[Bug 820488] Review Request: mod_auth_xradius - Apache module that provides authentication against RADIUS Servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820488 --- Comment #9 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 02:50:42 EDT --- Many thanks, I've added you in CC for the ticket on FPC: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/175 I'll try to do something with the library and see if it can be built as a shared object. -- Configure 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 822046] New: Review Request: exfat - Free exFAT file system implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: exfat - Free exFAT file system implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822046 Summary: Review Request: exfat - Free exFAT file system implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: vasc...@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: https://github.com/RussianFedora/fuse-exfat/blob/master/fuse-exfat.spec https://github.com/RussianFedora/exfat-utils/blob/master/exfat-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.russianfedora.ru/packages/fuse-exfat/0.9.7/1.fc17.R/src/fuse-exfat-0.9.7-1.fc17.R.src.rpm http://koji.russianfedora.ru/packages/exfat-utils/0.9.7/1.fc17.R/src/exfat-utils-0.9.7-1.fc17.R.src.rpm Description: This driver is the first free exFAT file system implementation with write support. exFAT is a simple file system created by Microsoft. It is intended to replace FAT32 removing some of it's limitations. exFAT is a standard FS for SDXC memory cards. I want be maintainer of this package in Fedora. But I need a sponsor. -- Configure 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 821838] Review Request: gitolite3 - Highly flexible server for git directory version tracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821838 Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 03:18:51 EDT --- If the above points for you are all expected behaviour, especially: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gitolite3/VREF/MERGE-CHECK 0644L /usr/bin/perl then for me the 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 797418] Review Request: qtractor - Audio/MIDI multi-track sequencer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797418 Bug 797418 depends on bug 783825, which changed state. Bug 783825 Summary: Review Request: suil - A lightweight C library for loading and wrapping LV2 plugin UIs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783825 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA Resolution||ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED --- Comment #15 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 03:28:09 EDT --- Hey Orcan, I have not seen anything come through from rpmfusion on qtractor-freeworld. Should I wait before pushing to 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 817984] Review Request: ghc-zlib-conduit - Conduits for (de)compression
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817984 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||ghc-zlib-conduit -- Configure 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 821862] Review Request: perl-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Perl source package from source repository
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821862 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822046] Review Request: exfat - Free exFAT file system 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=822046 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #1 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de 2012-05-16 04:01:42 EDT --- Please split this review request into 2 separate ones - One per 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 822046] Review Request: exfat - Free exFAT file system 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=822046 --- Comment #2 from vasc...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 04:10:13 EDT --- OK This for fuse-exfat package - Free exFAT file system implementation. Spec URL: https://github.com/RussianFedora/fuse-exfat/blob/master/fuse-exfat.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.russianfedora.ru/packages/fuse-exfat/0.9.7/1.fc17.R/src/fuse-exfat-0.9.7-1.fc17.R.src.rpm Description: This driver is the first free exFAT file system implementation with write support. exFAT is a simple file system created by Microsoft. It is intended to replace FAT32 removing some of it's limitations. exFAT is a standard FS for SDXC memory cards. I want be maintainer of this package in Fedora. But I need a sponsor. Second review request here for exfat-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822049 -- Configure 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 822049] New: Review Request: exfat-utils - Utilities for exFAT file system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: exfat-utils - Utilities for exFAT file system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822049 Summary: Review Request: exfat-utils - Utilities for exFAT file system Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: vasc...@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: https://github.com/RussianFedora/exfat-utils/blob/master/exfat-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.russianfedora.ru/packages/exfat-utils/0.9.7/1.fc17.R/src/exfat-utils-0.9.7-1.fc17.R.src.rpm Description: A set of utilities for creating, checking, dumping and labelling exFAT file system. I want be maintainer of this package in Fedora. But I need a sponsor. -- Configure 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 810205] Review Request: erlang-erlzmq2 - Erlang binding for ZeroMQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810205 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821862] Review Request: perl-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Perl source package from source repository
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821862 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2012-05-16 04:43:32 EDT --- It's very simple review with one file. Everything ok. 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 810205] Review Request: erlang-erlzmq2 - Erlang binding for ZeroMQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810205 --- Comment #2 from Mikhail Kulemin mihkule...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 05:32:47 EDT --- New URL for SRPM http://mkulemin.fedorapeople.org/erlang-erlzmq2-0-2.20120404gitd9e8614.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 821890] Review Request: trac-sphinx-plugin - Basic tasks to manage Sphinx documentation in Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821890 --- Comment #2 from Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 06:09:45 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: trac-sphinx-plugin Short Description: Basic tasks to manage Sphinx documentation in Trac Owners: averi kevin Branches: f17 el5 el6 InitialCC: averi kevin -- Configure 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 821890] Review Request: trac-sphinx-plugin - Basic tasks to manage Sphinx documentation in Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821890 Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789385] Review Request: ambdec - an ambiosonics decoder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789385 --- Comment #1 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 06:14:55 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4080920 rpmlint /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/ambdec-0.5.1-2.fc17.src.rpm /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/ambdec-0.5.1-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/ambdec-debuginfo-0.5.1-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm ambdec.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ambiosonics - Ambitions ambdec.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ambiosonics - Ambitions ambdec.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/ambdec-0.5.1/COPYING ambdec.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ambdec_cli ambdec.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ambdec ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/radbut.cc ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/xover2.cc ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/confwin.h ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/png2img.cc ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/ambdec.cc ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/adconf.h ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/filewin.h ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/styles.cc ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/adconf.cc ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/decoder.h ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/ambdec_cli.cc ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/nffilt.cc ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/confwin.cc ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/xover2.h ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/nffilt.h ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/filewin.cc ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/png2img.h ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/jclient.h ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/sstring.h ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/mainwin.cc ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/radbut.h ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/sstring.cc ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/mainwin.h ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/meter.cc ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/decoder.cc ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/jclient.cc ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/styles.h ambdec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ambdec-0.5.1/source/meter.h -- Configure 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 822093] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AutoManifest - Module::Install::AutoManifest Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822093 --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com 2012-05-16 06:20:06 EDT --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4080976 -- Configure 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 822093] New: Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AutoManifest - Module::Install::AutoManifest Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AutoManifest - Module::Install::AutoManifest Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822093 Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AutoManifest - Module::Install::AutoManifest Perl module Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jples...@redhat.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://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org//perl-Module-Install-AutoManifest.spec SRPM URL: http://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org//perl-Module-Install-AutoManifest-0.003-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: This module generate MANIFEST automatically. -- Configure 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 810205] Review Request: erlang-erlzmq2 - Erlang binding for ZeroMQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810205 --- Comment #3 from Mikhail Kulemin mihkule...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 06:39:44 EDT --- Fixed version: Spec URL: http://mkulemin.fedorapeople.org/erlang-erlzmq2.spec SRPM URL: http://mkulemin.fedorapeople.org/erlang-erlzmq2-2.1.11-2.20120404gitd9e8614.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 821771] Review Request: erlang-edown - EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brendan.jones...@gmail.com QAContact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 06:49:39 EDT --- I'll review this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821802] Review Request: erlang-erlando - A set of syntax extensions for Erlang
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821802 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brendan.jones...@gmail.com QAContact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 06:57:23 EDT --- I'll take this on -- Configure 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 821802] Review Request: erlang-erlando - A set of syntax extensions for Erlang
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821802 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@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 822093] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AutoManifest - Module::Install::AutoManifest Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822093 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|unspecified |medium Severity|unspecified |medium -- Configure 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 821889] Review Request: sphinx-webtools - Sphinx web tools for python web frameworks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821889 --- Comment #3 from Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 07:06:00 EDT --- Tests enabled as per: http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/sphinx-webtools/sphinx-webtools-0.2.1-20120516.hg86a2eac02afe.fc16.src.rpm and http://averi.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/sphinx-webtools/sphinx-webtools.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821771] Review Request: erlang-edown - EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@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 821771] Review Request: erlang-edown - EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
--- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-05-16
07:14:39 EDT ---
Is the license here ERPL rather than ASL?
I'm assuming your building for EPEL as well (if not remove %clean rm -rf
%{buildroot} %defattr 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 821771] Review Request: erlang-edown - EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|brendan.jones...@gmail.com QAContact|brendan.jones...@gmail.com | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821862] Review Request: perl-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Perl source package from source repository
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821862 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2012-05-16 07:18:17 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-srpm-macros Short Description: RPM macros for building Perl source package from source repository Owners: ppisar mmaslano psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815141] Review Request: pyshp - Pure Python read/write support for ESRI Shapefile format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815141 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 2012-05-16 07:19:39 EDT --- takin' this one -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821862] Review Request: perl-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Perl source package from source repository
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821862 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789059] Review Request: jaaa - JACK and ALSA Audio Analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789059 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 07:36:23 EDT --- I'll review 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 789385] Review Request: ambdec - an ambiosonics decoder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789385 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com Version|16 |rawhide QAContact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 07:36:51 EDT --- I'll review 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 810205] Review Request: erlang-erlzmq2 - Erlang binding for ZeroMQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810205
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 07:34:55 EDT
---
Koji scratchbuild for F-18:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4081044
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is almost silent
work ~/work/siperl (git::master): rpmlint ~/Desktop/erlang-erlzmq2-*
erlang-erlzmq2.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
zeromq-erlzmq2-2.1.11-2-gd9e8614.tar.gz
^^^ we must blame github for that.
erlang-erlzmq2.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib
^^ false positive (triggered by stdlib word)
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
work ~/work/siperl (git::master):
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (MIT
and BSD).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum zeromq-erlzmq2-2.1.11-2-gd9e8614.tar.gz*
285259f6a82366e1a005f9a36b47fe2b53aab7860ab8bda6aa8fb9716617a875
zeromq-erlzmq2-2.1.11-2-gd9e8614.tar.gz
285259f6a82366e1a005f9a36b47fe2b53aab7860ab8bda6aa8fb9716617a875
zeromq-erlzmq2-2.1.11-2-gd9e8614.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No C/C++ header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so)
in the default libdirs.
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
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 789059] Review Request: jaaa - JACK and ALSA Audio Analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789059 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Version|16 |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821511] Review Request: hornetq - High performance messaging 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=821511 --- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2012-05-16 07:50:46 EDT --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/hornetq/2.2.13-2/hornetq.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/hornetq/2.2.13-2/hornetq-2.2.13-2.fc17.src.rpm Added building the native bits. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4081072 -- Configure 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 789385] Review Request: ambdec - an ambiosonics decoder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789385
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:01:23 EDT
---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is NOT silent (see above), however all his mesages may be safely
ignored:
ambdec.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ambiosonics - Ambitions
ambdec.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ambiosonics - Ambitions
^^^ false positives
ambdec.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ambdec_cli
ambdec.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ambdec
^^^ bitter truth. Hope upstream will provide some man-pages someday.
All other messages, regarding incorrect-fsf-address should NOT be fixed by us
(I wouldn't touch legal stuff at all) but rather in upstream. Poke them
regarding this matter during your spare time btw.
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2
or later as stated in the source files).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
work ~/Desktop: sha256sum ambdec-0.5.1.tar.bz2*
0497636ac97b4883e45348604419980f7c525e2eebede7026550cc43f85e8074
ambdec-0.5.1.tar.bz2
0497636ac97b4883e45348604419980f7c525e2eebede7026550cc43f85e8074
ambdec-0.5.1.tar.bz2.1
work ~/Desktop:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on
systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file is properly
installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
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 810205] Review Request: erlang-erlzmq2 - Erlang binding for ZeroMQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810205 Mikhail Kulemin mihkule...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mikhail Kulemin mihkule...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:03:28 EDT --- Package Change Request === Package Name: erlang-erlzmq2 Short Description: NIF based Erlang binding for ZeroMQ messaging library. Owners: mkulemin Branches: f16 f17 rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821838] Review Request: gitolite3 - Highly flexible server for git directory version tracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821838 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:04:38 EDT --- It's indicated to be demo code, and isn't AFAICT called elsewhere. Thanks! Adding Lubo as co-maintainer, please remove yourself if not interested. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gitolite3 Short Description: Highly flexible server for git directory version tracker Owners: limb lkundrak Branches: f16 f17 el6 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 821727] Review Request: dolfin - the C++/Python interface of FEniCS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821727
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com
2012-05-16 08:07:01 EDT ---
Spec URL: http://jgu.fedorapeople.org/dolfin.spec
SRPM URL: http://jgu.fedorapeople.org/dolfin-1.0.0-0.2.el6.src.rpm
* Wed May 15 2012 Jonathan G. Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com -
1.0.0-0.2
- Added fully versioned Requires including %%{_isa} to the -devel packages
- Removed unececessary Requires of the -openmpi and -mpich packages on the
dolfin package
- Added Requires for boost-devel and suitesparse-devel to the devel packages
- Fix conditional tests for rhel 6 in spec file
- Move the /share/dolfin/cmake directories to the -devel packages
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821727] Review Request: dolfin - the C++/Python interface of FEniCS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821727 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:07:53 EDT --- 1.0.0-0.2 also includes an extra patch to fix up the paths in the dolfin-config.cmake files -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789059] Review Request: jaaa - JACK and ALSA Audio Analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789059
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:09:40 EDT
---
Koji scratchbuild for F-18:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4081069
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is NOT silent but all its messages may be safely ignored:
work ~/Desktop: rpmlint jaaa-*
jaaa.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/jaaa-0.6.0/COPYING
jaaa.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jaaa
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/spectwin.h
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/jaaa.cc
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/audio.cc
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/rngen.cc
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/audio.h
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/spectwin.cc
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/rngen.h
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/styles.h
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/styles.cc
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/prbsgen.h
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/messages.h
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 1 warnings.
work ~/Desktop:
We really shouldn't touch legal information. However I advise you to inform
upstream about that.
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2
or later, as stated in the source-files).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
work ~/Desktop: sha256sum jaaa-0.6.0.tar.bz2*
2f04f403a60d202b1341a9e1aad895d4e1c2bede6b3ca1a5aee1b4f63e31661b
jaaa-0.6.0.tar.bz2
2f04f403a60d202b1341a9e1aad895d4e1c2bede6b3ca1a5aee1b4f63e31661b
jaaa-0.6.0.tar.bz2.1
work ~/Desktop:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on
systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file is properly
installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
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 797418] Review Request: qtractor - Audio/MIDI multi-track sequencer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797418 --- Comment #16 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:15:01 EDT --- I don't think you need to wait. Fedora's qtractor has higher version-release, so there won't be any undesired results if you push. -- Configure 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 815141] Review Request: pyshp - Pure Python read/write support for ESRI Shapefile format
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815141
Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-05-16
08:15:59 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 Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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 License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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 pyshp-1.1.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
pyshp.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint pyshp-1.1.4-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint python3-pyshp-1.1.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
python3-pyshp.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/mrunge/review/815141/pyshp-1.1.4.zip :
MD5SUM this package : 67153ea40a3d162ce5946b23b8f67d6a
MD5SUM upstream package : 67153ea40a3d162ce5946b23b8f67d6a
[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.
[?]: 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
[Bug 797418] Review Request: qtractor - Audio/MIDI multi-track sequencer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797418 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 797418] Review Request: qtractor - Audio/MIDI multi-track sequencer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797418 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-16 08:23:37 EDT --- qtractor-0.5.4-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qtractor-0.5.4-1.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 789059] Review Request: jaaa - JACK and ALSA Audio Analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789059 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:28:24 EDT --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jaaa Short Description: JACK and ALSA audio analyzer Owners: bsjones Branches: f16 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 789385] Review Request: ambdec - an ambiosonics decoder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789385 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:29:23 EDT --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ambdec Short Description: Ambiosonics decoder Owners: bsjones Branches: f16 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 822093] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AutoManifest - Module::Install::AutoManifest Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822093 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@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 821771] Review Request: erlang-edown - EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:41:08 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #3)
Is the license here ERPL rather than ASL?
ASL 2.0
https://raw.github.com/esl/edown/e32e40af648f0f90ee1e92613c0d7c772ac3bc64/src/edown_doclet.erl
I'm assuming your building for EPEL as well (if not remove %clean rm -rf
%{buildroot} %defattr etc)
Yes, for EPEL as well. So all old stuff must be kept intact :(
--
Configure 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 821771] Review Request: erlang-edown - EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771 --- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:47:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) Is the license here ERPL rather than ASL? ASL 2.0 https://raw.github.com/esl/edown/e32e40af648f0f90ee1e92613c0d7c772ac3bc64/src/edown_doclet.erl There's no License file stating this although the source is clearly ASL. You should request that upstream attach a license file in the source -- Configure 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 820855] Review Request: apache-juddi - Client API for UDDI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820855 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mgold...@redhat.com Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | 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 821771] Review Request: erlang-edown - EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771
Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-05-16
08:50:57 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: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[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).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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 erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc18.i686.rpm
erlang-edown.i686: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib
erlang-edown.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) EDoc - E Doc, Doc, Educ
erlang-edown.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US EDoc - E Doc, Doc,
Educ
erlang-edown.i686: E: no-binary
erlang-edown.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc18.src.rpm
erlang-edown.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) EDoc - E Doc, Doc, Educ
erlang-edown.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US EDoc - E Doc, Doc,
Educ
erlang-edown.src: W: invalid-url Source0: esl-edown-v0.2.4-0-gdbdd41e.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
Package has no sources or they are generated by developer
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD
[Bug 789059] Review Request: jaaa - JACK and ALSA Audio Analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789059 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:52:29 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Peter, please take ownership of review BZs, thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821771] Review Request: erlang-edown - EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:57:03 EDT --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: erlang-edown Short Description: EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown Owners: peter Branches: el6 f16 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 789385] Review Request: ambdec - an ambiosonics decoder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789385 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:54:15 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 810205] Review Request: erlang-erlzmq2 - Erlang binding for ZeroMQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810205 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:58:21 EDT --- Misformatted request, use New 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 821862] Review Request: perl-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Perl source package from source repository
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821862 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:59:12 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 789059] Review Request: jaaa - JACK and ALSA Audio Analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789059 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821838] Review Request: gitolite3 - Highly flexible server for git directory version tracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821838 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 08:58:45 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 820855] Review Request: apache-juddi - Client API for UDDI
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820855
--- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com 2012-05-16 09:06:35
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint SPECS/apache-juddi.spec
SPECS/apache-juddi.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: apache-juddi-3.1.3.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings
$ rpmlint SRPMS/apache-juddi-3.1.3-2.fc17.src.rpm
apache-juddi.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
apache-juddi.src: W: invalid-url Source0: apache-juddi-3.1.3.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/apache-juddi-3.1.3-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
apache-juddi.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: d5258d6a03cb8f632b32f480c599a94b
MD5SUM upstream package: 4027cc55cbd212bc80feff7c7cc29961
SVN export, OK.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] 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.
[!] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4081229
=== Issues ===
1. Package doesn't build, please remove the
readFromJar(org.apache.juddi.v3.client.mapping.ReadWSDLTest) test. See
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=4081230name=build.log
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 821889] Review Request: sphinx-webtools - Sphinx web tools for python web frameworks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821889 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 09:03:09 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 821727] Review Request: dolfin - the C++/Python interface of FEniCS
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821727 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 09:11:04 EDT --- Spec URL: http://jgu.fedorapeople.org/dolfin.spec SRPM URL: http://jgu.fedorapeople.org/dolfin-1.0.0-0.3.el6.src.rpm * Wed May 15 2012 Jonathan G. Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com - 1.0.0-0.3 - Added Requires: libxml2-devel, armadillo-devel to the -devel packages - Added Requires: boost-mpich2-devel to the -mpich2-devel package - Added Requires: boost-openmpi-devel to the -openmpi-devel package - Re-added a Requires for the main package to the -openmpi and -mpich2 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 821890] Review Request: trac-sphinx-plugin - Basic tasks to manage Sphinx documentation in Trac
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821890 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 09:16:07 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 788717] Review Request: lv2-ir - An LV2 impulse response reverb plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788717 --- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 09:20:15 EDT --- This will most likely undergo a package name change -- Configure 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 821771] Review Request: erlang-edown - EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 09:18:44 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 788717] Review Request: lv2-ir - An LV2 impulse response reverb plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788717 Bug 788717 depends on bug 784605, which changed state. Bug 784605 Summary: Review Request: lv2-instance-access: An LV2 audio plug-in extension which enables plugin UIs access to an LV2 plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784605 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NOTABUG Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784605] Review Request: lv2-instance-access: An LV2 audio plug-in extension which enables plugin UIs access to an LV2 plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784605 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG Last Closed||2012-05-16 09:19:36 --- Comment #7 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 09:19:36 EDT --- This is no longer required -- Configure 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 810205] Review Request: erlang-erlzmq2 - Erlang binding for ZeroMQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810205 Mikhail Kulemin mihkule...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Mikhail Kulemin mihkule...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 09:23:32 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: erlang-erlzmq2 Short Description: NIF based Erlang binding for ZeroMQ messaging library. Owners: mkulemin Branches: f16 f17 rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789385] Review Request: ambdec - an ambiosonics decoder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789385 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-16 09:36:36 EDT --- ambdec-0.5.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ambdec-0.5.1-2.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 789385] Review Request: ambdec - an ambiosonics decoder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789385 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 789385] Review Request: ambdec - an ambiosonics decoder
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789385 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-16 09:36:27 EDT --- ambdec-0.5.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ambdec-0.5.1-2.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 810205] Review Request: erlang-erlzmq2 - Erlang binding for ZeroMQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810205 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 09:37:50 EDT --- Unretired devel, please take ownership in pkgdb, then submit a Package Change Request for the f17 branch. -- Configure 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 789059] Review Request: jaaa - JACK and ALSA Audio Analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789059 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-16 09:38:39 EDT --- jaaa-0.6.0-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jaaa-0.6.0-2.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789059] Review Request: jaaa - JACK and ALSA Audio Analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789059 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 789059] Review Request: jaaa - JACK and ALSA Audio Analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789059 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-16 09:38:28 EDT --- jaaa-0.6.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jaaa-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 810205] Review Request: erlang-erlzmq2 - Erlang binding for ZeroMQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810205 Mikhail Kulemin mihkule...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Mikhail Kulemin mihkule...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 09:52:09 EDT --- Package Change Request === Package Name: erlang-erlzmq2 Short Description: NIF based Erlang binding for ZeroMQ messaging library. Owners: mkulemin 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 810205] Review Request: erlang-erlzmq2 - Erlang binding for ZeroMQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810205 --- Comment #10 from Mikhail Kulemin mihkule...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 09:56:11 EDT --- I just have taken ownership for package for f17. But when fedpkg clone erlang-erlzmq2 I just found dead.package file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 674008] Review Request: openrave - Open Robotics Automation Virtual Environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674008 --- Comment #94 from Tim Niemueller t...@niemueller.de 2012-05-16 09:54:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #93) still working on sympy 0.7.x compat and should be done soon. Excellent, looking forward to it! If openrave-config is including -L/usr/lib, it is because some library openrave links to is including /usr/lib in its linked directories. The stringis the following: -L@CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX@/lib -lopenrave@OPENRAVE_LIBRARY_SUFFIX@ @OPENRAVE_BOOST_LIB_DIRS@ @Boost_THREAD_LIBRARY_RELEASE@ I assume CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX is /usr resulting in -L/usr/lib. The openrave latest_stable branch now includes fparser 4.5 since it allows us to compile with LLVM/Clang Ok, so I'll try the most recent OpenRAVE version with a system-wide installed fparser 4.5 then. As for the Vector casts, we removed the operator (float*) cast because several compiles failed because it was clashing with operator[]. For example, which function should v[0] call? I believe it was encouraging unsafe C-type array practices. I was more wondering why there is no plot3(OpenRAVE::Vector trans, ...). -- Configure 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 821862] Review Request: perl-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Perl source package from source repository
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821862 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-srpm-macros-1-1.fc18 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-05-16 09:57:46 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2012-05-16 09:57:46 EDT --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822093] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AutoManifest - Module::Install::AutoManifest Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822093
--- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com 2012-05-16 10:05:12 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/contyk/src/review/822093/Module-Install-AutoManifest-0.003.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : a799c35f4d9830b0f26f57cfd328006a
MD5SUM upstream package : a799c35f4d9830b0f26f57cfd328006a
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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:
TODO: Add perl(Module::Install::Base) to your BuildRequires.
TODO: The Summary and %description don't really say much. I know the upstream
module page is also rather brief but I'd suggest using the current %description
as Summary and possibly putting the first line documenting Cauto_manifest
into our package description instead.
Not real blockers but I'd like some feedback first.
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git
External plugins:
--
Configure bugmail:
[Bug 810205] Review Request: erlang-erlzmq2 - Erlang binding for ZeroMQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810205 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 10:09:11 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 810205] Review Request: erlang-erlzmq2 - Erlang binding for ZeroMQ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810205 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||limburg...@gmail.com --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 10:10:16 EDT --- You mean rawhide, I just created f17. Just fedpkg import your new SRPM, unless the dead.package contains a compelling reason why this package needed to stay retired. -- Configure 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 821838] Review Request: gitolite3 - Highly flexible server for git directory version tracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821838 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-16 10:20:46 EDT --- gitolite3-3.01-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gitolite3-3.01-2.el6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821838] Review Request: gitolite3 - Highly flexible server for git directory version tracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821838 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-16 10:20:04 EDT --- gitolite3-3.01-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gitolite3-3.01-2.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821838] Review Request: gitolite3 - Highly flexible server for git directory version tracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821838 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-16 10:20:15 EDT --- gitolite3-3.01-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gitolite3-3.01-2.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 821838] Review Request: gitolite3 - Highly flexible server for git directory version tracker
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821838 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 745515] Review Request: yuicompressor - Tool that supports the compression of both JavaScript and CSS files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745515 --- Comment #9 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2012-05-16 10:26:42 EDT --- Hmm, my need for yuicompressor has disappeared so I'd like to move the review onto gil if he still wants this package. Not sure if that's possible without creating a new review? I guess that would be cleanest way. In any case: Sorry Ville for wasting your time. I wasn't expecting 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 750139] Review Request: lv2-mdala-plugins - LV2 port of the MDA VST plugins
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750139 --- Comment #8 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 10:34:04 EDT --- OK - upstream has officially released this: SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2-mdala-plugins.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2-mdala-plugins-1.0.0.fc17.src.rpm ta -- Configure 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 818589] Review Request: fest-swing-junit - FEST Swing JUnit support
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818589 Omair Majid oma...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Omair Majid oma...@redhat.com 2012-05-16 10:39:41 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 802862] Review Request: drupal6-votingapi - Voting API module for Drupal6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802862 Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com 2012-05-16 10:41:41 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: drupal6-votingapi New Branches: f17 Owners: jknife InitialCC: Guess I submitted the request after Fedora 17 had been split off. -- Configure 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 674008] Review Request: openrave - Open Robotics Automation Virtual Environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674008 --- Comment #95 from Rosen Diankov rosen.dian...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 10:46:48 EDT --- added @LIB_SUFFIX@ to openrave-config.in in r3285 do you think turning this code: plot3(v[0],..) to plot3(v,...) justifies a new function and API change? -- Configure 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 821771] Review Request: erlang-edown - EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-16 10:51:26 EDT --- erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.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 821771] Review Request: erlang-edown - EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-16 10:51:35 EDT --- erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-edown-0.2.4-1.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 821771] Review Request: erlang-edown - EDoc extension for generating Github-flavored Markdown
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821771 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 822093] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-AutoManifest - Module::Install::AutoManifest Perl module
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822093 --- Comment #3 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com 2012-05-16 10:54:33 EDT --- Fixed. -- Configure 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 802862] Review Request: drupal6-votingapi - Voting API module for Drupal6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802862 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 10:57:38 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 800899] Review Request: spacewalk-pylint - Pylint configuration for spacewalk python packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800899
Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com 2012-05-16 11:00:53 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.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST No %config files under /usr.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[-]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]:
[Bug 822182] New: Review Request: python-websockify - Python proxy for the websockets protocol
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-websockify - Python proxy for the websockets protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822182 Summary: Review Request: python-websockify - Python proxy for the websockets protocol Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ayo...@redhat.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://admiyo.fedorapeople.org/noVNC/python-websockify.spec SRPM URL: http://admiyo.fedorapeople.org/noVNC/python-websockify-0.1.0-2.f17ayoung.src.rpm Description: Python proxy for the websockets protocol -- Configure 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 822187] New: Review Request: noVNC - websockets based vnc client and simple server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: noVNC - websockets based vnc client and simple server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822187 Summary: Review Request: noVNC - websockets based vnc client and simple server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ayo...@redhat.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://admiyo.fedorapeople.org/noVNC/novnc.spec SRPM URL: http://admiyo.fedorapeople.org/noVNC/novnc-0.3-1.f17ayoung.src.rpm Description: - websockets based vnc client and simple server -- Configure 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 674008] Review Request: openrave - Open Robotics Automation Virtual Environment
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674008 --- Comment #96 from Tim Niemueller t...@niemueller.de 2012-05-16 11:14:58 EDT --- Not, not an API change. I was wondering about a convenience method in addition to the existing one just by overloading. But it's absolutely minor, don't bother. r3285 should fix the issue. pkg-config is still my favorite though ;-) I'll prepare a new version as soon as I find the time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 800899] Review Request: spacewalk-pylint - Pylint configuration for spacewalk python packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800899 --- Comment #3 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2012-05-16 11:34:40 EDT --- I'm not sure why the md5 mismatch, when I download spacewalk-pylint-0.3.tar.gz I got md5sum 6449170b4bf47b1634cc1e95aa89da72 too. Anyway, all other issues addressed, Updated: SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-pylint/spacewalk-pylint-0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-pylint/spacewalk-pylint.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
