[Bug 883472] Review Request: lnst - Linux Network Stack Test
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883472 --- Comment #11 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > I'd say that having lnst package with the files from common and proper > > documentation saying what's needed would suffice here. The problem with > > practically useless package will always be there, you just transferred it to > > the subpackage :) > > Does that make sense? > > You're right, you would still be able to install just lnst-common alone. I > just > thought marking it in some way would somehow force people to actually look > into > the documentation and read what they should install :). > > Would it be acceptable to use the base package, but rename it to something > like > lnst-libs or lnst-common? Do you mean renaming the whole package? I don't really think that's wise, as people would think it is a subpackage and search for the main package "lnst". I'd advise using lnst (for what is now lnst-common) and keeping the other two subpackages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Uv7ruQRSrE&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894664] Review Request: nodejs-charm - ANSI control sequences for terminal cursor hopping and colors
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894664
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer ---
Package seems good, there is the usual issues that are not blocking.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Need to contact upstream to make sure the license is added
- EL5ism
- missings tests ( due to bootstrap )
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[-]: 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]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 9 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[!]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead
[Bug 883472] Review Request: lnst - Linux Network Stack Test
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883472 --- Comment #10 from Radek Pazdera --- (In reply to comment #9) > I'd say that having lnst package with the files from common and proper > documentation saying what's needed would suffice here. The problem with > practically useless package will always be there, you just transferred it to > the subpackage :) > Does that make sense? You're right, you would still be able to install just lnst-common alone. I just thought marking it in some way would somehow force people to actually look into the documentation and read what they should install :). Would it be acceptable to use the base package, but rename it to something like lnst-libs or lnst-common? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WM7D6GcKb9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 883472] Review Request: lnst - Linux Network Stack Test
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883472 --- Comment #9 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > - Why is the main package empty and doesn't get built? Wouldn't it make more > > sense to move the files from the -common subpackage to the main package? > > I used this to indicate that the things currently lnst-common alone are > practically useless without either lnst-ctl or lnst-slave. Installing "lnst" > pacakge only might lead someone to to think that it is sufficient to get > everything (which is not). > > But if this is not the preferred way, I can move the -common to the main > package. I'd say that having lnst package with the files from common and proper documentation saying what's needed would suffice here. The problem with practically useless package will always be there, you just transferred it to the subpackage :) Does that make sense? > Thank you very much for taking this review :-)! I will re-post the package > after we agree whether to use -common or not. Ok. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=F5S9Qlsxqa&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 895077] Review Request: python-docopt - Pythonic argument parser, that will make you smile
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895077 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda --- (In reply to comment #4) > Just some quick comments: > > - %dos are missing (e.g. LICENSE-MIT, README.md) They aren't in the upstream tarball, in which case the guidelines don't mandate them to be present. [1] says " If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc." > - The %description and the %summary needs some tweaking. At the moment both > are not very useful. I disagree, from my point of view it says enough. Anyway, this is not a blocker for me, so I'll leave it up to Martin's best judgement whether he'll change this or not before importing to dist-git. > - There is no *.egg-info file in the upstream tarball. I would suggest to > leave it in place. You never know what will happen in the future. There is a docopt.egg-info directory and I agree that it should be removed and regenerated during build. I consider this to be a good practice, that makes sure everything that can be regenerated is regenerated. > - There is an folder with examples. Perhaps it's worth to pack those files. If it was in the upstream tarball, I'd concur. This way, I'd maybe just encourage upstream to include it (and also include the license text), but this is not mandatory. > > The 'review' flag should be set by the reviewer and not the reporter. True :) And thanks for your comments! Martin, please next time when doing changes during review, bump the release and add a proper changelog entry. Since I see no blockers, this package is APPROVED. Martin, please consider improving the summary and description before importing to dist-git and encouraging upstream to include license text and examples in the next tarball. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ReviewGuidelines#Things_To_Check_On_Review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sOVNvioQEe&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894665] Review Request: nodejs-deep-equal - Node's assert.deepEqual algorithm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer --- Doesn't build, the spec requires tap -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oTa2O2MG4z&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846488] Review Request: babeltrace - Trace Viewer and Converter, mainly for the Common Trace Format
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846488
--- Comment #11 from Brendan Jones ---
Here's how you can do it (your tests are being built, but not run).
--- babeltrace.spec2012-10-29 22:04:15.0 +0100
+++ babeltrace_mod.spec2013-01-15 07:38:44.571167794 +0100
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ to/from another trace format.
%build
-%configure --docdir=%{_docdir}/%{name} --disable-static
+%configure --docdir=%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} --disable-static
#Remove RPath
sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g'
libtool
sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool
@@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1
%check
make check
+./tests/test-bitfield
%install
make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install
@@ -63,22 +64,17 @@ rm -vf %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.la
%postun -n lib%{name} -p /sbin/ldconfig
%files
+%doc ChangeLog LICENSE *.txt
%{_bindir}/%{name}*
-%dir %{_docdir}/%{name}
-%{_docdir}/%{name}/ChangeLog
-
-%{_docdir}/%{name}/*.txt
%{_mandir}/man1/*.1*
%files -n lib%{name}
+%doc ChangeLog LICENSE *.txt
%{_libdir}/*.so.*
-%{_docdir}/%{name}/LICENSE
-
%files -n lib%{name}-devel
%{_prefix}/include/*
%{_libdir}/*.so
-%{_docdir}/%{name}/LICENSE
%changelog
* Mon Oct 29 2012 Yannick Brosseau - 1.0.0-1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=E3U9ae6Ulr&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891198] nodejs-ini - An INI parser/serializer for node.js
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891198
Eduardo Echeverria changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Hi T.C.
I'll do the formal review
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- %clean is not needed.
- BuildRoot is not needed.
- cleaning of buildroot in %install is not needed.
- %defattr is not needed
- tests should be run if possible
The url https://github.com/isaacs/proto-list is wrong, should be
https://github.com/isaacs/ini
For the readers: In the same line as discussed in #891194, I follow the same
criteria for the review (ie ignore el5 stuff, the installation of node modules
in /usr/lib and the tests)
- the spelling warnings can be ignored
- Please remember to run the tests when possible
- Please remember fix the url before importing
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
-I checked manually in the LICENSE file in this it is under MIT license
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[x]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /
[Bug 887756] Review Request: lv2-triceratops - An LV2 polyphonic synthesizer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887756 --- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones --- New version removes the need for the patches. I have queried upstream about the licence. This time round he has included a COPYING file which is GPLV3, although GPLV3 is not mentioned anywhere else. The plugin manifest is (triceratops.ttl) still states ISC, as do the headers of the main source, so until he gets back to me the license of the project can only be regarded as being ISC. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lv2-triceratops-0.1.2-1.fc18.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lv2-triceratops.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Vlz0Z5b3Jo&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 895226] Review Request: python-django-grappelli - A jazzy skin for the Django admin interface
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895226
--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria ---
Hi Luis
Don't needed remove these files:
find . -name "*.js" -exec rm -rfv '{}' \;
I removed this line and this is what rpmlint complains (e.g):
python-django-grappelli.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/grappelli/static/grappelli/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/themes/advanced/langs/en_dlg.js
This text file has executable bits set or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks a shebang and cannot thus be executed. If the file is
meant to be an executable script, add the shebang, otherwise remove the
executable bits or move the file elsewhere.
.
this can be solved with these lines:
for file in `find %{buildroot}/%{python_sitelib}/grappelli -type f -perm /a+x
-name '*.js'`; do
chmod -v a-x $file
done
what is your intention in removing these files?
rm -rf grappelli/static/admin/js/compress.py
rm -rf grappelli/models.py
rm -rf
grappelli/static/grappelli/jquery/ui/css/custom-theme/jquery-ui-1.8.18.custom.css
rm -rf grappelli/static/grappelli/stylesheets/mueller/screen.css
In the LICENSE file can be read:
django-grappelli contains code from django-admin-tools
I think we're in a bundling problem here, the url of this project is [1]
Identify files that might be affected by the "bundling" and try to do a patch
to solve this issues or try to ask for an exception to fpc [2]
This package also bundle jquery, although I think we can do nothing here for
now, There is a stalled packaging guideline draft about JavaScript libraries
[3]
[1] https://bitbucket.org/izi/django-admin-tools/overview
[2] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/
[3]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JavaScript_libraries_packaging_guideline_draft
and jquery package has tried getting into Fedora several times without success
more information in:
- bug 457343
- bug 805587
- bug 857992
There is documentation to generate in this package, if you find it useful and
interesting please add it to the package, need python-sphinx as BR
Regards
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pFGeLGqJ51&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 887756] Review Request: lv2-triceratops - An LV2 polyphonic synthesizer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887756 --- Comment #2 from Yannick Brosseau --- Some quick first comments: You should put the d in the version number field. Also, a new upstream version is available (0.1.2). It's true that the licensing is a little bit confusing. There is a COPYING file in the tar that state GPL licence, but the other few copyright mention points to ISC. It would be nice to clarify that with upstream. The patches name should begin with the package name (lv2-triceratops) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=g3ildjANt1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 895226] Review Request: python-django-grappelli - A jazzy skin for the Django admin interface
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895226 Eduardo Echeverria changed: What|Removed |Added CC||echevemas...@gmail.com Summary|python-django-grappelli |Review Request: ||python-django-grappelli - A ||jazzy skin for the Django ||admin interface -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yy6o2kfxpH&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891436] Review Request: lua-markdown - Markdown module for Lua
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891436 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- lua-markdown-0.32-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TchOwc3Mpq&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 890482] Review Request: vimpal - Separate application providing a file tree for VIM
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890482 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- vimpal-1.1.0-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iGFxTkBllL&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891438] Review Request: openshift-origin-msg-common - Common msg components for OpenShift
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891438 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-01-14 21:20:14 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PGSEogF8Kl&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876043] Review Request: xfce-theme-manager - A theme manager for Xfce
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876043 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- xfce-theme-manager-0.2.3-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mXo9udmyH9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 876043] Review Request: xfce-theme-manager - A theme manager for Xfce
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876043 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- xfce-theme-manager-0.2.3-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6Ti6Jl1mBf&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823332] Review Request: rubygem-mixlib-log - Ruby mixin for simple log functionality
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823332 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-mixlib-log-1.4.1-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CvZxlJdfyn&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823332] Review Request: rubygem-mixlib-log - Ruby mixin for simple log functionality
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823332 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dgfFKecyI4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823334] Review Request: rubygem-mixlib-config - class-based config mixin for ruby scripts
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823334 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-mixlib-config-1.1.2-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zgI0KjUKHM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891436] Review Request: lua-markdown - Markdown module for Lua
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891436 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- lua-markdown-0.32-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=A537Y3zTaW&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Ph6wqqPFHq&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891436] Review Request: lua-markdown - Markdown module for Lua
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891436 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-01-14 21:21:22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ze99zpR5sX&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 Bug 889901 depends on bug 891436, which changed state. Bug 891436 Summary: Review Request: lua-markdown - Markdown module for Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891436 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RMOvytevI4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823333] Review Request: rubygem-mixlib-cli - a ruby gem mixin for CLI support, including option parsing
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=82 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-mixlib-cli-1.2.2-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=M1Au742Vp4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823333] Review Request: rubygem-mixlib-cli - a ruby gem mixin for CLI support, including option parsing
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=82 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=v5IKh5T74P&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 890828] Review Request: perl-Math-Expression-Evaluator - Parses, compiles and evaluates mathematics expressions
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890828 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Math-Expression-Evaluator-0.3.2-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2L1Zgvje4T&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 890828] Review Request: perl-Math-Expression-Evaluator - Parses, compiles and evaluates mathematics expressions
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890828 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=E12NuZRQrZ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 823334] Review Request: rubygem-mixlib-config - class-based config mixin for ruby scripts
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823334 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xkThtWzRB1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 890482] Review Request: vimpal - Separate application providing a file tree for VIM
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890482 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- vimpal-1.1.0-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wjfPzzAdTI&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 890482] Review Request: vimpal - Separate application providing a file tree for VIM
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=890482 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-01-14 21:22:50 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LbaFt0ICya&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- Package non-daw-1.1.0-0.1.gitae6b78cf.fc17: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing non-daw-1.1.0-0.1.gitae6b78cf.fc17' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0798/non-daw-1.1.0-0.1.gitae6b78cf.fc17 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yAQ5nq3dsV&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891996] Review Request: lua-ldoc - Lua documentation generator
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891996 Bug 891996 depends on bug 891436, which changed state. Bug 891436 Summary: Review Request: lua-markdown - Markdown module for Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891436 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=11LGZxZK96&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891436] Review Request: lua-markdown - Markdown module for Lua
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891436 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- lua-markdown-0.32-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=A6keNQ5bcG&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891438] Review Request: openshift-origin-msg-common - Common msg components for OpenShift
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891438 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- openshift-origin-msg-common-1.0.3-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1udoNvOAfb&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891182] nodejs-chownr - Like `chown -R`
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891182 --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok --- Seems like Isaac added the LICENSE file to the tarball without rising the version number. Please redownload the source. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WcEt6c5Wkg&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894881] Review Request: python-power - Cross-platform system power status information
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894881 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-power Short Description: Cross-platform system power status information Owners: churchyard Branches: f17 f18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=r4A9oplqNx&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894881] Review Request: python-power - Cross-platform system power status information
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894881 --- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok --- (In reply to comment #4) > Resolution: APPROVED Thanks. > I don't see any tests in the package, but please verify that upstream does > not offer test cases elsewhere. If they do, they should be run during > %check. I don't think so. > - This package does not ship a LICENSE file. > > Ask upstream to include one in a future release. Done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=R4EYVxWvtM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 867159] Review Request: zabbix20 - Open-source monitoring solution for your IT infrastructure
Product: Fedora EPEL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867159 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Volker Fröhlich --- Package Change Request == Package Name: zabbix20 New Branches: el5 Owners: volter sharkcz InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ac0GJq6tg9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894609] Review Request: coin-or-OS - Optimization Services
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894609 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to run make check (#894610#c4). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-OS.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-OS-2.6.0-4.fc19.src.rpm Actually does not run make check, as noted in the spec, because it will core dump due to missing libhsl.so, and is the same issue as https://projects.coin-or.org/Ipopt/ticket/75 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bXNtJIYPyR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894608] Review Request: coin-or-SYMPHONY - Solver for mixed-integer linear programs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894608 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-SYMPHONY.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-SYMPHONY-5.4.6-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XtLZjga2eK&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894606] Review Request: coin-or-Couenne -Couenne, an exact solver for nonconvex MINLPs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894606 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to run make check (#894610#c4). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Couenne.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Couenne-0.4.3-4.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Xo3S8ssFIk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893566] Review Request: tagainijisho - A free Japanese dictionary and study assistant
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893566 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sourada --- Thanks for picking it up. I've added the BRs and removed (in prep section) the bundled sqlite. This time to be sure I haven't missed any BRs I ran a scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4868822 New SPEC: http://mso.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/tagainijisho.spec New SRPM: http://mso.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/tagainijisho-0.9.4-2.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AQT5o2OxOR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894605] Review Request: coin-or-Bonmin - Basic Open-source Nonlinear Mixed INteger programming
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894605 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to run make check (#894610#c4). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Bonmin.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Bonmin-1.6.0-4.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PIXiQ6j1u4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894604] Review Request: coin-or-Ipopt - Interior Point OPTimizer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894604 --- Comment #3 from Paulo Andrade --- Sorry, also bad cut&paste, the changelog is: - Update to latest upstream release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1gUvX2dzrU&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891199] nodejs-lockfile - A very polite lock file utility
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891199
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer ---
Package is approved.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- EL5isms, not blocking
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
a
[Bug 894604] Review Request: coin-or-Ipopt - Interior Point OPTimizer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894604 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to run make check (#894610#c4). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Ipopt.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-coin-or-Ipopt-3.10.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Actually, as noted in the spec, does not run make check: https://projects.coin-or.org/Ipopt/ticket/75 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kw74nrAQ8s&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894603] Review Request: coin-or-FlopC++ - Algebraic modelling language
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894603 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to run make check (#894610#c4). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-FlopC++.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-FlopC++-1.1.2-4.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=C4FgTJoc8S&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to run make check (#894610#c4). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Dip.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Dip-0.83.2-4.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Iyhns9V9jZ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894722] Review Request: nodejs-traverse - Traverse and transform objects
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894722
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer ---
Package is almost good, just remove the spurious requires due to example,
and it should be good to be approved.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- rpmlint complain on spurious-executable-perm for doc file, this should be
fixed
- test to add later
- EL5isms
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 7 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[Bug 894600] Review Request: coin-or-cppad - A Package for Differentiation of C++ Algorithms
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894600 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-cppad.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-cppad-20130114-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eKugcfpJ1X&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894722] Review Request: nodejs-traverse - Traverse and transform objects
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894722 Michael Scherer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Z0K8SVW9aJ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894599] Review Request: coin-or-CoinMP - C-API interface to CLP, CBC and CGL
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894599 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to run make check (#894610#c4). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-CoinMP.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-CoinMP-1.6.0-4.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=al6jcbQ8kv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894598] Review Request: coin-or-DyLP - Implementation of the dynamic simplex algorithm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894598 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to run make check (#894610#c4). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-DyLP.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-DyLP-1.8.3-4.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Zm9tUcKJML&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894597] Review Request: coin-or-Cbc - Coin-or branch and cut
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894597 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Cbc.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Cbc-2.7.8-4.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nEe5qKmhQl&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865116] Review Request: inih-devel - small C INI parsing library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865116 --- Comment #7 from Lukas Zapletal --- Sorry for the delay. """ Um, there's little reason to include static libraries in -debuginfo packages, as static libraries always contain the needed symbols to get a backtrace, and are (or at least were on ~RHL9 time frame) including debugging info in the *.a files. """ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=209316 Turning off debuginfo as it does not make any sense, or "little". I tried to find more info about that, but could not find anything relevant. >Wouldn't it be more future-proof to name the src.rpm "inih"? I understand, but I have to follow "Packaging Static Libraries". Or did I misinterpret something? Summary fixed. https://github.com/lzap/spec_reviews/commit/2c75164318d9bd69519f60123afd0847c161b1e0 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4868819 Please ping me if you want to proceed with the formal review and I will upload SPEC/SRPM files. Thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=guqEYXl7yi&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894596] Review Request: coin-or-Blis - BLIS (BiCePS Linear Integer Solver)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894596 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to run make check (#894610#c4). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Blis.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Blis-0.93.3-4.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iEacsNvrGX&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894594] Review Request: coin-or-Bcp - Branch-Cut-Price Framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894594 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to run make check (#894610#c4). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Bcp.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Bcp-1.3.4-4.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Av5XdCCvql&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894593] Review Request: coin-or-Vol - Vol (Volume Algorithm)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894593 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to run make check (#894610#c4). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Vol.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Vol-1.3.3-4.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZuBHteNvIT&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894591] Review Request: coin-or-Bcps - Part of the COIN High Performance Parallel Search Framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894591 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to run make check (#894610#c4). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Bcps.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Bcps-0.93.4-4.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NqUHabmbhX&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894727] Review Request: nodejs-yamlish - Parser/encoder for the yamlish format
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894727
Michael Scherer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||m...@zarb.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer ---
package is approved, there is no blocker.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Should ask to the upstream to ship the LICENSE ( as usual )
- tests :)
- EL5-ims
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[!]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global
[Bug 894589] Review Request: coin-or-Alps - COIN-OR High-Performance Parallel Search Framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894589 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to run make check (#894610#c4). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Alps.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Alps-1.4.2-4.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8m5747eoIK&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894588] Review Request: coin-or-Cgl - Cut Generation Library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894588 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Cgl.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Cgl-0.57.4-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nrJXFn5DhB&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 895226] New: python-django-grappelli
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895226 Bug ID: 895226 Summary: python-django-grappelli Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: bazanlui...@gmail.com Description Grappelli is a grid-based alternative/extension to the Django administration interface. SPEC: http://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-django-grappelli.spec SRPMS: http://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-django-grappelli-2.4.3-3.fc17.src.rpm $ rpmlint -i -v * python-django-grappelli.noarch: I: checking python-django-grappelli.noarch: I: checking-url https://github.com/sehmaschine/django-grappelli (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint -v python-django-grappelli.spec python-django-grappelli.spec: I: checking-url http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/django-grappelli/django-grappelli-2.4.3.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kmlZfDgO00&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 895077] Review Request: python-docopt - Pythonic argument parser, that will make you smile
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895077 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter --- Just some quick comments: - %dos are missing (e.g. LICENSE-MIT, README.md) - The %description and the %summary needs some tweaking. At the moment both are not very useful. - There is no *.egg-info file in the upstream tarball. I would suggest to leave it in place. You never know what will happen in the future. - There is an folder with examples. Perhaps it's worth to pack those files. The 'review' flag should be set by the reviewer and not the reporter. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nuhReVk496&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894587] Review Request: coin-or-Clp - Coin-or linear programming
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894587 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Clp.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Clp-1.14.8-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dwCspu8r7M&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798071] Review Request: fedora-arm-installer - Writes binary image files to any specified block device
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798071 --- Comment #16 from Jon Chiappetta --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: fedora-arm-installer Short Description: Allows an average user to easily install and create bootable ARM software on SD card media. Owners: fossjon Branches: f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wXnY1Bllka&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798071] Review Request: fedora-arm-installer - Writes binary image files to any specified block device
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798071 Jon Chiappetta changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=J4SjZZ332J&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894338] Review Request: libdistorm - A lightweight, easy-to-use and fast disassembler/decomposer library for x86/AMD64
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338 --- Comment #12 from Michael Schwendt --- Then I'll silently wait for public activity/progress in this ticket and add my comments. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NMLrtlceXy&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894586] Review Request: coin-or-Osi - COIN-OR Open Solver Interface Library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894586 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Osi.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-coin-or-Osi-0.105.7-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Sicl4ZLS3O&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874980] Review Request: chicken - A compiler for the Scheme programming language
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874980
--- Comment #13 from Alec Leamas ---
PS. I forgot 'fix %{optflags}' in the summary. I bet you didn't make the same
miss, but just in case... DS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XxlFZnDHvH&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894338] Review Request: libdistorm - A lightweight, easy-to-use and fast disassembler/decomposer library for x86/AMD64
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #11 from Ramon de C Valle ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> > Or maybe you're contradicting yourself or not being clear enough.
>
> Not at all. Eric will be able to explain it to you, because it is his review
> you misunderstood to begin with.
>
>
> > "...it doesn't happen for the "silently" updated Spec file anymore
>
> I've downloaded _two_ src.rpms from this ticket, and the second one still
> was suffering from the same problem. If you continue to publish updates
> silently in an attempt to fix issues reported to you, you need to accept
> that reviewers still refer to older files:
Maybe this is because I'm working with Eric to resolve the issues reported?
Until now you haven't annouced yourself as a reviewer nor as a possible
sponsor, so don't expect notifications or anything made specially for you.
>
> $ md5sum libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm
> beac57444a21349c4a65c76f0e81cebc libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm
> Build Date: Mon 14 Jan 2013 05:26:20 PM CET
>
> That's why it's common practice to update the Release tag *and* to maintain
> a %changelog section in the spec file.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes
I wouldn't change it or add a changelog entry until the package is ready for
the initial release.
>
>
> > Why is it better than:
> >
> > rm -fr %{_builddir}/distorm3
> > unzip %{SOURCE0}
> > %setup -q -n distorm3/make/linux -D -T
>
> Nobody claimed anything would be "better". I only pointed out that your
> %prep section didn't work well and suggested a cleaner working one. Your
> latest one still isn't pretty, and the top builddir is still not related to
> %name-%version, but if it works and if you like it so much, nobody would
> object. ;-)
>
>
> What's the status of the package here now?
If you are going to review it, the latest version was just "silently" uploaded.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5lpJDWbKuk&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894585] Review Request: coin-or-CoinUtils - Coin-or Utilities
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894585 Paulo Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||894610 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade --- Update: - Add coin-or-Sample to build requires (#894610#c4). - Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-CoinUtils.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-CoinUtils-2.8.8-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7WkD1GfsYS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894610] Review Request: coin-or-Sample - Coin-or Sample
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894610 Paulo Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||894585 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1m9S6yxAxk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874980] Review Request: chicken - A compiler for the Scheme programming language
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874980
--- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas ---
Hi Ngo! Nice to hear from you (back from New Year celebrations?)
We have settled the first issue, the links.
As for the LICENSE, the fact that it's mentioned in the LICENSE file isn't
enough to get it included; e. g., licenses for test files which are not part of
package should not be included the in License: tag. Furthermore, if multiple
licenses are indeed used as you propose you must somehow provide a license
break-down. [1]
The static archive and package is removed. Fine with me, I assume you have
checked that it wasn't essential for using the thing.
Although the changelog states that you have coped with %{optflags} I cannot see
that it's used. On the contrary, an example compilaton in the log is like
gcc -L. -shared -Wl,-R"/usr/lib" srfi-13.import.o -o srfi-13.import.so \
-lchicken \
-lm -ldl
Here you have at least two problems: the %{optflags} are missing, and here is
also the reason for the bad rpath (see below).
As a starter, you could try adding export CFLAGS="%{optflags}" before the
'make'. It might be enough to include %{optflags}. Use "rpm --eval %optflags"
to see what optflags really is, and compare with the build logs to see that
they are in effect.
The rpath is trickier, you will need to patch the build script to get rid of
that. Run rpmlint yourself, and look for lines like "chicken.i686: E:
binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/csc ['/usr/lib']". You must get rid of
those, period.
The -devel package solves the libchicken.so and /usr/include files nicely.
The -doc package is still arched i. e., it's missing Arch: noarch tag. Just add
that to the subpackage (to avoid generating different docs for
i386/x86_64/arm).
Please change %doc %{_mandir}/man1/cs?.1.gz to %doc %{_mandir}/man1/cs?.1.* -
rumor is that gz some day will be replaced w something else.
If you make something like rpm -q --provides -p you will see
(excerpt)
chicken:
chicken
chicken(x86-32)
chicken.import.so
csi.import.so
data-structures.import.so
extras.import.so
files.import.so
foreign.import.so
irregex.import.so
libchicken.so.6
The problem here is that almost all of these libraries are private and not
meant to be used by others. But since they are in the Provides: list, other
packages might (and thus eventually will) link to them causing all sorts of
troubles e. g. when upgrading. To avoid this you must filter these Provides: as
described in links in comment #6.
This is actually a mess. Perhaps example in [2] could be useful, don't know.
Summary:
- Fix the rpath
- Filter the Provides:
- Either provide a license break-down if needed, or use a single
license if this is the outcome of your break-down work.
- Fix noarch docs,
- Fix.* manpage in %files,
Don't hesitate to ask! I'm here to help you :)
[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
[2] http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/spotify/0.8.8/spotify-client.spec
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4yEOl42ZaH&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894338] Review Request: libdistorm - A lightweight, easy-to-use and fast disassembler/decomposer library for x86/AMD64
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt ---
> Or maybe you're contradicting yourself or not being clear enough.
Not at all. Eric will be able to explain it to you, because it is his review
you misunderstood to begin with.
> "...it doesn't happen for the "silently" updated Spec file anymore
I've downloaded _two_ src.rpms from this ticket, and the second one still was
suffering from the same problem. If you continue to publish updates silently in
an attempt to fix issues reported to you, you need to accept that reviewers
still refer to older files:
$ md5sum libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm
beac57444a21349c4a65c76f0e81cebc libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm
Build Date: Mon 14 Jan 2013 05:26:20 PM CET
That's why it's common practice to update the Release tag *and* to maintain a
%changelog section in the spec file.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes
> Why is it better than:
>
> rm -fr %{_builddir}/distorm3
> unzip %{SOURCE0}
> %setup -q -n distorm3/make/linux -D -T
Nobody claimed anything would be "better". I only pointed out that your %prep
section didn't work well and suggested a cleaner working one. Your latest one
still isn't pretty, and the top builddir is still not related to
%name-%version, but if it works and if you like it so much, nobody would
object. ;-)
What's the status of the package here now?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OHB37c0aQU&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894338] Review Request: libdistorm - A lightweight, easy-to-use and fast disassembler/decomposer library for x86/AMD64
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #9 from Ramon de C Valle ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > And even before I updated it, none of the resulting packages were empty.
>
> You still misunderstand it then.
Or maybe you're contradicting yourself or not being clear enough.
>
>
> > Just type "A".
>
> Interactive builds are not acceptable.
Quoting myself from the previous comment:
"...it doesn't happen for the "silently" updated Spec file anymore because I
added the lines for removing the unpacked sources from previous builds, if
any."
>
>
> > Can you enumerate which "weird" things I do on prep?
>
> 1) not starting in a clean/empty builddir
> 2) not building in a %{name}-%{version} namespace dir like thousands of
> other packages
> 3) unzipping the source manually instead of using %setup for that
> 4) waiting for keyboard input because of 1)
For 1 and 4 see my above answer, for 2 and 3, see below.
>
>
> > Btw, are you planning helping with anything?
>
> Depends on whether you are willing to learn. At least you've started asking
> questions. That's good. I would use this %prep section, which solves all the
> problems in your one:
>
> %prep
> %setup -q -c %{name}-%{version}
> %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}/distorm3/make/linux -D -T
It seems redundant and also unnecessarily uses the %setup macro twice. Why is
it better than:
rm -fr %{_builddir}/distorm3
unzip %{SOURCE0}
%setup -q -n distorm3/make/linux -D -T
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZQsuBc5rur&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894610] Review Request: coin-or-Sample - Coin-or Sample
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894610 --- Comment #5 from Paulo Andrade --- (In reply to comment #4) > After consulting with Red Hat Legal, since these files only contain > mathematical formulas, it is safe to treat them as being in the Public > Domain. > > Mark this package as: > > License: Public Domain > > Lifting FE-Legal. Thanks! Updated package: Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Sample.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Sample-1.2.3-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Qqy16xlA6l&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 895149] Review Request: qtchooser - Qt Chooser
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895149 --- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter --- For anyone curious, my (1) footnote was largely for Kevin's comment #1 which I knew was coming. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0un81jCwEP&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 878188] Review Request: qt5-qtbase - Qt5 - QtBase components
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878188 --- Comment #17 from Rex Dieter --- the -qt5 postfix stuff can mostly coexist with qtchooser, and i've been brainstorming ideas on how to make it even less intrusive if needed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=z2NYunmkIA&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894338] Review Request: libdistorm - A lightweight, easy-to-use and fast disassembler/decomposer library for x86/AMD64
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt ---
> And even before I updated it, none of the resulting packages were empty.
You still misunderstand it then.
> Just type "A".
Interactive builds are not acceptable.
> Can you enumerate which "weird" things I do on prep?
1) not starting in a clean/empty builddir
2) not building in a %{name}-%{version} namespace dir like thousands of other
packages
3) unzipping the source manually instead of using %setup for that
4) waiting for keyboard input because of 1)
> Btw, are you planning helping with anything?
Depends on whether you are willing to learn. At least you've started asking
questions. That's good. I would use this %prep section, which solves all the
problems in your one:
%prep
%setup -q -c %{name}-%{version}
%setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}/distorm3/make/linux -D -T
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4elh6dySjm&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894610] Review Request: coin-or-Sample - Coin-or Sample
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894610 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #4 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- After consulting with Red Hat Legal, since these files only contain mathematical formulas, it is safe to treat them as being in the Public Domain. Mark this package as: License: Public Domain Lifting FE-Legal. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ts73o6Aq8K&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894338] Review Request: libdistorm - A lightweight, easy-to-use and fast disassembler/decomposer library for x86/AMD64
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338 --- Comment #7 from Ramon de C Valle --- (In reply to comment #6) > That can only be because you misunderstand Eric's review in comment 1 and my > comment 2. > > More slowly then, okay. From comment 1, where fedora-review reported this > packaging failure: > > [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. >Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. > > This is a false positive. You could not move /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so to > the -devel package, because it is the only file in the base package. And it > is a run-time library, not a development file. > > [...] > > I see you've updated the spec file silently. Please bump the "Release" > version when you do that, and maintain the %changelog section, too. I didn't updated it "silently". I'm working with Eric and notified him about the update. And even before I updated it, none of the resulting packages were empty. > > The updated src.rpm still suffers from several issues. What you've changed > silently with regard to the shared library doesn't make sense. > > Do run "rpmlint -i" on both the src.rpm and the built rpms. Also try a > simple "rpmbuild --rebuild" with your src.rpm. It cannot be built more than > once because of the weird things you do in %prep: > > $ rpmbuild --rebuild libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm > Installing libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm > warning: user rcvalle does not exist - using root > warning: group rcvalle does not exist - using root > warning: user rcvalle does not exist - using root > warning: group rcvalle does not exist - using root > Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /home/ms18b/tmp/rpm/tmp/rpm-tmp.lelXoK > + umask 022 > + cd /home/ms18b/tmp/rpm/BUILD > + unzip /home/ms18b/tmp/rpm/SOURCES/libdistorm-3.3/distorm3.zip > Archive: /home/ms18b/tmp/rpm/SOURCES/libdistorm-3.3/distorm3.zip > replace distorm3/COPYING? [y]es, [n]o, [A]ll, [N]one, [r]ename: > ^C Just type "A". In addition, it doesn't happen for the "silently" updated Spec file anymore because I added the lines for removing the unpacked sources from previous builds, if any. Can you enumerate which "weird" things I do on prep? Btw, are you planning helping with anything? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HGpNivU4eC&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 891213] nodejs-npmlog - Logger for npm
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891213
Stephen Gallagher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||sgall...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sgall...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
Flags||needinfo?(tchollingsworth@g
||mail.com)
--- Comment #2 from Stephen Gallagher ---
tl;dr: There's a dangling symlink:
nodejs-npmlog.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/npmlog/node_modules/ansi /usr/lib/node_modules/ansi
Fix that and I'll approve this package.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[ ]: Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[ ]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin
[Bug 846488] Review Request: babeltrace - Trace Viewer and Converter, mainly for the Common Trace Format
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846488 --- Comment #10 from Yannick Brosseau --- (In reply to comment #8) > A few things. You have the same file being owned my multiple packages. > > You only need to include the license file once if a package that it is > provided by a parent package. > > Use %doc in the main package and then remove them from the sub-packages. As > long as the license files are present for every possibly combination of > installed packages. > %doc LICENSE gpl-2.0.txt mit-license.txt ChangeLog > in only the main babeltrace and libbabeltrace packages. > You could then drop the /usr/share/doc/babeltrace directory altogether. From what I understand, I cannot do that, because these documentation files are installed by the make install of the upstream package. %doc seems to be used if you have non installed file that you want to add to the package. > You should also run the binary generated under tests in the %check section The make check entry is running the test normally. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LR87lrLGdP&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874980] Review Request: chicken - A compiler for the Scheme programming language
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874980 --- Comment #11 from Minh Ngo --- have removed static lib have created a devel package SPEC: https://raw.github.com/Ignotus/fedora-packages/80fa8eb7ac1d5cfd75396b885652d07614563aec/chicken/chicken.spec SRPM: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/72m0w26j72nl9jp/chicken-4.7.0.6-2.fc17.src.rpm?dl=1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WYIJEOgnxu&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894338] Review Request: libdistorm - A lightweight, easy-to-use and fast disassembler/decomposer library for x86/AMD64
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mschwe...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt --- That can only be because you misunderstand Eric's review in comment 1 and my comment 2. More slowly then, okay. From comment 1, where fedora-review reported this packaging failure: [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. This is a false positive. You could not move /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so to the -devel package, because it is the only file in the base package. And it is a run-time library, not a development file. [...] I see you've updated the spec file silently. Please bump the "Release" version when you do that, and maintain the %changelog section, too. The updated src.rpm still suffers from several issues. What you've changed silently with regard to the shared library doesn't make sense. Do run "rpmlint -i" on both the src.rpm and the built rpms. Also try a simple "rpmbuild --rebuild" with your src.rpm. It cannot be built more than once because of the weird things you do in %prep: $ rpmbuild --rebuild libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm Installing libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm warning: user rcvalle does not exist - using root warning: group rcvalle does not exist - using root warning: user rcvalle does not exist - using root warning: group rcvalle does not exist - using root Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /home/ms18b/tmp/rpm/tmp/rpm-tmp.lelXoK + umask 022 + cd /home/ms18b/tmp/rpm/BUILD + unzip /home/ms18b/tmp/rpm/SOURCES/libdistorm-3.3/distorm3.zip Archive: /home/ms18b/tmp/rpm/SOURCES/libdistorm-3.3/distorm3.zip replace distorm3/COPYING? [y]es, [n]o, [A]ll, [N]one, [r]ename: ^C -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=I5GBwCTqOH&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894338] Review Request: libdistorm - A lightweight, easy-to-use and fast disassembler/decomposer library for x86/AMD64
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338 --- Comment #5 from Ramon de C Valle --- I don't see any empty packages in your demo. (In reply to comment #4) > $ rpmls -p libdistorm-devel-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm > -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/distorm.h > -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/mnemonics.h > > $ rpmls -p libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm > -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so > > qed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9tNQ9sd0GJ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894881] Review Request: python-power - Cross-platform system power status information
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894881
T.C. Hollingsworth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from T.C. Hollingsworth ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Resolution: APPROVED
Things to Consider
- This package does not contain a %check section.
I don't see any tests in the package, but please verify that upstream does
not offer test cases elsewhere. If they do, they should be run during
%check.
- This package does not ship a LICENSE file.
Ask upstream to include one in a future release.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/fedora/patches/894881-python-power/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[?]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Pa
[Bug 891215] nodejs-npm-registry-client - Client for the npm registry
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891215 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zZbU2X5Vwf&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851805] Review Request: compiz-plugins-unsupported - Additional plugins for Compiz
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851805 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lWyih3wqD3&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 893200] Review Request: valyriatear - Valyria Tear is a free 2D J-RPG based on the Hero of Allacrost engine
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893200 --- Comment #2 from Erik Schilling --- The issue with luabind is fixed now. New SRPM/Specfile with fixed new lua: SRPM http://ablu.fedorapeople.org/valyriatear-0.5.0-0.2rc2.fc17.src.rpm Specfile: http://ablu.fedorapeople.org/valyriatear.spec Use this update for review: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/luabind-0.9.1-5.fc18 Regards Erik -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Nti75W0NBb&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851805] Review Request: compiz-plugins-unsupported - Additional plugins for Compiz
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851805 Wolfgang Ulbrich changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Wolfgang Ulbrich --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: compiz-plugins-unsupported Short Description: Additional plugins for Compiz Owners: raveit65 Branches: f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Q629f8IhKk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785486] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Text-Filter - Horde Text Filter API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785486 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||895184 ||(Text_Filter_Csstidy) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ETCbE8K56k&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 895184] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Text-Filter-Csstidy - Horde Text Filter API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895184 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added CC||n...@fedoraproject.org Depends On||785486 (horde-text-filter) Alias||Text_Filter_Csstidy -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fOcNVf6XLh&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 895184] New: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Text-Filter-Csstidy - Horde Text Filter API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895184 Bug ID: 895184 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-Text-Filter-Csstidy - Horde Text Filter API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/059dfdbaeddd714d460e90f9390ea28d3a43dc91/php/horde/php-horde-Horde-Text-Filter-Csstidy/php-horde-Horde-Text-Filter-Csstidy.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-horde-Horde-Text-Filter-Csstidy-2.0.1-1.remi.src.rpm Description: The Horde_Text_Filter_Csstidy:: class provides the PHP-based library needed to perform optimization/compression on CSS code. It is provided in a separate package as the code is under the GPLv2 license instead of the LGPLv2 license used for the Text_Filter class. Fedora Account System Username: remi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nWLMhaRnqO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894338] Review Request: libdistorm - A lightweight, easy-to-use and fast disassembler/decomposer library for x86/AMD64
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338 --- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt --- $ rpmls -p libdistorm-devel-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/distorm.h -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/mnemonics.h $ rpmls -p libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so qed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JpNEg05NuK&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874980] Review Request: chicken - A compiler for the Scheme programming language
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874980 --- Comment #10 from Minh Ngo --- What about licenses. Look in the LICENSE file. Line 239 - GPL Line 1 - BSD Line 12 - Seems like MIT license -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6ZaQYc4RTb&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874980] Review Request: chicken - A compiler for the Scheme programming language
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874980 --- Comment #9 from Minh Ngo --- Oh, I'm sorry, You have told about SRPM archive :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QNBYaNGeuV&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874980] Review Request: chicken - A compiler for the Scheme programming language
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874980 --- Comment #8 from Minh Ngo --- To Alec: [ignotus@laptop chicken]$ wget http://code.call-cc.org/stability/4.7.0/chicken-4.7.0.6.tar.gz --2013-01-14 20:37:10-- http://code.call-cc.org/stability/4.7.0/chicken-4.7.0.6.tar.gz Resolving code.call-cc.org (code.call-cc.org)... 209.172.33.78 Connecting to code.call-cc.org (code.call-cc.org)|209.172.33.78|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 3425028 (3.3M) [application/x-gzip] Saving to: `chicken-4.7.0.6.tar.gz' I can download an archive by this URL. Please check on your side again -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NyKC25fPCk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
