remote Method Invocation 1.0 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=806089 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 09:00:52 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 804824] Review Request: jboss-jsp-2.2-api - JavaServer(TM) Pages 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=804824 --- Comment #15 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 08:57:34 EDT --- Thanks Jon! Anthony, you can now proceed with importing the package: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_git_FAQ_for_package_maintainers#How_do_I_import_a_SRPM_package.3F More on using Fedora Git: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Fedora_GIT -- Configure 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 806089] Review Request: jboss-rmi-1.0-api - Java Remote Method Invocation 1.0 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=806089 Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 08:57:23 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-rmi-1.0-api Short Description: Java Remote Method Invocation 1.0 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 784593] Review Request: ritopt - A Java library for parsing command-line options
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784593 --- Comment #7 from Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 09:02:27 EDT --- Done Spec URL: http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/jabref/ritopt.spec SRPM URL: http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/jabref/ritopt-0.2.1-5.fc15.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 768894] Review Request: haven - Next Generation Backup System
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768894 --- Comment #9 from Davide Benini dben...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 09:19:43 EDT --- Alec, Michael, thank you for your comments. I will analyse your suggestions (and discuss some of them with upstream) and then I'll come back with a new version of the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 804980] Review Request: python-dingus - A record-then-assert mocking 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=804980 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-03-23 09:26:17 -- 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 789615] Review Request: apache-sshd - Apache SSHD
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789615 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-23 09:23:54 EDT --- apache-sshd-0.6.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/apache-sshd-0.6.0-2.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 789615] Review Request: apache-sshd - Apache SSHD
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789615 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 785694] Review Request: jpfcodegen - A tool for generating classes from JPF plug-ins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785694 --- Comment #3 from Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 09:24:25 EDT --- Updated: - Add javadoc - Rename patch filename - Clean up install section - Fix line endings in tutorial files - Fix typo in description Spec URL: http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/jabref/jpfcodegen.spec SRPM URL: http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/jabref/jpfcodegen-0.4-3.fc15.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 805995] Review Request: jboss-jaxb-2.2-api - Java Architecture for XML Binding 2.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805995 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 805995] Review Request: jboss-jaxb-2.2-api - Java Architecture for XML Binding 2.2
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805995 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-23 09:30:47 EDT --- jboss-jaxb-2.2-api-1.0.4-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-jaxb-2.2-api-1.0.4-1.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 805999] Review Request: jboss-saaj-1.3-api - SOAP with Attachments API for Java 1.3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805999 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-23 09:33:10 EDT --- jboss-saaj-1.3-api-1.0.2-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-saaj-1.3-api-1.0.2-1.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 805999] Review Request: jboss-saaj-1.3-api - SOAP with Attachments API for Java 1.3
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805999 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 806089] Review Request: jboss-rmi-1.0-api - Java Remote Method Invocation 1.0 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=806089 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 806089] Review Request: jboss-rmi-1.0-api - Java Remote Method Invocation 1.0 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=806089 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-23 09:36:13 EDT --- jboss-rmi-1.0-api-1.0.4-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-rmi-1.0-api-1.0.4-1.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 806299] Review Request: python-django-registration - A user-registration application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806299 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||736776 -- Configure 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 806299] Review Request: python-django-registration - A user-registration application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806299
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-23
09:39:10 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
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
[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.
[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.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: 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.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-django-registration-0.7-4.fc18.src.rpm
python-django-registration.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US signups
- sign ups, sign-ups, signposts
python-django-registration.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/python-django-registration/django-registration-0.7.tar.gz
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint python-django-registration-0.7-4.fc18.noarch.rpm
python-django-registration.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
signups - sign ups, sign-ups, signposts
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/mrunge/review/806299/django-registration-0.7.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 5c92e93a699905dce2e3f59285013b0a
MD5SUM upstream package : d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
[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.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: 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 Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: 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
[Bug 803350] Review Request: python-django-simple-captcha - Django application to add captcha images to any Django form
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803350 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-03-23 09:49:23 --- Comment #7 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-23 09:49:23 EDT --- imported, built, django-simple-captcha orphaned, rel-eng-ticket for blocking: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5143 -- Configure 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 790564] Review Request: glassfish-fastinfoset - Fast Infoset
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790564 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-23 10:18:23 EDT --- glassfish-fastinfoset-1.2.12-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glassfish-fastinfoset-1.2.12-3.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 804826] Review Request: ipxe - A network boot loader
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804826 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Berrange berra...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 10:24:05 EDT --- I have updated the RPM spec to remove the other %defattr items I missed. I sent a friendly msg upstream about the source file license headers FSF address http://lists.ipxe.org/pipermail/ipxe-devel/2012-March/001310.html -- Configure 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 806355] Review Request: python-django-profiles - A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806355 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||736776 -- Configure 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 806355] New: Review Request: python-django-profiles - A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-django-profiles - A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806355 Summary: Review Request: python-django-profiles - A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mru...@matthias-runge.de QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-profiles.spec SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-profiles-0.2-3.fc17.src.rpm Description: A fairly simple user-profile management application for Django, designed to make the management of site-specific user profiles as painless as possible. It requires a functional installation of Django 1.0 or newer and provides a useful complement to `django-registration`, but has no other dependencies. This is a review required for package renaming. koji build --scratch rawhide ../SRPMS/python-django-profiles-0.2-3.fc17.src.rpm -- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3926374 [mrunge@sofja SPECS]$ rpmlint ./python-django-profiles.spec ../SRPMS/python-django-profiles-0.2-3.fc17.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/python-django-profiles-0.2-3.fc17.noarch.rpm ./python-django-profiles.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: django-profiles.tar.bz2 python-django-profiles.src: W: invalid-url Source0: django-profiles.tar.bz2 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784593] Review Request: ritopt - A Java library for parsing command-line options
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784593
Andrew Robinson arobi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Robinson arobi...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 10:26:53
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[X] Rpmlint output:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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: GPLv2+
[X] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[X] 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:83780651b4883311451fe9d16ac16bd9
MD5SUM upstream package:83780651b4883311451fe9d16ac16bd9
[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
[!] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[-] 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)
[-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[-] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[-] 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 ===
[-] 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:x86_64
*** 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 803148] Review Request: python-pycallgraph - A module that creates call graphs for Python programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803148 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-03-23 10:36:00 EDT --- Hi, a few comments : - python-devel, I think the policy ask now to tell which version it should be ( ie, 2 or 3 ) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires - the license tag is incorrect, the source code say gpl v2 or later, and the spec say gpl v2 only. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses - rpmlint complain about non executable script python-pycallgraph.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pycallgraph.py 0644L /usr/bin/env I think you should just remove the shebang from the file so rpmlint no longer complain. -- Configure 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 787020] Review Request: trafficserver - Apache Traffic Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787020 --- Comment #39 from Julian C. Dunn jd...@aquezada.com 2012-03-23 10:36:46 EDT --- I found another problem with this on Fedora 16, which is that after a server is rebooted, /var/run is recreated. Hence, trafficserver refuses to start up because /var/run/trafficserver is missing. I added this line to trafficserver.service to create the directory with the right permissions, but maybe it's not the most elegant. It works, though: ExecStartPre=/usr/bin/install -d -o root -g ats -m 775 /var/run/trafficserver -- Configure 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 787020] Review Request: trafficserver - Apache Traffic Server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787020 --- Comment #40 from Julian C. Dunn jd...@aquezada.com 2012-03-23 10:40:00 EDT --- One more thing: I think the EnvironmentFile line has a typo in it. It should be: EnvironmentFile=/etc/sysconfig/trafficserver (no leading dash to /etc) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799284] Review Request: perl-Pod-Plainer - Perl extension for converting Pod to old-style Pod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799284 --- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 10:36:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) perl(Pod::Plainer) is required by LSB 4.1. So, we need it. We can remove perl-Pod-Plainer package, and have redhat-lsb package contains Plainer.pm file. This is another solution, but I do not think this is a good idea. No, packaging Pod::Plainer like this is indeed the way to go. -- Configure 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 784593] Review Request: ritopt - A Java library for parsing command-line options
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784593 Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 10:38:28 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ritopt Short Description: A Java library for parsing command-line options Owners:mef 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 799284] Review Request: perl-Pod-Plainer - Perl extension for converting Pod to old-style Pod
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799284
--- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 10:39:10 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
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.
[-]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: 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.
[?]: MUST Package installs properly.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[?]: 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/799284/Pod-Plainer-1.03.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 15d42071d6bd861cb72daa8cc3111cd3
MD5SUM upstream package : 15d42071d6bd861cb72daa8cc3111cd3
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[!]: 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.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[!]: 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.
[!]: 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 SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[-]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
FIX: The package doesn't build due to missing build dependencies; add
perl(Test::More) and, optionally, perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) = 1.00 to your
BRs.
FIX: The URL is wrong; correct it to http://search.cpan.org/dist/Pod-Plainer/
FIX: Also the SPEC filename is just lowercase. This needs to be fixed too.
FIX: Remove useless Provides; this is created automatically by rpmbuild.
TODO: Also, you don't have to
[Bug 800756] Review Request: infinispan - Data grid platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800756 Ricardo Arguello ricardo.argue...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Ricardo Arguello ricardo.argue...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 10:50:59 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: infinispan Short Description: Data grid platform Owners: ricardo 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 761619] Review Request: cross-binutils - Multiple cross-build binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=761619 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-23 10:53:53 EDT --- cross-binutils-2.22.52.0.1-8.1.fc17,cross-gcc-4.7.0-0.11.4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cross-binutils-2.22.52.0.1-8.1.fc17,cross-gcc-4.7.0-0.11.4.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 801680] Review Request: picketbox - Security framework for 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=801680 Ricardo Arguello ricardo.argue...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Ricardo Arguello ricardo.argue...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 10:51:58 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: picketbox Short Description: Security framework for Java Applications Owners: ricardo 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 800756] Review Request: infinispan - Data grid platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800756 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 10:58:02 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 784593] Review Request: ritopt - A Java library for parsing command-line options
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784593 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 10:57:42 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 801680] Review Request: picketbox - Security framework for 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=801680 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-23 11:00:19 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 796201] Review Request: glassfish-jaxb - JAXB 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=796201 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-23 11:08:26 EDT --- glassfish-jaxb-2.2.5-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glassfish-jaxb-2.2.5-2.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 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 #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-23 11:33:24 EDT --- maven-jaxb2-plugin-0.8.1-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/maven-jaxb2-plugin-0.8.1-5.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 805967] Review Request: jboss-metadata - JBoss Metadata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805967 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-23 11:45:36 EDT --- jboss-metadata-7.0.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-metadata-7.0.1-1.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 803148] Review Request: python-pycallgraph - A module that creates call graphs for Python programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803148 --- Comment #2 from Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com 2012-03-23 11:52:38 EDT --- Spec URL: http://lmacken.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-pycallgraph.spec SRPM URL: http://lmacken.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-pycallgraph-0.5.1-2.fc16.src.rpm * Fri Mar 23 2012 Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com - 0.5.1-2 - Require python2-devel - Change license tag from GPLv2 to GPLv2+ - Remove shebang from script -- Configure 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 611372] Review Request: perl-Net-Twitter - Perl interface to Twitter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372 --- Comment #15 from Julian C. Dunn jd...@aquezada.com 2012-03-23 12:07:47 EDT --- Ok. Thanks Petr. After reviewing the package I'm going to go with the assumption that I can use RPM's autorequires generator because I see nothing in the source code that insists on particular versions. Here's my updated spec and SRPM for a re-review: http://assets.juliandunn.net/fedorapkg/perl-Net-Twitter.spec http://assets.juliandunn.net/fedorapkg/perl-Net-Twitter-3.18001-2.fc16.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 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 #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-23 12:16:23 EDT --- hibernate-validator-4.2.0-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hibernate-validator-4.2.0-4.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 803148] Review Request: python-pycallgraph - A module that creates call graphs for Python programs
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803148 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org 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
