[Bug 838780] Review Request: ghc-shakespeare-text - Interpolation with quasi-quotation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838780 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-shakespeare-text-1.0.0.5-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-shakespeare-text-1.0.0.5-1.fc19 -- 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=PwnAHcZcS0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838780] Review Request: ghc-shakespeare-text - Interpolation with quasi-quotation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838780 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-shakespeare-text-1.0.0.5-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-shakespeare-text-1.0.0.5-1.fc18 -- 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=92DytQ6CvIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838780] Review Request: ghc-shakespeare-text - Interpolation with quasi-quotation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838780 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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=0mfZZNX5u3a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 974720] Review Request: ghc-SafeSemaphore - Much safer replacement for QSemN, QSem, and SampleVar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974720 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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=n4Oj7moWoaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 974720] Review Request: ghc-SafeSemaphore - Much safer replacement for QSemN, QSem, and SampleVar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974720 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-SafeSemaphore-0.9.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-SafeSemaphore-0.9.0-1.fc19 -- 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=6IZ2amzeLna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 974720] Review Request: ghc-SafeSemaphore - Much safer replacement for QSemN, QSem, and SampleVar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974720 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-SafeSemaphore-0.9.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-SafeSemaphore-0.9.0-1.fc18 -- 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=wZX1keGxsPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894413] Review Request: davmail - DavMail is a POP/IMAP/SMTP/Caldav/Carddav/LDAP gateway for Microsoft Exchange
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413 --- Comment #20 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- there seems to be an srconly tarball which does not bundle any libraries. maybe we can work from there. -- 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=RuGEEGdbsKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968338] Review Request: trilead-putty-extension - Extension to trilead-ssh2 for handling PuTTY keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968338 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-06-24 03:39:20 --- Comment #5 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review and the repository. This package is now in Rawhide. Closing. -- 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=Vz4Xh9C1jya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894413] Review Request: davmail - DavMail is a POP/IMAP/SMTP/Caldav/Carddav/LDAP gateway for Microsoft Exchange
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413 --- Comment #21 from marcin.du...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Marcel Wysocki from comment #20) there seems to be an srconly tarball which does not bundle any libraries. maybe we can work from there. See bug #894413 comment #15 - i have a spec based on scronly working, it just requires polishing. If nobody objects i will create a patch that is based on bug #894413 as orig and incorporates my changes. I have also a general comment for packaging: we should profit from debian peoples work and original spec distributed upstream by davmail (i based on it) and not try make one from scratch. -- 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=2HeWGPjKVza=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976776] Review Request: jboss-jms-2.0-api - JBoss JMS API 2.0 Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976776 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- Thanks for review! I'll fix the address. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-jms-2.0-api Short Description: JBoss JMS API 2.0 Spec Owners: goldmann -- 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=ZBpsjrQaRia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894413] Review Request: davmail - DavMail is a POP/IMAP/SMTP/Caldav/Carddav/LDAP gateway for Microsoft Exchange
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413 --- Comment #22 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Marcel Wysocki from comment #20) there seems to be an srconly tarball which does not bundle any libraries. maybe we can work from there. Seems to be a good idea. (In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #21) See bug #894413 comment #15 - i have a spec based on scronly working, it just requires polishing. Another good point to start further process. If nobody objects i will create a patch that is based on bug #894413 as orig and incorporates my changes. OK, so just attach your patch to this bug, so we can start discussing about. I have also a general comment for packaging: we should profit from debian peoples work and original spec distributed upstream by davmail (i based on it) and not try make one from scratch. There are some nice patches from debian avail, esp. unbundling libs.jar and removing unneeded libgrowl. I think starting a three-way-merge from existing spec, Marcin's spec and upstream's spec will give us some solid base to build-up from here. -- 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=9eIvKjYl9ea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 971103] Review Request: bsd-mailx - Simple mail user agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103 --- Comment #22 from Peter Schiffer pschi...@redhat.com --- Fixed. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15321270/bsd-mailx.spec https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15321270/bsd-mailx-8.1.2-3.el6.src.rpm peter -- 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=2NUvIbfODDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976886] Review Request: python-ase - Atomic Simulation Environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976886
--- Comment #9 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #5)
should build on el5 now. I assume this will happen on EPEL, so numpy will
be available?
Yes, numpy is in EPEL for el5 and offered from official Repo on el6+
I see also that the macros %dist, %rhel, %el5 are provided
on el5 by buildsys-macros, and this package is not installed by default,
so i tried to make some workarounds - is buildsys-macros installed on EPEL?
# buildsys-macros on el5 provides %%dist, %%rhel, %%el5
%{!?dist: %global el5 1}
%{!?dist: %global rhel 5}
%{!?dist: %global dist .el5}
Not needed: `buildsys-macros` are avail during koji-build, so there's no need
for a hack. On el5 there should be a group called `RPM Development Tools` or
similar which pulles `buildsys-macros`, rpmbuild and other needed packages.
Simply installing `rpm-build` isn't enough. On Fedora it's the same, btw,
`rpm-build` is not pulling `redhat-rpm-config`, which is needed for some proper
macro-defines, too.
# macros undefined on el5
%if 0%{?el5}
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib()))}
%{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1)))}
%endif
There's no need for explicit conditional on el5 here. %python_sitearch is not
needed, too. So just keeping the plain python_sitelib-expansion will do.
#
| %if 0%{?rhel} 0%{?rhel} = 6
| Requires: pygtk2
| %endif
Just using `%if 0%{?rhel} = 6` should be enough and will improve readability.
#
%fdupes is included now, but i see that %fdupes does not work on empty files:
rpm --eval %fdupes
So you can drop fdupes. Then it will be no use.
so only pyc-pyo are hard-linked.
These get hard-linked by rpmbuilb auto-bytecompile.
#
| desktop-file-install \
| --dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications \
| %if 0%{?el5}
| --vendor \
| %endif
| %{SOURCE1}
You can use expansion here, instead of conditional: `%{?el5:--vendor \}`
#
| %if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} = 6
| %{python_sitelib}/*.egg-info
| %endif
Same as above: `%{?!el5:%{python_sitelib}/*.egg-info}`
#
Is there a real need for an empty dir %{_datadir}/%{name} ?
#
Package is fine, besides the mentioned above.
#
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
--- ignored: texlive-dvipng-bin-svn is broken on rawhide, see:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-June/184366.html
Install went fine on F19
- update-desktop-database is invoked when required
Note: desktop file(s) in python-ase
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
--- false positive: no mime-type defined in desktop-file
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop
--- false positive: desktop-file-install is invoked correctly.
= 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.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
MIT/X11 (BSD like), LGPL (v2.1 or later), Unknown or generated. 402
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/976886-python-ase/licensecheck.txt
--- License-tag is fine
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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]:
[Bug 975339] Review Request: rubygem-gssapi - A FFI wrapper around the system GSSAPI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975339 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-gssapi-1.1.2-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-gssapi-1.1.2-1.fc19 -- 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=RjzzdTzUvwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975339] Review Request: rubygem-gssapi - A FFI wrapper around the system GSSAPI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975339 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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=SrCOvr6LEma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 975339] Review Request: rubygem-gssapi - A FFI wrapper around the system GSSAPI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975339 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-gssapi-1.1.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-gssapi-1.1.2-1.el6 -- 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=PLLxhQ75Isa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 927470] Review Request: python-genmsg - Python library for generating ROS message and service data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927470 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | 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=Qw8YJivrBaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 927470] Review Request: python-genmsg - Python library for generating ROS message and service data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927470 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=joUIsYOroGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 950682] Review Request: drupal7-file_entity_inline - Makes field entities editable within other entities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=950682 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6iJQ7KEghha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976776] Review Request: jboss-jms-2.0-api - JBoss JMS API 2.0 Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976776 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | 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=Rg4i8sceera=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 950682] Review Request: drupal7-file_entity_inline - Makes field entities editable within other entities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=950682 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | 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=3EJsYI83eva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976776] Review Request: jboss-jms-2.0-api - JBoss JMS API 2.0 Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976776 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=72zp7BRYCJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923543] Review Request: ghc-yesod-platform - Meta package for Yesod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923543 Bug 923543 depends on bug 923620, which changed state. Bug 923620 Summary: Review Request: ghc-monad-logger - A class of monads which can log messages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923620 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=vK0GRSGDTga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923620] Review Request: ghc-monad-logger - A class of monads which can log messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923620 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2013-06-24 06:10:51 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Closing out old Haskell Package Reviews that use deprecated macros like %ghc_devel_package, etc, which are no longer available in F20 Rawhide. Please update your package using cabal-rpm-0.8.x and re-open or file a new Review Request. Thanks! -- 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=FkPbsmZJC1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 925993] Review Request: ghc-yesod-core - Yesod core library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=925993 Bug 925993 depends on bug 923620, which changed state. Bug 923620 Summary: Review Request: ghc-monad-logger - A class of monads which can log messages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923620 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=UKZOpriJAQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923608] Review Request: ghc-utf8-light - Lightweight UTF8 handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923608 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|Ready | -- 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=1p1iuUS9Zra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923618] Review Request: ghc-mime-types - Basic mime-type handling types and functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923618 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|Ready | -- 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=bJZuPjor8ua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923574] Review Request: ghc-cipher-aes - Fast AES cipher implementation with advanced mode of operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923574 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|Ready | -- 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=vQtGmXSOOUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923569] Review Request: ghc-base64-conduit - Base64-encode and decode streams of bytes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923569 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|Ready | -- 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=ZugyIeiuySa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923558] Review Request: ghc-attoparsec-conduit - Consume attoparsec parsers via conduit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923558 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|Ready | -- 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=DhVHjFPz5ha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923578] Review Request: ghc-cookie - HTTP cookie parsing and rendering
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923578 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|Ready | --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- That was probably due to the ghc-7.6.3 rebuilds at that time. -- 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=tIWOPdahwBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923578] Review Request: ghc-cookie - HTTP cookie parsing and rendering
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923578 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_DEV |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2013-06-24 06:19:15 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Closing out old Haskell Package Reviews that use deprecated macros like %ghc_devel_package, etc, which are no longer available in F20 Rawhide. Please update your package using cabal-rpm-0.8.x or later and re-open or file a new Review Request. Thanks! -- 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=ICaSpOzIZva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 925993] Review Request: ghc-yesod-core - Yesod core library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=925993 Bug 925993 depends on bug 923578, which changed state. Bug 923578 Summary: Review Request: ghc-cookie - HTTP cookie parsing and rendering https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923578 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_DEV |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=XZsMLXh6uwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923543] Review Request: ghc-yesod-platform - Meta package for Yesod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923543 Bug 923543 depends on bug 923578, which changed state. Bug 923578 Summary: Review Request: ghc-cookie - HTTP cookie parsing and rendering https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923578 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_DEV |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=76ew3AhQ2oa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923557] Review Request: ghc-asn1-data - ASN1 data reader and writer in RAW, BER and DER forms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923557 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|Ready | -- 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=1OgjB5mrfla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 925993] Review Request: ghc-yesod-core - Yesod core library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=925993 Bug 925993 depends on bug 630276, which changed state. Bug 630276 Summary: Review Request: ghc-clientsession - Store session data in a cookie https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630276 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=z8lXD4h6Aoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923543] Review Request: ghc-yesod-platform - Meta package for Yesod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923543 Bug 923543 depends on bug 630302, which changed state. Bug 630302 Summary: Review Request: ghc-pureMD5 - MD5 implementations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630302 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=B3we9GicSMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923543] Review Request: ghc-yesod-platform - Meta package for Yesod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923543 Bug 923543 depends on bug 630279, which changed state. Bug 630279 Summary: Review Request: ghc-email-validate - Validating an email address string against RFC 5322 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630279 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=S2Rq4bAQGOa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923543] Review Request: ghc-yesod-platform - Meta package for Yesod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923543 Bug 923543 depends on bug 630273, which changed state. Bug 630273 Summary: Review Request: ghc-authenticate - Authentication methods for Haskell web applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630273 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=OZ8kJGBGxqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 786071] Review Request: ghc-feldspar-language - Functional Embedded Language for DSP and PARallelism
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=786071 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2013-06-24 06:25:33 --- Comment #12 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Closing out old Haskell Package Reviews that use deprecated macros like %ghc_devel_package, etc, which are no longer available in F20 Rawhide. Please update your package using cabal-rpm-0.8.x or later and re-open or file a new Review Request. Thanks! -- 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=x98u6ASwZJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923543] Review Request: ghc-yesod-platform - Meta package for Yesod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923543 Bug 923543 depends on bug 925993, which changed state. Bug 925993 Summary: Review Request: ghc-yesod-core - Yesod core library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=925993 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=cNyyxRCuATa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 925993] Review Request: ghc-yesod-core - Yesod core library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=925993 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2013-06-24 06:25:44 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Closing out old Haskell Package Reviews that use deprecated macros like %ghc_devel_package, etc, which are no longer available in F20 Rawhide. Please update your package using cabal-rpm-0.8.x or later and re-open or file a new Review Request. Thanks! -- 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=7e047R3FOxa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 974724] Review Request: ghc-haskell-lexer - A fully compliant Haskell 98 lexer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974724 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||Ready -- 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=bpCLXCRUmXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923543] Review Request: ghc-yesod-platform - Meta package for Yesod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923543 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2013-06-24 06:26:37 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Closing out old Haskell Package Reviews that use deprecated macros like %ghc_devel_package, etc, which are no longer available in F20 Rawhide. Please update your package using cabal-rpm-0.8.x or later and re-open or file a new Review Request. Thanks! -- 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=1E3AAYXS6da=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923543] Review Request: ghc-yesod-platform - Meta package for Yesod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923543 Bug 923543 depends on bug 662281, which changed state. Bug 662281 Summary: Review Request: ghc-file-embed - Use Template Haskell to embed file contents directly https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662281 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=PIlc9Yh0nNa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923543] Review Request: ghc-yesod-platform - Meta package for Yesod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923543 Bug 923543 depends on bug 630303, which changed state. Bug 630303 Summary: Review Request: yesod - Creation of type-safe, RESTful web applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630303 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=uiALh7HwAHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923543] Review Request: ghc-yesod-platform - Meta package for Yesod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923543 Bug 923543 depends on bug 923616, which changed state. Bug 923616 Summary: Review Request: ghc-mime-mail - Compose MIME email messages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923616 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=hTLizs4Wuka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923543] Review Request: ghc-yesod-platform - Meta package for Yesod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923543 Bug 923543 depends on bug 923622, which changed state. Bug 923622 Summary: Review Request: ghc-optparse-applicative - Utilities and combinators for parsing command line options https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923622 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=EmyloIIPlxa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923543] Review Request: ghc-yesod-platform - Meta package for Yesod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923543 Bug 923543 depends on bug 923604, which changed state. Bug 923604 Summary: Review Request: ghc-hspec-expectations - Catchy combinators for HUnit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923604 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=6AGAkFHEw4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923616] Review Request: ghc-mime-mail - Compose MIME email messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923616 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2013-06-24 06:30:28 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Closing out old Haskell Package Reviews that use deprecated macros like %ghc_devel_package, etc, which are no longer available in F20 Rawhide. Please update your package using cabal-rpm-0.8.x or later and re-open or file a new Review Request. Thanks! -- 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=e4Sv1WEHWea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923543] Review Request: ghc-yesod-platform - Meta package for Yesod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923543 Bug 923543 depends on bug 923574, which changed state. Bug 923574 Summary: Review Request: ghc-cipher-aes - Fast AES cipher implementation with advanced mode of operations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923574 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=TdX2jv2vpra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923543] Review Request: ghc-yesod-platform - Meta package for Yesod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923543 Bug 923543 depends on bug 923558, which changed state. Bug 923558 Summary: Review Request: ghc-attoparsec-conduit - Consume attoparsec parsers via conduit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923558 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=4ZWoKdIYjra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923569] Review Request: ghc-base64-conduit - Base64-encode and decode streams of bytes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923569 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2013-06-24 06:30:55 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Closing out old Haskell Package Reviews that use deprecated macros like %ghc_devel_package, etc, which are no longer available in F20 Rawhide. Please update your package using cabal-rpm-0.8.x or later and re-open or file a new Review Request. Thanks! -- 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=9LC1dVauRta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923574] Review Request: ghc-cipher-aes - Fast AES cipher implementation with advanced mode of operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923574 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2013-06-24 06:30:34 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Closing out old Haskell Package Reviews that use deprecated macros like %ghc_devel_package, etc, which are no longer available in F20 Rawhide. Please update your package using cabal-rpm-0.8.x or later and re-open or file a new Review Request. Thanks! -- 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=oGM7f8B1FBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923558] Review Request: ghc-attoparsec-conduit - Consume attoparsec parsers via conduit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923558 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2013-06-24 06:31:06 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Closing out old Haskell Package Reviews that use deprecated macros like %ghc_devel_package, etc, which are no longer available in F20 Rawhide. Please update your package using cabal-rpm-0.8.x or later and re-open or file a new Review Request. Thanks! -- 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=WrX0dWFQMBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923604] Review Request: ghc-hspec-expectations - Catchy combinators for HUnit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923604 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2013-06-24 06:31:14 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Closing out old Haskell Package Reviews that use deprecated macros like %ghc_devel_package, etc, which are no longer available in F20 Rawhide. Please update your package using cabal-rpm-0.8.x or later and re-open or file a new Review Request. Thanks! -- 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=SbhcjoDytla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923543] Review Request: ghc-yesod-platform - Meta package for Yesod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923543 Bug 923543 depends on bug 923569, which changed state. Bug 923569 Summary: Review Request: ghc-base64-conduit - Base64-encode and decode streams of bytes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923569 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=QsvfG2NEL6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923609] Review Request: ghc-language-javascript - Parser for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923609 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2013-06-24 06:30:49 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Closing out old Haskell Package Reviews that use deprecated macros like %ghc_devel_package, etc, which are no longer available in F20 Rawhide. Please update your package using cabal-rpm-0.8.x or later and re-open or file a new Review Request. Thanks! -- 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=SeS6VALGHba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923622] Review Request: ghc-optparse-applicative - Utilities and combinators for parsing command line options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923622 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2013-06-24 06:30:22 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Closing out old Haskell Package Reviews that use deprecated macros like %ghc_devel_package, etc, which are no longer available in F20 Rawhide. Please update your package using cabal-rpm-0.8.x or later and re-open or file a new Review Request. Thanks! -- 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=0W9tfbrfUla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923543] Review Request: ghc-yesod-platform - Meta package for Yesod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923543 Bug 923543 depends on bug 923609, which changed state. Bug 923609 Summary: Review Request: ghc-language-javascript - Parser for JavaScript https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923609 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- 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=BC5aQWk6tQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923608] Review Request: ghc-utf8-light - Lightweight UTF8 handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923608 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|medium |low -- 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=P6q3oNq2Zea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977347] New: Review Request: jcr-api - Java Content Repository Technology (JSR-283) API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977347 Bug ID: 977347 Summary: Review Request: jcr-api - Java Content Repository Technology (JSR-283) API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: punto...@libero.it QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jcr-api.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jcr-api-2.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The Content Repository API for JavaTM Technology Version 2.0 is specified by JSR-283. This module contains the complete API as specified. Fedora Account System Username: gil I'm not sure whether license is OK for fedora -- 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=bItnnFzn2Ta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977347] Review Request: jcr-api - Java Content Repository Technology (JSR-283) API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977347 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jcr-api.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jcr-api-2.0-1.fc18.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=GSKRyUAdzka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977347] Review Request: jcr-api - Java Content Repository Technology (JSR-283) API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977347 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 (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=xDqVn0Wawca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972943] Review Request: lpf - Local package factory - build non-redistributable rpms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943 --- Comment #9 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Tom: ping? -- 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=8R2QdvgeRna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915006] Review Request: qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 - QtWebKit components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915006 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #28 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qt5-qtwebkit Short Description: Qt5 - QtWebKit components Owners: than rdieter jreznik kkofler ltinkl rnovacek Branches: f17 f18 f19 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=pOjPZSP9tAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977367] New: Review Request: libjoedog - Repack of the common code base of fido and siege as shared library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977367 Bug ID: 977367 Summary: Review Request: libjoedog - Repack of the common code base of fido and siege as shared library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ro...@fenkhuber.at QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://rfenkhuber.fedorapeople.org/libjoedog/libjoedog.spec SRPM URL: http://rfenkhuber.fedorapeople.org/libjoedog/libjoedog-0.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: libjoedog is a library containing the common code base of siege and fido by Jeff Fulmer. It consists mostly of convenience wrapper functions and a hash table implementation. Fedora Account System Username: rfenkhuber -- 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=vNOGeFl6gSa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977367] Review Request: libjoedog - Repack of the common code base of fido and siege as shared library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977367 Roman Mohr ro...@fenkhuber.at changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||972477, 973822 -- 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=rW6RHeEEULa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972477] Review Request: fido - A multi-threaded file watch utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972477 Roman Mohr ro...@fenkhuber.at changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||977367 -- 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=8lYS8gqqnpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977347] Review Request: jcr-api - Java Content Repository Technology (JSR-283) API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977347 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5535106 -- 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=5osQ8AubXQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976776] Review Request: jboss-jms-2.0-api - JBoss JMS API 2.0 Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976776 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-06-24 08:04:01 -- 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=mXmxvSuxiGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977367] Review Request: libjoedog - Repack of the common code base of fido and siege as shared library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977367 --- Comment #1 from Roman Mohr ro...@fenkhuber.at --- koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5535246 rpmlint: rpmlint SRPMS/libjoedog-0.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm RPMS/x86_64/libjoedog-0.1.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm RPMS/x86_64/libjoedog-devel-0.1.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm libjoedog.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fido - Fido, dido, filo libjoedog.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fido - Fido, dido, filo libjoedog.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fido - Fido, dido, filo libjoedog.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fido - Fido, dido, filo libjoedog.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libjoedog.so.0.1.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 libjoedog-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation -- 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=wpOmKVZWtpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915006] Review Request: qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 - QtWebKit components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915006 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | 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=kt8EBQtMjva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915006] Review Request: qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 - QtWebKit components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915006 --- Comment #29 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5rv9fbV73ra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977367] Review Request: libjoedog - Repack of the common code base of fido and siege as shared library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977367
Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libjoedog-
devel
--- Requires: libjoedog == %{version} shoud be
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (v2 or later), GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 4
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/977367-libjoedog/licensecheck.txt
--- 's!GPLv2+! and LGPLv2+!'
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
--- 's!%{_includedir}/joedog/*.h!%{_includedir}/joedog!'
and all is fine
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[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]: 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 use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[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:
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
Note: %define current
[Bug 957693] Review Request: gfal2-python - Python bindings for gfal 2.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957693
--- Comment #11 from Adrien Devresse ade...@gmail.com ---
Hi Mario,
The mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs is rather cosmetic but it is better to have
the same view in all text editors. I recommend to use whitespaces only, but it
is your choice. Use what you prefer, don't mix both.
It's a false positive, this space is inside a comment.
Anyway, I removed this upstream in order to silent the warning.
To uncouple the el5-specific stuff from newer versions, please make the
following parts of your spec file conditional for el5 only:
* The BuildRoot definition
* The initial cleaning of %{buildroot} in %install
* The whole %clean section
* The %defattr lines in the file lists
I don't see the point to do this to be honest :
- these EPEL specific part are not against fedora review guidelines (
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines ), they are just mark
as not required.
- They are in any case, ignored by the recent fedora.
- Adding useless conditional macros make the spec file unreadable.
- A lot of already reviewed fedora packages contains them without any problem :
- http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/json-c.git/tree/json-c.spec?h=f19
- http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/leafpad.git/tree/leafpad.spec
- http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/libnet.git/tree/libnet.spec
- http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/librabbitmq.git/tree/librabbitmq.spec
- ...
Adrien.
--
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=Wo5dzcKrMFa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977446] Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977446 --- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com --- Koji scratch build against f20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5535852 rpmlint output: nbdkit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel - delve, devil, revel nbdkit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel - delve, devil, revel 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- 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=PIJfP0YqlFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977446] Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977446 --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com --- We might want to put the plugins in a subpackage (now or later). The reason is that if we have then in the main nbdkit package, then that package will depend on all the libraries that the plugins need. Currently: $ rpm -qR nbdkit libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.8)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) liblzma.so.5()(64bit) # needed by xz plugin liblzma.so.5(XZ_5.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libvirt.so.0()(64bit) # needed by libvirt plugin libvirt.so.0(LIBVIRT_0.0.3)(64bit) libvirt.so.0(LIBVIRT_0.4.2)(64bit) libvirt.so.0(LIBVIRT_0.8.1)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit)# needed by gzip plugin libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.3.5)(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1 -- 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=enj4B7rhcxa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977367] Review Request: libjoedog - Repack of the common code base of fido and siege as shared library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977367
--- Comment #3 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
There are some more minor issues with the spec-file:
* el5-build needs proper Group-tag for main-pkg and devel-sub
* lib should be build hardened, because it's main target is being
used by daemons
* BRs can be trimmed down to just having libtool
* %{name}-macro should be used in %file (and other places as well),
instead of hardcoding name
--
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=HKxDY0ayiza=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977446] New: Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977446 Bug ID: 977446 Summary: Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rjo...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://git.annexia.org/?p=fedora-specs.git;a=blob_plain;f=nbdkit.spec;hb=HEAD SRPM URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/nbdkit/nbdkit-1.0.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: NBD server Fedora Account System Username: rjones https://github.com/libguestfs/nbdkit NBD is a protocol for accessing block devices (hard disks and disk-like things) over the network. 'nbdkit' is a toolkit for creating NBD servers. The key features are: * Multithreaded NBD server written in C with good performance. * Well-documented, simple plugin API with a stable ABI guarantee. Let's you export unconventional block devices easily. * Liberal license (BSD) allows nbdkit to be linked to proprietary libraries or included in proprietary code. Several example plugins are included in the package. To develop plugins, install the nbdkit-devel package and start by reading the nbdkit(1) and nbdkit-plugin(3) manual pages. -- 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=Sv8Vvgr1ata=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977446] Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977446 --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com --- Apparently fedora-review doesn't like my spec URL. -- 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=Chaq2yJRDHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977446] Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977446 --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/nbdkit/nbdkit.spec SRPM URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/nbdkit/nbdkit-1.0.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: NBD server Fedora Account System Username: rjones -- 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=RZGtkHe71Aa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855193] Review Request: felix-webconsole - Apache Felix Web Management Console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855193 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/felix-webconsole.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/felix-webconsole-4.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm - update to 4.2.0 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5536058 -- 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=4qbuL8zW6sa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977446] Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977446
Matthew Booth mbo...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mbo...@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Matthew Booth mbo...@redhat.com ---
Raw fedora-review output:
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nbdkit-
devel
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
BSD (3 clause), GPL (v2 or later). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mbooth/977446-nbdkit/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 8 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[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]: 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 use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[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:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages
[Bug 974714] Review Request: thermal_daemon - A close loop thermal monitoring and control daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974714 --- Comment #24 from Srinivas Pandruvada srinivas.pandruv...@linux.intel.com --- David Woodhouse (dw...@infradead.org) is willing to sponsor me. So I will update spec and srpm files after I pass all fedora-review tests. Thanks to Marcelo and Christopher to spend time and help me to learn submission process. -- 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=gLMlIz8okga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 976847] Review Request: python-amqp - Low-level AMQP client for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976847 Eric Harney ehar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-06-24 11:50:30 -- 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=MEuIC3lyUKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855192] Review Request: felix-fileinstall - File Install is a directory based OSGi management agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855192 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/felix-fileinstall.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/felix-fileinstall-3.2.6-1.fc18.src.rpm - update to 3.2.6 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5536083 -- 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=ie8F5Ad4t1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977446] Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977446
Matthew Booth mbo...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rjo...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(rjo...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #6 from Matthew Booth mbo...@redhat.com ---
QUERIES
===
It's a server, but it doesn't contain a systemd unit. Should it?
PROBLEMS
I'm pretty sure the %changelog format should be:
* Mon Jun 24 2013 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com - 1.0.0-1
(Note the additional '-', no idea why)
Missing fully versioned dependency on -devel package:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nbdkit-devel
Example plugins are all packaged and installed, including:
nbdkit: /usr/lib64/nbdkit/plugins/nbdkit-example1-plugin.so
nbdkit: /usr/lib64/nbdkit/plugins/nbdkit-example2-plugin.so
nbdkit: /usr/lib64/nbdkit/plugins/nbdkit-example3-plugin.so
REPORTED NON-PROBLEMS
=
Detected GPL (v2 or later) is a false positive on ltmail.sh
--
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=mcYrmTPifTa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977446] Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977446 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Matthew Booth from comment #6) QUERIES === It's a server, but it doesn't contain a systemd unit. Should it? It's a server/daemon, but spec doesn't enable hardened build. Why? -- 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=eVYm5MA3DXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977446] Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977446
--- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Matthew Booth from comment #6)
QUERIES
===
It's a server, but it doesn't contain a systemd unit. Should it?
Good question, but I think not. The reason is that you
can't just run it without at least specifying a plugin
and a file to serve, and even if you assume the default
plugin should be 'file' it's not clear what file you would
want to serve by default.
PROBLEMS
I'm pretty sure the %changelog format should be:
* Mon Jun 24 2013 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com - 1.0.0-1
(Note the additional '-', no idea why)
Fixed.
Missing fully versioned dependency on -devel package:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nbdkit-devel
I guess missing %{?_isa}? Fixed.
Example plugins are all packaged and installed, including:
nbdkit: /usr/lib64/nbdkit/plugins/nbdkit-example1-plugin.so
nbdkit: /usr/lib64/nbdkit/plugins/nbdkit-example2-plugin.so
nbdkit: /usr/lib64/nbdkit/plugins/nbdkit-example3-plugin.so
Yup, that's intentional.
REPORTED NON-PROBLEMS
=
Detected GPL (v2 or later) is a false positive on ltmail.sh
Second version is here:
Spec URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/nbdkit/nbdkit.spec
SRPM URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/nbdkit/nbdkit-1.0.0-2.fc18.src.rpm
Description: NBD server
Fedora Account System Username: rjones
--
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=QV3nx69rOta=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977446] Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977446 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(rjo...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com --- Third version adds _hardened_build: Spec URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/nbdkit/nbdkit.spec SRPM URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/nbdkit/nbdkit-1.0.0-3.fc18.src.rpm Description: NBD server Fedora Account System Username: rjones -- 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=PAUYzlZdR3a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977446] Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977446 --- Comment #10 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #9) Third version adds _hardened_build: The sbin looks fine: usr/sbin/nbdkit: Position Independent Executable: yes Stack protected: yes Fortify Source functions: yes (some protected functions found) unprotected: poll unprotected: read unprotected: memcpy protected: snprintf protected: vfprintf protected: read protected: asprintf protected: memcpy protected: printf protected: fprintf Read-only relocations: yes Immediate binding: yes Unfortunately the plugins do not: usr/lib64/nbdkit/plugins/nbdkit-example1-plugin.so: Position Independent Executable: no, regular shared library (ignored) Stack protected: no, not found! Fortify Source functions: no, only unprotected functions found! unprotected: memcpy Read-only relocations: yes Immediate binding: no, not found! usr/lib64/nbdkit/plugins/nbdkit-example2-plugin.so: Position Independent Executable: no, regular shared library (ignored) Stack protected: no, not found! Fortify Source functions: no, only unprotected functions found! unprotected: pread Read-only relocations: yes Immediate binding: no, not found! usr/lib64/nbdkit/plugins/nbdkit-example3-plugin.so: Position Independent Executable: no, regular shared library (ignored) Stack protected: yes Fortify Source functions: no, only unprotected functions found! unprotected: pread Read-only relocations: yes Immediate binding: no, not found! usr/lib64/nbdkit/plugins/nbdkit-file-plugin.so: Position Independent Executable: no, regular shared library (ignored) Stack protected: no, not found! Fortify Source functions: no, only unprotected functions found! unprotected: pread Read-only relocations: yes Immediate binding: no, not found! usr/lib64/nbdkit/plugins/nbdkit-gzip-plugin.so: Position Independent Executable: no, regular shared library (ignored) Stack protected: yes Fortify Source functions: unknown, no protectable libc functions used Read-only relocations: yes Immediate binding: no, not found! usr/lib64/nbdkit/plugins/nbdkit-libvirt-plugin.so: Position Independent Executable: no, regular shared library (ignored) Stack protected: no, not found! Fortify Source functions: unknown, no protectable libc functions used Read-only relocations: yes Immediate binding: no, not found! usr/lib64/nbdkit/plugins/nbdkit-xz-plugin.so: Position Independent Executable: no, regular shared library (ignored) Stack protected: yes Fortify Source functions: yes (some protected functions found) unprotected: read unprotected: memcpy protected: read Read-only relocations: yes Immediate binding: no, not found! -- 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=VD9Wiph269a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 971103] Review Request: bsd-mailx - Simple mail user agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsl...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pschi...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
Flags||needinfo?(pschiffe@redhat.c
||om)
--- Comment #23 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsl...@redhat.com ---
Hi,
Thanks all for helping on this package. Peter, thanks for handling all comments
for improvement. There is a final comment that you can do it in parallel of
packaging (see below).
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
BSD (3 clause). Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/971103
-bsd-mailx/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[-]: Package does not generate any conflict.
It conflicts with mailx 12.4-7.
see Bugzilla comment#20
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are
[Bug 975590] Review Request: openstack-selinux - SELinux policies for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975590
--- Comment #7 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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]: 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.
[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.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
I believe you need a %dir for
%attr(0644,root,root) %{_datadir}/selinux/devel/include/%{moduletype}
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[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]: 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 use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[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:
[-]: Uses parallel make.
[-]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[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
[Bug 975590] Review Request: openstack-selinux - SELinux policies for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975590 Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(l...@redhat.com) --- Comment #8 from Steven Dake sd...@redhat.com --- BLOCKERS: I believe you have unowned directories One of the rpmlint errors falls under this category: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires Files in /usr/share should be world-readable. These include the bz2 policy files. -- 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=p8luZEw6ROa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977446] Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977446 --- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Björn Esser from comment #10) Unfortunately the plugins do not: usr/lib64/nbdkit/plugins/nbdkit-example1-plugin.so: Position Independent Executable: no, regular shared library (ignored) Stack protected: no, not found! Fortify Source functions: no, only unprotected functions found! unprotected: memcpy Read-only relocations: yes Immediate binding: no, not found! I have no idea -- they're just built using standard automake libtool rules, eg: https://github.com/libguestfs/nbdkit/blob/master/plugins/example1/Makefile.am#L37 We don't remove any options from CFLAGS. -- 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=SvTY9cheE8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977446] Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977446 Matthew Booth mbo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mbo...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Matthew Booth mbo...@redhat.com --- Discussion of _hardened_build options aside, I think this meets the packaging guidelines. That could perhaps move into a separate BZ so it doesn't get lost. -- 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=YgXWrAKdIOa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977446] Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977446 --- Comment #13 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #11) I have no idea -- they're just built using standard automake libtool rules, eg: https://github.com/libguestfs/nbdkit/blob/master/plugins/example1/Makefile. am#L37 We don't remove any options from CFLAGS. but autocrap's libtool does when assembling single objects to lib.so adding this BEFORE %configure in spec-file should fix one issue: # force Immediate binding for hardenend build with autocrap libtool export LDFLAGS=$LDFLAGS -Wl,-z,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=EiKAL2yB95a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977446] Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977446 --- Comment #14 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Björn Esser from comment #13) (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #11) I have no idea -- they're just built using standard automake libtool rules, eg: https://github.com/libguestfs/nbdkit/blob/master/plugins/example1/Makefile. am#L37 We don't remove any options from CFLAGS. but autocrap's libtool does when assembling single objects to lib.so adding this BEFORE %configure in spec-file should fix one issue: # force Immediate binding for hardenend build with autocrap libtool export LDFLAGS=$LDFLAGS -Wl,-z,now It's still not quite right. With this change, I get: $ hardening-check /usr/lib64/nbdkit/plugins/nbdkit-example1-plugin.so /usr/lib64/nbdkit/plugins/nbdkit-example1-plugin.so: Position Independent Executable: no, regular shared library (ignored) Stack protected: no, not found! Fortify Source functions: no, only unprotected functions found! Read-only relocations: yes Immediate binding: yes It looks like fortify source CFLAGS are being dropped somewhere. -- 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=JqlyUyfb9Ya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977446] Review Request: nbdkit - NBD server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977446 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nbdkit Short Description: NBD server Owners: rjones Branches: f18 f19 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=otaHBEeP6Ha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
