[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 --- Comment #67 from raveit65 chat-to...@raveit.de --- (In reply to comment #65) @raveit and comment #67, I personally do not think we should care in Fedora about user of non official repo, yes. For example, Fedora do not care about breaking nvidia driver or various third parties repo, and if a 3rd party repository break something in fedora, most people will not accept but about that. So splitting because someone else did it without being able to to say why do not think a good reason alone. I love you , knutscher frenchman :) I'm so exciting as nvidia I never heard such a compliment. You driving me crazy babe I'am same as nvidia...whoow ...real festival I'am MATE-FEDORAand you? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 --- Comment #68 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- LOL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817315] Review Request: megaglest - Open Source 3d real time strategy game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817315 --- Comment #27 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- Ok! Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812559] Review Request: python-Rtree - Python wrapper of the spatialindex library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812559 --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Just a reminder -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707
--- Comment #69 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com ---
(In reply to comment #66)
Leigh,
Fixed
SPEC:
http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-doc-utils.spec
SRPM:
http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-11.fc17.
src.rpm
Ok, this is the wrong macro
rm -rf %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/man/man1/*
it should be
rm -rf %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1/*
The obsolete bit is also wrong,
Obsoletes: mate-doc-utils-stylesheets
please add this instead
Obsoletes: mate-doc-utils-stylesheets-1.2.1-2
Provides: mate-doc-utils-stylesheets-%{version}-%{release}
You also have missing requires for the directories that mate-doc-utils installs
files into, please add
# for /usr/share/aclocal
Requires: automake
# for the validation with xsltproc to use local dtds
Requires: docbook-dtds
# for /usr/share/pkgconfig
Requires: pkgconfig
# for /usr/share/xml
Requires: xml-common
Please remove these bits again (why did you re-add them?)
%clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}
and
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839744] Review Request: perl-Rose-DateTime - DateTime helper functions and objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||jples...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[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.
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
[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)
[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.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[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 Package is not relocatable.
[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 systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[!]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[!]: 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 tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[Bug 760696] Review Request: rubygem-mongo - Ruby driver for the MongoDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760696 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vondr...@redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #3) 2) This rpm relies on rubygem-bson and has to keep at the same version level as it. Since I am not the rubygem-bson maintainer, that would be a bit complex to make sure they both get updated at the same time. Don't hesitate and ask in pkgdb for co-maintainership. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 --- Comment #70 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- Leigh, Fixed SPEC: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-doc-utils.spec SRPM: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-12.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707
leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #71 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com ---
(In reply to comment #70)
Leigh,
Fixed
SPEC:
http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-doc-utils.spec
SRPM:
http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-12.fc17.
src.rpm
Package approved
Please change the obsoletes and provides for mate-doc-utils-stylesheets to this
when you import.
Obsoletes: mate-doc-utils-stylesheets %{version}
Provides: mate-doc-utils-stylesheets = %{version}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 --- Comment #72 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- Thanks Leigh! Now I owe you one! Dan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707
--- Comment #73 from Nelson Marques nmo.marq...@gmail.com ---
Forgive me for a dumb question... But why do you have a dependency on
'scrollkeeper' and then disable it in configure ('--disable-scrollkeeper'); do
you really require that dependency ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 --- Comment #74 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mate-doc-utils Short Description: MATE Desktop doc utils Owners: vicodan Branches: f16 f17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842570] New: Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570 Bug ID: 842570 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: tra...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maven-script-interpreter/1/maven-script-interpreter.spec SRPM URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maven-script-interpreter/1/maven-script-interpreter-1.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: This component provides some utilities to interpret/execute some scripts for various implementations: groovy or beanshell. Fedora Account System Username:tradej -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842570] Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570 --- Comment #1 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com --- Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4325140 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842633] New: Review Request: (Rename request) python-django-authopenid - Openid authentication application for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842633 Bug ID: 842633 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: (Rename request) python-django-authopenid - Openid authentication application for Django Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: sanjay.an...@gmail.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-django-authopenid/python-django-authopenid.spec SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-django-authopenid/python-django-authopenid-1.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Django authentication application with openid using django auth contrib. This application allows a user to connect to you website with a legacy account (user name/password) or an openid URL. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha +++ Rpmlint output when run on mock output and spec: [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm python-django-authopenid-1.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm ../SPECS/python-django-authopenid.spec python-django-authopenid.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Openid - Opined, Opened, Open id python-django-authopenid.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openid - opined, opened, open id python-django-authopenid.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US auth - auto, Ruth, author python-django-authopenid.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US contrib - cont rib, cont-rib, contribute python-django-authopenid.noarch: W: self-obsoletion django-authopenid 1.0.1-4 obsoletes django-authopenid = 1.0.1-1.fc18 python-django-authopenid.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Openid - Opined, Opened, Open id python-django-authopenid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openid - opined, opened, open id python-django-authopenid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US auth - auto, Ruth, author python-django-authopenid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US contrib - cont rib, cont-rib, contribute python-django-authopenid.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Openid - Opined, Opened, Open id python-django-authopenid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openid - opined, opened, open id python-django-authopenid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US auth - auto, Ruth, author python-django-authopenid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US contrib - cont rib, cont-rib, contribute 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832677] Review Request: clojure-maven-plugin - Maven Mojo plugin for compiling clojure source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832677 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tra...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tra...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com --- Taking it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842633] Review Request: (Rename request) python-django-authopenid - Openid authentication application for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842633 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||840358 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840878] Review Request: liberation-narrow-fonts - Sans-serif Narrow fonts to replace commonly used Microsoft Arial Narrow
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840878 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Review:- + Koji f18 scratch build - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4325263 + rpmlint on rpms gave 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + source verified with upstream as (sha1sum) 4db1abfdb6e41bdc9a461fc7dfecf996ff1d66e6 liberation-fonts-1.07.2.tar.gz 4db1abfdb6e41bdc9a461fc7dfecf996ff1d66e6 ../SOURCES/liberation-fonts-1.07.2.tar.gz + License is same as old package license and valid. APPROVED. You need to import this package and new update of liberation-fonts in same rawhide update. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839527] Review Request: rtirq - realtime IRQ threading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839527 --- Comment #9 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- I have updated the package to relocate the udev rules. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/rtirq-20120505-3.fc17.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/rtirq.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836850] Review Request: truezip - Java based VFS for treating archive files as virtual directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836850 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Everything looks fine now. Tested on Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4325184 ** ** APPROVED ** ** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836850] Review Request: truezip - Java based VFS for treating archive files as virtual directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836850 Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: truezip Short Description: Java based VFS for treating archive files as virtual directories Owners: galileo Branches: f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 817315] Review Request: megaglest - Open Source 3d real time strategy game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817315 --- Comment #28 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #26) I have some concerns. First, there's a mix of various versions of LPGL and GPL, among others. These are not all necessarily compatible. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#GPLCompatibilityMatrix There's the Doom3 md5 issue. By my reading, you can't include mt19937ar.c. I think you mean Random.cpp, there is some license analysis at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/+source/megaglest/+copyright Additionally, there are lots of files with no license information. In the presence of so many licenses, what applies to what? I'm flagging FE-LEGAL for additional review. Any of these is enough to block the package if now resolved completely. Technical guidelines are very important, but legal ones are even more so, and it's important to be as thourough as possible. Flagging FE-LEGAL will get someone with more expertise with licensing to have a look, and is always educational. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842328] Review Request: rubygem-jquery-rails - Use jQuery with Rails 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842328 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- I'll take it for a review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784145] Review Request: libomxil-bellagio - OpenMAX Integration Layer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784145 Niels de Vos nde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(kwiz...@gmail.com ||) --- Comment #3 from Niels de Vos nde...@redhat.com --- Hi Nicolas, I'm not sure how you are testing the building of your packages, but you should either use mock or koji/fedpkg. On Fedora 17 I hit the following error when building your new src.rpm with mock: make[3]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/libomxil-bellagio-0.9.3/src' gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I..-DOMXILCOMPONENTSPATH=\/usr/lib64/bellagio/\ -I../include -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -Wall -Werror -DCONFIG_DEBUG_LEVEL=0 -c -o omxregister_bellagio-omxregister.o `test -f 'omxregister.c' || echo './'`omxregister.c omxregister.c: In function 'buildComponentsList': omxregister.c:249:13: error: ignoring return value of 'fwrite', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Werror=unused-result] omxregister.c:250:13: error: ignoring return value of 'fwrite', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Werror=unused-result] omxregister.c:325:14: error: ignoring return value of 'fwrite', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Werror=unused-result] cc1: all warnings being treated as errors make[3]: *** [omxregister_bellagio-omxregister.o] Error 1 On Fedora Rawhide in mock: make[3]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/libomxil-bellagio-0.9.3/test/components/audio_effects' make omxvolcontroltest omxaudiomixertest make[4]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/libomxil-bellagio-0.9.3/test/components/audio_effects' gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../..-I../../../test/components/common -I/usr/include -I/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libomxil-bellagio-0.9.3-2.fc18.x86_64//usr/include -c -o omxvolcontroltest-omxvolcontroltest.o `test -f 'omxvolcontroltest.c' || echo './'`omxvolcontroltest.c In file included from omxvolcontroltest.c:27:0: omxvolcontroltest.h:38:22: fatal error: OMX_Core.h: No such file or directory compilation terminated. I don't thinks 'make check' in %check does anything useful, it is probably sufficient to include the test-binaries in the -test subpackage and remove the %check completely. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839527] Review Request: rtirq - realtime IRQ threading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839527
--- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com ---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
- rpmlint is NOT silent
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint
/home/petro/rpmbuild/SRPMS/rtirq-20120505-3.fc18.src.rpm
/home/petro/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/rtirq-20120505-3.fc18.noarch.rpm
rtirq.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Realtime - Mealtime, Real time,
Real-time
rtirq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime - mealtime, real
time, real-time
^^^ False positives.
rtirq.src:86: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%{_libdir}/udev/rules.d/95-rtirq.rules
^^^ This one is serious. Please use /usr/lib/ instead of %{_libdir} which value
depends on a host architecture.
rtirq.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Realtime - Mealtime, Real time,
Real-time
rtirq.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime - mealtime,
real time, real-time
^^^ False positives.
rtirq.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
^^^ This should be ignored. It was triggered by the udev-rule (I personally
believe that they must be relocated into /usr/share but we can't do much here).
rtirq.noarch: W: no-documentation
rtirq.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rtirq-udev
^^^ May be ignored.
rtirq.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/rtirq
rtirq.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/rtirq
^^^ Please explain these ones. Is it intentional that this script is on by
default? If yes then it's not a blocker. If no - this must be fixed.
rtirq.noarch: E: subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/rtirq
^^^ This message advises you to use /var/lock/subsys and it's a good idea in
general. But considering that we will eventually switch to systemd instead I
wouldn't invest my time in fixing this. So this may be omitted as well.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:
+ 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)
- The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, MUST be
included in %doc. Please do.
+ 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 rtirq-20120505.tar.gz*
254371e5bf812fd8eb06417b48f0739aba36c62abe319a51c24ccbc22cb9
rtirq-20120505.tar.gz
254371e5bf812fd8eb06417b48f0739aba36c62abe319a51c24ccbc22cb9
rtirq-20120505.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All non-default build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. None
actually.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ 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). This is not required for Fedora anymore - only for EL5 (and
maybe for EL6).
+ 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 with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
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). This is not required for Fedora anymore - only for EL5 (and
maybe for EL6).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Ok, so - please address issue with %{_libdir} macro (it's not allowed to use it
in noarch-packages), mark LICENSE as %doc, explain/fix all other issues
mentioned by me, and I'll finish it.
And start switching to systemd asap - it's great! :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836850] Review Request: truezip - Java based VFS for treating archive files as virtual directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836850 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 --- Comment #75 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842328] Review Request: rubygem-jquery-rails - Use jQuery with Rails 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842328 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- * More specific license - Although it seems that the license field is correct, could you please elaborate a bit more what license is for what library? * Smoke test failed? - I did just small smoketest and it failed. I believe that it depends on Rails application configuration, but anyway, could you please doublecheck? $ irb reqirb(main):001:0 require 'jquery-rails' NameError: uninitialized constant Rails from /usr/share/gems/gems/jquery-rails-2.0.2/lib/jquery/rails/engine.rb:1:in `top (required)' from /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/custom_require.rb:36:in `require' from /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/custom_require.rb:36:in `require' from /usr/share/gems/gems/jquery-rails-2.0.2/lib/jquery/rails.rb:1:in `top (required)' from /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/custom_require.rb:36:in `require' from /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/custom_require.rb:36:in `require' from /usr/share/gems/gems/jquery-rails-2.0.2/lib/jquery-rails.rb:1:in `top (required)' from /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/custom_require.rb:60:in `require' from /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/custom_require.rb:60:in `rescue in require' from /usr/share/rubygems/rubygems/custom_require.rb:35:in `require' from (irb):1 from /usr/bin/irb:12:in `main' Otherwise I see no issue = APPROVED. But please, make sure that you understand the above mentioned error and better describe the licenses before import. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707
--- Comment #76 from Nelson Marques nmo.marq...@gmail.com ---
Obsoletes: mate-doc-utils-stylesheets %{version}
Provides: mate-doc-utils-stylesheets = %{version}
This could still be improved to:
Obsoletes: mate-doc-utils-stylesheets %{version}-%{release}
Provides: mate-doc-utils-stylesheets = %{version}-%{release}
since Fedora uses always %{version}-%{release}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707
--- Comment #77 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com ---
(In reply to comment #76)
Obsoletes: mate-doc-utils-stylesheets %{version}
Provides: mate-doc-utils-stylesheets = %{version}
This could still be improved to:
Obsoletes: mate-doc-utils-stylesheets %{version}-%{release}
Provides: mate-doc-utils-stylesheets = %{version}-%{release}
since Fedora uses always %{version}-%{release}
True it's better.
@Dan can you use these obsoletes and provides for mate-doc-utils-stylesheets
instead when you import.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842337] Review Request: rubygem-coffee-rails - Coffee Script adapter for the Rails asset pipeline
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842337 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- I'll take it for a review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842667] New: Review Request: simple - Asynchronous HTTP server for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842667 Bug ID: 842667 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: simple - Asynchronous HTTP server for Java Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: punto...@libero.it Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/simple.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/simple-4.1.21-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Simple is a high performance asynchronous HTTP server for Java. Fedora Account System Username: gil tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4325442 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842667] Review Request: simple - Asynchronous HTTP server for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842667 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||809950 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 809950] Review Request: gradle - Groovy based build system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=809950 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||842667 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842667] Review Request: simple - Asynchronous HTTP server for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842667 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832677] Review Request: clojure-maven-plugin - Maven Mojo plugin for compiling clojure source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832677
Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[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.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[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 Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[Bug 842296] Review Request: kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars - Akonadi calendars plasmoid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842296 Lukáš Tinkl lti...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lti...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842296] Review Request: kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars - Akonadi calendars plasmoid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842296 --- Comment #4 from Lukáš Tinkl lti...@redhat.com --- [ltinkl@goblin 842296]$ rpmlint kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars-0.1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plasmoid - plasma kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plasmoid - plasma kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://kde-look.org/CONTENT/content-files/150034-10534-akonadi-calendars.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. - please provide a working Source URL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 818943] Review Request: jtds - SQL Server and Sybase JDBC driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818943 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com --- Thank you. 1) You didn't really have to correct the FSF address, but please make sure upstream knows it. Keep the current state, though, it is fine. 2) License field is incorrect (BSD), the correct license is MIT. Other than that, it seems good. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842296] Review Request: kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars - Akonadi calendars plasmoid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842296 --- Comment #5 from Lukáš Tinkl lti...@redhat.com --- - the correct URL seems to be: http://kde-look.org/CONTENT/content-files/150034-150034-akonadi-calendars.tar.bz2 - no newline at the end of specfile -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839527] Review Request: rtirq - realtime IRQ threading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839527 --- Comment #11 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks Peter. OK - changed to %_prefix/lib . Default on is intended, The service is not run as a daemon so no need for the subsys lock. New SPEC and SRPM: SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/rtirq-20120505-4.fc17.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/rtirq.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842679] New: Review Request: rubygem-listen - Listen to file modifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842679 Bug ID: 842679 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: rubygem-listen - Listen to file modifications Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: vondr...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-listen.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-listen-0.4.7-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: The Listen gem listens to file modifications and notifies you about the changes. Works everywhere! Fedora Account System Username: vondruch Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4325525 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842679] Review Request: rubygem-listen - Listen to file modifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842679 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bkab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- I'll take this for a review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842296] Review Request: kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars - Akonadi calendars plasmoid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842296 --- Comment #6 from Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com --- New: Spec URL: http://phoenix.inf.upol.cz/~grulichj/rpmbuild/SPECS/kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars.spec SRPM URL: http://phoenix.inf.upol.cz/~grulichj/rpmbuild/SRPMS/kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars-0.1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm - link and also tarball name fixed - others are not problems -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842337] Review Request: rubygem-coffee-rails - Coffee Script adapter for the Rails asset pipeline
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842337 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- * Keep .gemspec in -doc - I would suggest to keep the .gemspec file in -doc subpackage. It will not harm anything I guess The package comply with FPG = APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842296] Review Request: kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars - Akonadi calendars plasmoid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842296 --- Comment #7 from Lukáš Tinkl lti...@redhat.com --- License tag from .spec file (GPLv2+) doesn't match the actual source code license (GPLv3+) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842337] Review Request: rubygem-coffee-rails - Coffee Script adapter for the Rails asset pipeline
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842337 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- Ah, I didn't really mean to exclude it. I'll move it to -doc. Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-coffee-rails Short Description: Coffee Script adapter for the Rails asset pipeline Owners: bkabrda Branches: InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839527] Review Request: rtirq - realtime IRQ threading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839527 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #11) Thanks Peter. OK - changed to %_prefix/lib . Default on is intended, The service is not run as a daemon so no need for the subsys lock. New SPEC and SRPM: SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/rtirq-20120505-4.fc17.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/rtirq.spec Still missing LICENSE file in %doc - please add before importing. Otherwise looks good and I don't see any other issues. This package is APPROVED. ps it would be great if you review this one in return - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/652629 . Sorry it's rather big but I really desperately need this to be reviewed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842328] Review Request: rubygem-jquery-rails - Use jQuery with Rails 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842328 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review! Yes, I'll be more verbose about the licenses. jquery-rails depends on rails being required before, which is what is done using bundler. This is the expected behaviour, but good catch anyway :) New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-jquery-rails Short Description: Use jQuery with Rails 3 Owners: bkabrda Branches: InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842296] Review Request: kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars - Akonadi calendars plasmoid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842296 --- Comment #8 from Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com --- New: Spec URL: http://phoenix.inf.upol.cz/~grulichj/rpmbuild/SPECS/kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars.spec SRPM URL: http://phoenix.inf.upol.cz/~grulichj/rpmbuild/SRPMS/kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars-0.1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm - fix licence tag -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842328] Review Request: rubygem-jquery-rails - Use jQuery with Rails 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842328 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839527] Review Request: rtirq - realtime IRQ threading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839527 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Will do. Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rtirq Short Description: realtime IRQ threading Owners: bsjones Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842296] Review Request: kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars - Akonadi calendars plasmoid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842296 --- Comment #9 from Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com --- New: Spec URL: http://phoenix.inf.upol.cz/~grulichj/rpmbuild/SPECS/kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars.spec SRPM URL: http://phoenix.inf.upol.cz/~grulichj/rpmbuild/SRPMS/kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars-0.1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm - add missing newline at the end of specfile -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842679] Review Request: rubygem-listen - Listen to file modifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842679
Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com ---
There is only one thing I'm not sure of here: whether it is better to depend on
/usr/bin/rspec or %{_bindir}. I guess the second alternative is the right one,
because it doesn't hardcode the path. So please fix it before import.
Otherwise this package looks good, so it is APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842296] Review Request: kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars - Akonadi calendars plasmoid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842296 Lukáš Tinkl lti...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Lukáš Tinkl lti...@redhat.com --- Package builds ok, meets all the MUST criteria, license correct too. RPMlint: [ltinkl@goblin 842296]$ rpmlint kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars-0.1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plasmoid - plasma kde-plasma-akonadi-calendars.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plasmoid - plasma 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Builds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4322576 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4322839 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842337] Review Request: rubygem-coffee-rails - Coffee Script adapter for the Rails asset pipeline
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842337 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842679] Review Request: rubygem-listen - Listen to file modifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842679 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- You are right. I'll fix it before commit. Thank you for your review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-listen Short Description: Listen to file modifications Owners: vondruch Branches: InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839744] Review Request: perl-Rose-DateTime - DateTime helper functions and objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744 --- Comment #3 from Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu --- perl-Rose-Object (and it's requirements) are not yet in Fedora 16 and 17 because they've not yet aged long enough in testing. It's going to make the rest of the packages a low process as we wait a week for each one to clear. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839744] Review Request: perl-Rose-DateTime - DateTime helper functions and objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Rose-DateTime Short Description: DateTime helper functions and objects Owners: wfp Branches: f16 f17 el6 InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839527] Review Request: rtirq - realtime IRQ threading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839527 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842633] Review Request: (Rename request) python-django-authopenid - Openid authentication application for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842633 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bkab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- I'll take this for a review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842066] Review Request: sidc - A VLF signal monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842066 Richard Marko rma...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Richard Marko rma...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sidc Short Description: A VLF signal monitor for recording sudden ionospheric disturbances Owners: rmarko Branches: f17 InitialCC: rmarko -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842679] Review Request: rubygem-listen - Listen to file modifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842679 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Bohuslav, please take ownership of review BZs, thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842633] Review Request: (Rename request) python-django-authopenid - Openid authentication application for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842633 --- Comment #2 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com --- - Probably just a typo: Your VR is 1.0.1-1, but you obsolete django-authopenid 1.0.1-4. That should be 1.0.1-1, right? - You should remove the egg-info directory in the %prep section, so that it gets recreated by python setup.py build. Otherwise the package looks good, so once you correct these nits, I will approve it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842679] Review Request: rubygem-listen - Listen to file modifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842679 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bkab...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842337] Review Request: rubygem-coffee-rails - Coffee Script adapter for the Rails asset pipeline
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842337 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-07-24 10:10:27 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842328] Review Request: rubygem-jquery-rails - Use jQuery with Rails 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842328 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-07-24 10:10:35 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832677] Review Request: clojure-maven-plugin - Maven Mojo plugin for compiling clojure source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832677 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review- Last Closed||2012-07-24 10:14:20 --- Comment #3 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com --- Sorry, we already have it in the repo. Closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839744] Review Request: perl-Rose-DateTime - DateTime helper functions and objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842066] Review Request: sidc - A VLF signal monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842066 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on 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] Review Request: exfat-utils - Utilities for exFAT file system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822049 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||tcall...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-07-24 10:35:13 --- Comment #3 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- Just like 822046, implementations of exfat are not permitted in Fedora. Closing WONTFIX. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823873] Review Request: ThePowderToy - falling sand physics sandbox game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823873 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Ok, better. If the Source and Patch files are generated by you, you can leave off the URL, so it should be: Source0: ThePowderToy-81.2.tar.xz Source1: Powder.desktop Source2: powder.png Patch0: PowderMakefile.patch Patch1: mainc.patch Also, there's nothing in the changelog. Make a changelog entry and increment Release every time you make a change. Additionally, GPLv3+ is not the only license present. Run: find . | xargs licensecheck over the expanded tarball, there's also BSD, MIT, and Apache. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784145] Review Request: libomxil-bellagio - OpenMAX Integration Layer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784145 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(kwiz...@gmail.com | |) | --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com --- Got it, seems like using autoreconf -vif only worked in F-16. I've tested it in mock, but seems like only on F-16. This time a scratch build suceeded: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4325736 Spec URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/review/libomxil-bellagio.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/review/libomxil-bellagio-0.9.3-3.fc18.src.rpm Description: OpenMAX Integration Layer Changelog: - Avoid running autoreconf - Avoid running make check - Fix manual building of test binaries -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836940] Review Request: sshj - SSHv2 library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836940 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tra...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tra...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com --- Taking it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 --- Comment #78 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- That's also something that should have been check as part oas follow the policy part of the review : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 --- Comment #79 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- Michael, We're not replacing existing packages. We're doing this people using an unofficial unsupported Fedora repo so that they avoid conflicts with yum update. Yes, it's not clean, it's not perfect it'll be fixed over time. Thanks, Dan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840619] Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Component|0x |Package Review Assignee|sd...@redhat.com|nob...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840619] Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sd...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840619] Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842778] New: Review Request: avgtime - Time a command and print average, standard deviation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842778 Bug ID: 842778 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: avgtime - Time a command and print average, standard deviation Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: rjo...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/avgtime/avgtime.spec SRPM URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/avgtime/avgtime-0-0.1.git20120724.fc17.src.rpm Description: Time a command and print average, standard deviation 'avgtime' works like the Linux 'time' command, except it runs the command repeatedly and displays statistics: - median - average - standard deviation - 95% and 99% confidence intervals Fedora Account System Username: rjones -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842778] Review Request: avgtime - Time a command and print average, standard deviation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842778 --- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com --- Koji scratch build against F17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4325855 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842570] Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842778] Review Request: avgtime - Time a command and print average, standard deviation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842778 --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com --- rpmlint says: avgtime.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %Y avgtime.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %m avgtime.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %d avgtime.src: W: invalid-url Source0: avgtime-20120724.tar.gz avgtime.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary avgtime avgtime-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. macro-in-comment ... impossible to fix those without breaking the important tarball build instructions. invalid-url ... it's not a URL, so no surprise. no-manual-page ... we should probably write one, but the -help output is comprehensive. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836940] Review Request: sshj - SSHv2 library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836940
Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[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.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[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 Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
[Bug 840619] Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619 --- Comment #13 from Jeff Peeler jpee...@redhat.com --- Removed pycrypto Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/heat-api/heat-rpms/master/heat.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jpeeler/heat-4-4.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836850] Review Request: truezip - Java based VFS for treating archive files as virtual directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836850 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836850] Review Request: truezip - Java based VFS for treating archive files as virtual directories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836850 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- truezip-7.5.5-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/truezip-7.5.5-4.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836403] Review Request: jbossxb - JBoss XML Binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836403 Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838756] Review Request: maven-indexer - Standard for producing indexes of Maven repositories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838756 Gerard Ryan ger...@ryan.lt changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840619] Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619
--- Comment #14 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com ---
Package review:
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[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.
[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 %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.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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.
A license file is in the source tarball, but not listed as a %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Apache (v2.0), *No copyright* UNKNOWN, *No copyright* Apache
(v2.0), Apache (v2.0) MIT/X11 (BSD like), *No copyright* GENERATED
FILE For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/sdake/heat/840619-heat/licensecheck.txt
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[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.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
/etc/heat is unowned
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[!]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec
[Bug 840619] Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619 --- Comment #15 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- Jeff, There are several blocking issues: [!]: 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 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: 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. A license file is in the source tarball, but not listed as a %doc. [!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. /etc/heat is unowned [!]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840619] Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619 --- Comment #16 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- Regarding this rpmlint error: [root@bigiron results]# rpmlint heat*noarch.rpm heat.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-httplib2 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. I believe rpmlint is looking at the filename and determining it has lib in it. This seems incorrect behavior for python packages, where rpm cannot automatically determine python library dependencies. Please file a bug against rpmlint and follow up with changes to packaging as necessary. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830581] Review Request: jove - Jonathan's Own Version of Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830581 Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-07-24 12:21:08 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 --- Comment #80 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- The policy exist for a reason, in this case, adding version on Obsoletes permit to avoid potential problem in the future. For example, if there need to have a rpm named mate-doc-utils-stylesheets, the usage of version in the Obsoletes permit to have it, provided the version is high enough ( ie, recent enough ). using a version less obsoletes prevent this and therefore is to be avoided. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 --- Comment #81 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-13.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-13.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 --- Comment #82 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-13.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-13.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840619] Review Request: heat - AWS CloudFormation functionality for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840619 --- Comment #17 from Jeff Peeler jpee...@redhat.com --- Requested changes made. Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/heat-api/heat-rpms/master/heat.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jpeeler/heat-4-5.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840707] Review Request: mate-doc-utils -- mate doc utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 --- Comment #83 from raveit65 chat-to...@raveit.de --- [rave@mother Mate]$ sudo yum localinstall mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-13.fc16.noarch.rpm Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, changelog, downloadonly, fastestmirror, presto, remove-with-leaves, show-leaves, versionlock Examining mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-13.fc16.noarch.rpm: mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-13.fc16.noarch Marking mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-13.fc16.noarch.rpm as an update to mate-doc-utils-1.2.1-2.fc16.noarch Resolving Dependencies -- Running transaction check --- Package mate-doc-utils.noarch 0:1.2.1-2.fc16 will be updated --- Package mate-doc-utils.noarch 0:1.4.0-13.fc16 will be obsoleting --- Package mate-doc-utils-stylesheets.noarch 0:1.2.1-2.fc16 will be obsoleted -- Finished Dependency Resolution -- Finding unneeded leftover dependencies Found and removing 0 unneeded dependencies Dependencies Resolved Package Arch Version Repository Size Installing: mate-doc-utils noarch 1.4.0-13.fc16 /mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-13.fc16.noarch 3.1 M replacing mate-doc-utils-stylesheets.noarch 1.2.1-2.fc16 Transaction Summary Install 1 Package Total size: 3.1 M Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: Running Transaction Check Running Transaction Test Transaction Test Succeeded Running Transaction Installing : mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-13.fc16.noarch 1/3 Cleanup: mate-doc-utils-1.2.1-2.fc16.noarch 2/3 Erasing: mate-doc-utils-stylesheets-1.2.1-2.fc16.noarch 3/3 Verifying : mate-doc-utils-1.4.0-13.fc16.noarch 1/3 Verifying : mate-doc-utils-stylesheets-1.2.1-2.fc16.noarch 2/3 Verifying : mate-doc-utils-1.2.1-2.fc16.noarch 3/3 Installed: mate-doc-utils.noarch 0:1.4.0-13.fc16 Replaced: mate-doc-utils-stylesheets.noarch 0:1.2.1-2.fc16 Complete! Perfect! Little Note: IHMO Requires:mate-common is unnecessary, because we need mate-common only for building the package as BuildRequires. But it isn't bad, only unnecessary. I give you karma ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
