[Bug 912960] Review Request: rubygem-gdk3 - Ruby binding of GDK-3.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912960 --- Comment #29 from Miroslav Suchý --- I will bring this to packagers list. -- 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=B36WhoJcZa&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919442] Review Request: R-Rsamtools - R interface to samtools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919442 Pierre-YvesChibon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-09-05 02:16:07 --- Comment #14 from Pierre-YvesChibon --- apparently it's in and build and all, thus closing 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=RTT4miAWRl&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919442] Review Request: R-Rsamtools - R interface to samtools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919442 --- Comment #13 from Pierre-YvesChibon --- 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=mh3FJnvxUL&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004544] Package Review: grub2-icons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004544 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com Blocks||1002328 (nasacircle) Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com Alias||grub2-icons Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Taken :) -- 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=C1T18lKujX&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002275] Review Request: ima-evm-utils - IMA/EVM Utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002275 Vivek Goyal changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #9 from Vivek Goyal --- Ok, both licensing and source issues have been sorted out. I have uploaded a new set of spec and source rpm file. Pleaese review.. http://people.redhat.com/vgoyal/ima-evm-utils/ima-evm-utils.spec http://people.redhat.com/vgoyal/ima-evm-utils/ima-evm-utils-0.6-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=d8MHaMoPiO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991724] Review Request: trabajo-fonts - Latin Serif font that supports Shavian alphabet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991724 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|trabajo-fonts-2.0-1.fc19|trabajo-fonts-2.0-1.fc18 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- trabajo-fonts-2.0-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xoZOiC7s6Z&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991724] Review Request: trabajo-fonts - Latin Serif font that supports Shavian alphabet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991724 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||trabajo-fonts-2.0-1.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-09-04 21:41:05 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- trabajo-fonts-2.0-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9jdw4yoLua&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 982204] Review Request: elm - The Elm language module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982204 Bug 982204 depends on bug 982189, which changed state. Bug 982189 Summary: Review Request: ghc-hjsmin - Haskell implementation of a javascript minifier https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982189 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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=Zz00JxAxGa&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002092] Review Request: burp - A network backup and restore program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002092 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- NEW SPEC URL: http://cicku.me/burp.spec NEW SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/burp-1.4.2-1.fc21.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=eX5LoNKeOR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 998483] Review Request: granite - GTK extensions for elementary applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998483 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng --- Created attachment 793925 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=793925&action=edit Build log. Build failed. See attachment. -- 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=is1YU0MWqF&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004565] Review Request: eureka - Map editor for the classic DOOM games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004565 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Summary|Review Request: eureka -|Review Request: eureka - |map editor for the classic |Map editor for the classic |DOOM games |DOOM games --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- You'd better add spec and srpm link in the comment so we can run fedora-review -b 1004565 quickly. FIrst question before review, are you going to support EL?(I think no need for this pacakge) -- 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=vBSFl6PvKC&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004565] Review Request: eureka - A cross-platform map editor for the classic DOOM games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004565 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: eureka -|Review Request: eureka - A |Map editor for the classic |cross-platform map editor |DOOM games |for the classic DOOM games -- 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=T7A4oLQof1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004565] New: Review Request: eureka - map editor for the classic DOOM games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004565 Bug ID: 1004565 Summary: Review Request: eureka - map editor for the classic DOOM games Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jgreg...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org spec/SRPM URL: http://jgreguske.fedorapeople.org/eureka/ Description: Eureka is a cross-platform map editor for the classic DOOM games. The supported operating systems are Linux (and other Unix-likes), Windows and MacOS X. It started when the ported the Yadex editor to a proper GUI toolkit, namely FLTK, and implemented a system for multi-level Undo / Redo. These and other features have required rewriting large potions of the existing code, and adding lots of new code too. Eureka is now an independent program with its own work-flow and its own quirks. Fedora Account System Username: jgreguske -- 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=a2nOoSeSzn&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004544] Package Review: grub2-icons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004544
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng ---
Ah
1. License: GPL3 and CC0 and CC-BY-SA and CC-BY and LGPL and LGPL3+
LGPL? LGPLv2?
LGPL3+? LGPLv3+
2. %description
%summary
If a symlink named 'icons', which refers to /boot/grub2/icons is placed
in your grub2-theme, it will show these icons if it matches -class
* arch.png
* debian.png
* fedora.png
* gentoo.png
* gnu-linux.png
* linuxmint.png
* opensuse.png
* osx.png
* recovery.png
* sabayon.png
* slackware.png
* submenu.png
* ubuntu.png
* windows.png
%description
%summary ???What are these?
3. If you don't want to support EL5(I think no need), remove:
rm -rf %{buildroot}
Whole %clean
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
4. Better add your email at %changelog
--
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=QT5jvJ8a9l&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004556] Review Request: xmpcore - Java XMP Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004556 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1002721 -- 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=EZreu5lljO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004563] Review Request: metadata-extractor2 - Extracts EXIF, IPTC and XMP metadata from image files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004563 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1002721 -- 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=jouohLEkdj&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002721] Review Request: tika - A content analysis toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002721 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Depends On||1004563 -- 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=ur3LlGEFmT&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004556] Review Request: xmpcore - Java XMP Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004556 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1004563 -- 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=j0EnyaQOhk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004563] New: Review Request: metadata-extractor2 - Extracts EXIF, IPTC and XMP metadata from image files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004563 Bug ID: 1004563 Summary: Review Request: metadata-extractor2 - Extracts EXIF, IPTC and XMP metadata from image files 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/metadata-extractor2.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/metadata-extractor2-2.6.4-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Metadata Extractor is a straightforward Java library for reading metadata from image files. Fedora Account System Username: gil -- 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=PHhiPvDfDh&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004563] Review Request: metadata-extractor2 - Extracts EXIF, IPTC and XMP metadata from image files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004563 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1004556 -- 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=hXslc7gnf1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960645] Review Request: sanewall - A powerful firewall builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960645 --- Comment #21 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #20) > So maintaining hundreds of packages is not a walk in the park eh? No, you're thinking too overhead. > > There should be an init file already. And you can always adapt the one from > firehol. The reason why I can't go ahead is that this init file included is designed for Debian systems, in order to follow the guideline I have to rewrite a Fedora one. BTW there also have bugs in upstream's init file. -- 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=PYsSKOFqKh&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 912960] Review Request: rubygem-gdk3 - Ruby binding of GDK-3.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912960 --- Comment #28 from Mamoru TASAKA --- Please consider again if grep is really _must_ item and blocker. Again I don't agree and I don't think making this mandatory is technically correct. -- 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=ga21RxOuqA&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960645] Review Request: sanewall - A powerful firewall builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960645 --- Comment #20 from Susi Lehtola --- So maintaining hundreds of packages is not a walk in the park eh? There should be an init file already. And you can always adapt the one from firehol. -- 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=htdF9NL28O&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004556] Review Request: xmpcore - Java XMP Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004556 gil cattaneo 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=4gzK2NwJVW&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960645] Review Request: sanewall - A powerful firewall builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960645 --- Comment #19 from Christopher Meng --- Hi Susi I'm busy these days. Actually I just need to write a init file now, but it takes 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=H8UJeF6A2G&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004556] Review Request: xmpcore - Java XMP Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004556 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|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=22R2ot6KXB&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004556] Review Request: xmpcore - Java XMP Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004556 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||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=rMOJdcyvMj&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004556] New: Review Request: xmpcore - Java XMP Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004556 Bug ID: 1004556 Summary: Review Request: xmpcore - Java XMP Library 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/xmpcore.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/xmpcore-5.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: The XMP Library for Java is based on the C++ XMPCore library and the API is similar. Fedora Account System Username: gil -- 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=esx1hgzhb4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004544] New: Package Review: grub2-icons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004544 Bug ID: 1004544 Summary: Package Review: grub2-icons Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: erat.si...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org My sponsor is irc:bessser82 This is a split-up of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002328 Its actualy some sort of a dependency. It provides several Distro Icons at /booot/grub2/icons So grub2-themes will only need to symlink to that dir, to display the provided icon next to the menu entry. Eg: /boot/grub2/themes/THEMENAME/icons --> /boot/grub2/icons Currently provided icons: * debian.png * fedora.png * gentoo.png * gnu-linux.png * linuxmint.png * opensuse.png * osx.png * recovery.png * sabayon.png * slackware.png * submenu.png * ubuntu.png * windows.png SPEC: http://sea.fedorapeople.org/Review/grub2-icons/grub2-icons.spec SRPM: http://sea.fedorapeople.org/Review/grub2-icons/grub2-icons-0.0.2-0.fc21.noarch.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=6o5zoB2Ymb&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004544] Package Review: grub2-icons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004544 Simon A. Erat changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- 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=rff4lvAVQu&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1001351] Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-db - Database engine abstraction wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001351 Fedora Update System 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=o69E6hLiH3&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1003280] Review Request: postscriptbarcode - Barcode Writer in Pure PostScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003280 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Depends On||921706 Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |libpostscriptbarcode - |postscriptbarcode - Barcode |Barcode Writer in Pure |Writer in Pure PostScript |PostScript | Alias|libpostscriptbarcode|postscriptbarcode --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann --- After some discussion with the upstream maintainer, I will package this from the low-level sources instead of using the prebuilt monolithic Postscript file. But I get stuck in problems with urw-fonts, I've added my error message to an existing bug report (bug #921706). Here are my current files: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/postscriptbarcode.spec http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/postscriptbarcode-20130603-2.fc19.src.rpm (Note, I've renamed the package because it is no real library) -- 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=SHPWNoNP0b&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1001351] Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-db - Database engine abstraction wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001351 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- glite-lbjp-common-db-3.2.8-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lbjp-common-db-3.2.8-2.fc20 -- 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=ekOspd9WXK&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1001351] Review Request: glite-lbjp-common-db - Database engine abstraction wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001351 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- glite-lbjp-common-db-3.2.8-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lbjp-common-db-3.2.8-2.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=pvlsEc5hgH&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1003089] Review Request: glusterfs-openstack-swift - Gluster for Swift
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003089 Luis Pabon changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #5 from Luis Pabon --- Please review the following files. These are now v1.9.1 and have successfully been built with koji on f19, f20, and f21. Spec URL: https://github.com/lpabon/fedora/raw/master/1.9.1/glusterfs-openstack-swift.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/lpabon/fedora/raw/master/1.9.1/glusterfs-openstack-swift-1.9.1-0.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1D2o3VoPG4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004306] Review Request: opvdm - A tool for simulating organic solar cells
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004306 --- Comment #3 from Roderick MacKenzie --- Hi, I've just realized the name of the src.rpm has changed due to the changes in the spec file. New link: http://www.roderickmackenzie.eu/opvdm-2.0.fc19-1.src.rpm best wishes, Rod -- 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=CHKvh1R7Tc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004094] Review Request: cups-x2go - CUPS backend for printing from X2Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004094
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
|project.org |
--- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1)
> Improvement:
>
> 1. Avoid attr() nowadays. Please correc its permission when installing it:
>
> install -pm755 cups-x2go %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/cups/backend/
>
> 2. Drop %doc as it doesn't exist.
>
> 3. %{_sysconfdir}/cups/cups-x2go.conf
>
> should be added %config(noreplace)
All fixed.
> 4. New Fedora Review tool is very nice, it told me that you shouldn't own a
> dir already taken by other packages:
>
> [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/x2go(x2goserver),
> /usr/share/x2go/versions(x2goserver)
>
> So you should correct %{_datadir}/x2go/.
The problem is the cups-x2go can be installed independently of x2goserver, so
they both need to own it.
> 5. cups-x2go.noarch: W: non-standard-group Server
>
> So, fix it or drop the group tag.
Fixed - kept for EL6
> 6. cups-x2go.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab:
> line 1)
Fixed
* Wed Sep 4 2012 Orion Poplawski 3.0.0.4-2
- Use install to set permissions on cups-x2go
- Drop %%doc for now
- Mark config file as %%config(noreplace)
- Fix Group
- Drop tabs
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/nx/cups-x2go.spec
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/nx/cups-x2go-3.0.0.4-2.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eAgzz6M5fL&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917149] Review Request: openshift-origin-node-proxy - Routing proxy for OpenShift Origin Node
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917149
--- Comment #5 from Andy Grimm ---
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.
[-]: 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
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [1]
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.
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: 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]: 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:
[-]: 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.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.[2]
[-]: 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.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.[3]
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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 tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the sam
[Bug 912960] Review Request: rubygem-gdk3 - Ruby binding of GDK-3.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912960 Mamoru TASAKA changed: What|Removed |Added CC||package-review@lists.fedora ||project.org -- 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=6z9HPmJgO1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004306] Review Request: opvdm - A tool for simulating organic solar cells
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004306
--- Comment #2 from Roderick MacKenzie ---
Hi Christopher,
Thanks for your comments and going though the spec file. I've addressed them
and commented below to indicate what has been updated. You can find the
updated spec file and SRPM at:
Spec URL: www.roderickmackenzie.eu/opvdm.spec
SRPM URL: www.roderickmackenzie.eu/opvdm-2.0-1.src.rpm
I've also tested it again wiht koji
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5893983
Best wishes,
Rod
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1)
> I really doubt if you've read the guidelines?
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
>
> Let me quote all your spec:
>
> --
>
> =
> %define name opvdm
> %define release 1
> %define version 2.0
> =
>
> Why do you waste 3 lines but not use
I've now removed these lines.- thanks for pointing this out.
>
> Name: opvdm
> Version: 2.0
> Release: 1%{?dist}
>
> ? Besides, you've missed dist tag.
>
> --
> =
> %define buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root
> =
>
> We don't need it. Now is 2013.
I've taken this out - thanks.
>
> --
> =
> BuildRequires: suitesparse-devel, zlib-devel, openssl-devel, gsl-devel,
> blas-devel, libcurl-devel,
>
> requires: gnuplot >= 4.6, python >= 2.7.5, suitesparse >= 4.0.2, blas >=
> 3.4.2
> =
>
> Hi, can you move such things below basic information? It's abrupt.
I have moved these lines, they are now below the basic information.
>
> And why did you write requires but not Requires?
This was a typo – I've changed it to Requires.
>
> --
> =
> BuildRoot:%{buildroot}
> Summary: Organic solar cell device model (OPVDM)
> License: GNU V2.0 (Copyright Roderick MacKenzie 2013)
> =
>
> Have you _read_ guidelines? ?? ???
>
> GNU V2.0 (Copyright Roderick MacKenzie 2013) is invalid, see
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing
Thanks for pointing this out, I've now changed the license to read “GPLv2”
>
> --
> =
> Source: opvdm.tar
> Prefix: /usr
> Group:Development/Tools
> AutoReqProv: yes
> =
>
> Where does source come from?
I've replaced opvdm.tar with www.roderickmackenzie.eu/opvdm.tar
> Why did you define prefix but not using %{_prefix}
I've deleted this.
> Why do you define AutoReqProv eq yes? In another way why do we have need to
> write it?
I've deleted this now.
>
> --
> =
> # I've not included a desktop file in this spec file because:
> # The main program (opvdm_core) is command line line/text file driven.
> # Although I have bundled a very simple GUI, it's a very early
> # alpha version and not mature enough to want people to use it
> # as the main way in which to interact with the program. The gui
> # also requires you to prepare the directory structure with the
> # command line before it is run.
> =
>
> OK, but please make a better GUI when you release X+1 version or whatsoever.
I hope to set a student project doing this, this coming year.
>
> --
> =
> %description
> An organic solar cell simulator (opvdm)
> =
>
> Too short.
I've made it longer – please see new spec file.
> --
>
> %prep
> %setup -q
>
> --
> =
> %build
> make %{?_smp_mflags}
> =
>
> Where is the smp flag?
I've added the smp flags as per the link - please see the new spec file.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make
> --
> =
> %install
> make DEST_DIR=%{buildroot} install
> =
>
> --
> =
>
> %files
> %defattr(0444,root,root)
> %attr(755, -, -) /bin/opvdm
> %attr(755, -, -) /bin/opvdm_core
> %attr(0444, -, -) /usr/opvdm/*.inp
> %attr(0444, -, -) /usr/opvdm/image.jpg
> %attr(0755, -, -) /bin/*.sh
> %attr(0755, -, -) /usr/opvdm/plot
> %attr(0755, -, -) /usr/opvdm/plot/*
> =
>
> 1. We don't need %defattr().
I've deleted it - please see the new spec file.
>
> 2. Have you used Fedora? /bin?
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
I've moved the binaries to /usr/bin/
>
> 3. Can you ensure their permissions when instal
[Bug 974725] Review Request: ghc-pretty-show - Tools for working with derived Show instances and generic inspection of values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974725 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel --- (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #1) >/usr/share/pretty-show-1.5/style/jquery.js >/usr/share/pretty-show-1.5/style/pretty-show.css >/usr/share/pretty-show-1.5/style/pretty-show.js I guess we'll have to see about using a system jQuery? -- 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=6ogfmZVRho&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957529] Review Request: solaar - Device manager for Logitech Unifying Receiver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957529 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Susi Lehtola --- Whoops, this seems to have been drowned among other bugzilla emails. Sorry for that. All issues seem to have been fixed, so the package has been APPROVED -- 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=ISwEhuiRBD&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 960645] Review Request: sanewall - A powerful firewall builder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960645 --- Comment #18 from Susi Lehtola --- Ping Christopher. -- 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=0iy0AOZHDk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004257] Review Request: pudb - console-based Python debugger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004257 --- Comment #3 from Dhiru Kholia --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > First, do you have intention of supporting EL5? I don't know. So, I will say "no" for 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=IXtOiifiHR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820660] Review Request: FEniCS - tracker bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820660 Jacob Hunt changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Depends On||1004374 -- 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=RReajU9jGt&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004257] Review Request: pudb - console-based Python debugger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004257 --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng --- Auh... You SHOULD know it, because you finally need to know it. EL5 ships py2.4. -- 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=hL3N59AsNQ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004257] Review Request: pudb - console-based Python debugger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004257 --- Comment #5 from Dhiru Kholia --- build seems to be fine, https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5893771 -- 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=34kcuaTf0U&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821727] Review Request: dolfin - the C++/Python interface of FEniCS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821727 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | CC||cicku...@gmail.com, ||jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m Flags||needinfo?(jonathan.underwoo ||d...@gmail.com) -- 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=s16qhfyrjc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 815001] Review Request: opennebula - Cloud computing tool to manage a distributed virtual data center to build private, public and hybrid IaaS clouds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815001 --- Comment #13 from Shawn Starr --- We have the final rubygem (rubygem-parse-cron) in Fedora now for Fedora 19 (pending) and Fedora 20/rawhide. More on this once upstream gets back to me. -- 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=Df450NXIA2&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1001035] Review Request: hyperv-daemons - HyperV daemons suite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001035 Jiri Popelka changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | CC||jpope...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jpope...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VWdqdnbJ3X&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004257] Review Request: pudb - console-based Python debugger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004257 --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) --- I will check this package tomorrow. Meanwhile go through this http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Reviewing_packages and do unofficial reviews. you can also read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join then http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_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=WHsnPvqeE9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004337] Review Request: python3-docs - Documentation for the Python 3 programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004337 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||984018 -- 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=GG9eKK7e1b&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004257] Review Request: pudb - console-based Python debugger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004257 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EM6n5pPeEo&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004337] New: Review Request: python3-docs - Documentation for the Python 3 programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004337 Bug ID: 1004337 Summary: Review Request: python3-docs - Documentation for the Python 3 programming language Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bkab...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/python3-docs/python3-docs.spec SRPM URL: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/python3-docs/python3-docs-3.3.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: The python3-docs package contains documentation on the Python 3 programming language and interpreter. Install the python3-docs package if you'd like to use the documentation for the Python 3 language. Fedora Account System Username: bkabrda -- 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=nZF1drXuHe&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962252] Review Request: ghc-dbus - Haskell client library for the D-Bus IPC system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962252 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=U7fGY7X83d&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962252] Review Request: ghc-dbus - Haskell client library for the D-Bus IPC system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962252 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |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=Bo6otHpkbi&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004111] Review Request: libXaw3dXft - An extended version of Xaw3d with support for UTF8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004111 Paulo Roma Cavalcanti changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #2 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti --- Koji build for F18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5893360 Koji build for F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5893377 Rpmlint output: rpmlint libXaw3dXft-1.6.2b-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libXaw3dXft.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xpaint -> paint, x paint libXaw3dXft.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US freetype -> free type, free-type, freestyle libXaw3dXft.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libXaw3dxft.so.8.0.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. rpmlint libXaw3dXft-devel-1.6.2b-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libXaw3dXft-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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=LHobGbf0qv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004306] Review Request: opvdm - A tool for simulating organic solar cells
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004306
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: opvdm - a |Review Request: opvdm - A
|tool for simulating organic |tool for simulating organic
|solar cells |solar cells
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng ---
I really doubt if you've read the guidelines?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
Let me quote all your spec:
--
=
%define nameopvdm
%define release1
%define version 2.0
=
Why do you waste 3 lines but not use
Name: opvdm
Version: 2.0
Release: 1%{?dist}
? Besides, you've missed dist tag.
--
=
%define buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root
=
We don't need it. Now is 2013.
--
=
BuildRequires: suitesparse-devel, zlib-devel, openssl-devel, gsl-devel,
blas-devel, libcurl-devel,
requires: gnuplot >= 4.6, python >= 2.7.5, suitesparse >= 4.0.2, blas >= 3.4.2
=
Hi, can you move such things below basic information? It's abrupt.
And why did you write requires but not Requires?
--
=
BuildRoot:%{buildroot}
Summary: Organic solar cell device model (OPVDM)
License: GNU V2.0 (Copyright Roderick MacKenzie 2013)
=
Have you _read_ guidelines? ?? ???
GNU V2.0 (Copyright Roderick MacKenzie 2013) is invalid, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing
--
=
Source: opvdm.tar
Prefix: /usr
Group: Development/Tools
AutoReqProv: yes
=
Where does source come from?
Why did you define prefix but not using %{_prefix}
Why do you define AutoReqProv eq yes? In another way why do we have need to
write it?
--
=
# I've not included a desktop file in this spec file because:
# The main program (opvdm_core) is command line line/text file driven.
# Although I have bundled a very simple GUI, it's a very early
# alpha version and not mature enough to want people to use it
# as the main way in which to interact with the program. The gui
# also requires you to prepare the directory structure with the
# command line before it is run.
=
OK, but please make a better GUI when you release X+1 version or whatsoever.
--
=
%description
An organic solar cell simulator (opvdm)
=
Too short.
--
%prep
%setup -q
--
=
%build
make
=
Where is the smp flag?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make
--
=
%install
make DEST_DIR=%{buildroot} install
=
--
=
%files
%defattr(0444,root,root)
%attr(755, -, -) /bin/opvdm
%attr(755, -, -) /bin/opvdm_core
%attr(0444, -, -) /usr/opvdm/*.inp
%attr(0444, -, -) /usr/opvdm/image.jpg
%attr(0755, -, -) /bin/*.sh
%attr(0755, -, -) /usr/opvdm/plot
%attr(0755, -, -) /usr/opvdm/plot/*
=
1. We don't need %defattr().
2. Have you used Fedora? /bin?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
3. Can you ensure their permissions when install them but not using attr()?
You should drop all attr().
4. /usr/opvdm is not a good dir.
---> /usr/share/opvdm
5. /bin/*.sh for what?
6. 644 should be the best but not 444 as it's not standard.
7. You should use macro to list files but not hardcode them.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros
--
=
#%doc %attr(0444,root,root) /usr/local/share/man/man1/wget.1
=
Are you coming from Debian?
--
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=PcGOFz1vFf&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004306] Review Request: opvdm - a tool for simulating organic solar cells
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004306 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: opvdm |Review Request: opvdm - a |(www.opvdm.com) - a tool|tool for simulating organic |for simulating organic |solar cells |solar cells FE-NEEDSPONSOR | -- 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=IoEAQrqMjy&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004257] Review Request: pudb - console-based Python debugger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004257 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- First, do you have intention of supporting EL5? -- 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=wlcUMatf9f&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004306] Review Request: opvdm (www.opvdm.com) - a tool for simulating organic solar cells FE-NEEDSPONSOR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004306 Roderick MacKenzie changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: opvdm |Review Request: opvdm |(www.opvdm.com) - a tool|(www.opvdm.com) - a tool |for simulating organic |for simulating organic |solar cells |solar cells FE-NEEDSPONSOR -- 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=hAdajh7Dyk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004306] New: Review Request: opvdm (www.opvdm.com) - a tool for simulating organic solar cells
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004306 Bug ID: 1004306 Summary: Review Request: opvdm (www.opvdm.com) - a tool for simulating organic solar cells Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: r.c.i.macken...@googlemail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Hi All, I'm the developer of Organic Photovoltic Device Model (opvdm - www.opvdm.com), a tool for simulating plastic solar cells. I would be very grateful if you would consider this package for inclusion in fedora. The software package has been used to generate a few publications (http://www.roderickmackenzie.eu/opvdm_publications.html) and now I would like to open it up to the community. I developed it on Fedora/redhat machines and therefore I would like to include it in Fedora first. This is my first package that I have contributed and therefore need a sponsor. I'm not quite sure what info I need to provide for someone to sponsor me but I'm a leacturer at the University of Nottingham UK (http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/engineering/people/roderick.mackenzie) and personal webs page is www.roderickmackenzie.eu – there you can find out about me. The package: Spec URL: www.roderickmackenzie.eu/opvdm.spec SRPM URL: www.roderickmackenzie.eu/opvdm-2.0-1.src.rpm Description: The package is a tool for the simulation of organic solar cells . It can be used to optimize this class of organic electronic device and to better understand how they work. (more info about organic solar cells below) Fedora Account System Username: ezzrm I've also built the srpm using koji – here is a link to the successful build. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5892923 Thanks!, Rod Brief background to organic solar cells for those interested: There is currently a large scientific effort to develop ultra low cost ways of turning sunlight into low cost power. One type of solar cell which is looking very promising is the so called plastic solar cell. This is made by spray coating a conducting polymer onto a plastic substrate. This software package is a model which can be used by sicentists/engineers to optermize/better design and understand plastic solar cells. More info about plastic solar cells at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_solar_cell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilI5rl2fQ_Q -- 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=Ce120Bm233&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004029] Rename Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - oVirt Engine Software Development Kit (Python)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004029
--- Comment #7 from Juan Hernández ---
Michael, if I understand correctly your suggestion is to do this:
Provides: ovirt-engine-sdk = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: ovirt-engine-sdk < 3.3.0.6
I updated the spec accordingly:
Spec URL:
http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ovirt-engine-sdk-python/3.3.0.6-4/ovirt-engine-sdk-python.spec
SRPM URL:
http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ovirt-engine-sdk-python/3.3.0.6-4/ovirt-engine-sdk-python-3.3.0.6-4.fc19.src.rpm
Koji build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5893157
Regarding the name with the python- prefix or -python suffix: I really don't
have a preference. But the upstream project already provides the .spec and the
binary packages in their own yum repository, and they have decided to to go
with the -python suffix. I would rather respect their decision and use the same
name, even if it doesn't match perfectly the naming guidelines. If we use a
different name in Fedora then there will be issues and confusion for the users.
--
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=JKMEfdCptC&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004029] Rename Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - oVirt Engine Software Development Kit (Python)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004029
--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt ---
Well, the renaming guidelines aren't too difficult:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages
[...]
Latest build in koji of the package to be replaced is:
ovirt-engine-sdk.noarch 3.2.0.11-2.fc20
Pick anything that's higher than 3.2.0.11-2.fc20. For example:
Obsoletes: ovirt-engine-sdk < 3.2.0.11-3
or
Obsoletes: ovirt-engine-sdk < 3.2.0.12
or since this renamed package is at version 3.3.0.6:
Obsoletes: ovirt-engine-sdk < 3.3.0.6
The important thing to understand here is that as long as the "Obsoletes" tag
is present in any available package (whether installed or in the repos), it
blocks package "ovirt-engine-sdk" from returning with a version that's too low.
However, "ovirt-engine-sdk" may return with a higher version, e.g. 3.4 or
3.3.0.7, basically anything that's higher than what's specified in the
Obsoletes tag. A package may be renamed once more or return with different
contents. That's why we prefer blocking obsolete packages with no more than
their last published version.
Even if it's unlikely that ovirt-engine-sdk returns ever, doing it right (and
accurate) doesn't hurt anyone, does it?
Occasionally, the accuracy really helps. Simple scenarios like: foo-libs
obsoleted by libfoo from a separate src.rpm, some time later foo.src.rpm builds
a new foo-libs package for newly added libs. Pray that libfoo doesn't also
obsolete the new foo-libs package EVR. Or vice versa: libfoo obsoleted by and
merged into foo-libs, some time later a different project uses the libfoo name
for something else.
> Provides: ovirt-engine-sdk = %{version}
The guidelines want -%{release} to be added to be as accurate as normal
packages.
[...]
> Name: ovirt-engine-sdk-python
I'm really bad at these naming guidelines things. Since this is a Python
module,
shouldn't it be named
python-ovirt-engine-sdk
to satisfy the %parent-%child relationship guidelines for Python add-on
packages?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28General.29
--
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=61aMcB2Kqi&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004029] Rename Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - oVirt Engine Software Development Kit (Python)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004029 --- Comment #5 from Juan Hernández --- Fixed the issues with duplicated files and with the shebang and also applied your suggestion about the %doc: Spec URL: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ovirt-engine-sdk-python/3.3.0.6-3/ovirt-engine-sdk-python.spec SRPM URL: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ovirt-engine-sdk-python/3.3.0.6-3/ovirt-engine-sdk-python-3.3.0.6-3.fc19.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5892987 -- 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=kfUmi9kFDl&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004029] Rename Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - oVirt Engine Software Development Kit (Python)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004029
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugs.mich...@gmx.net
Summary|Review Request: |Rename Request:
|ovirt-engine-sdk - oVirt|ovirt-engine-sdk - oVirt
|Engine Software Development |Engine Software Development
|Kit (Python)|Kit (Python)
Flags||needinfo?(bugs.michael@gmx.
||net)
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng ---
Issue:
0-1. From your Koji scratch build:
warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ovirtsdk
0-2. ovirt-engine-sdk-python.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ovirtsdk/xml/params.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
This file has env shebang but it's 644 perms.
Suggestion before importing:
1. %doc AUTHORS
%doc README
%doc LICENSE
can be
%doc AUTHORS LICENSE README
2. I lifted needinfo to Michael(he has sent many emails about this recently to
list) to see if your
Provides: ovirt-engine-sdk = %{version}
Obsoletes: ovirt-engine-sdk < 3.3.0.0
are correct or not.
Since it's a rename request, and I've finished fedora-review running, I think
there is no problem now.
Only need info from Michael.
--
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=TwBMpOofLI&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004257] Review Request: pudb - console-based Python debugger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004257 Dhiru Kholia changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- 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=HoZamKSRL7&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004256] New: Review Request: pysysbot - A simple python jabber bot for getting system information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004256 Bug ID: 1004256 Summary: Review Request: pysysbot - A simple python jabber bot for getting system information Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/pysysbot.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/pysysbot-0.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Project URL: http://affolter-engineering.ch/software-development/jabber-bots/ Description: This python jabber (XMPP) bot is based on the jabberbot framework. The bot is capable to display details about the system it is running on. If you don't want or can stay connected through SSH all the time this is an easy way to get information about the remote system. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5892879 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint pysysbot-0.1-1.fc19.src.rpm pysysbot.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jabberbot -> jabber bot, jabber-bot, jabberer 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint pysysbot-0.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm pysysbot.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jabberbot -> jabber bot, jabber-bot, jabberer 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- 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=mOhvg7BgmE&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004257] New: Review Request: pudb - console-based Python debugger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004257 Bug ID: 1004257 Summary: Review Request: pudb - console-based Python debugger Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dkho...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dhiru/packages/raw/master/pudb/python-pudb-2013.3.5-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Hi, I have just finished packaging "pudb" which is a full-screen, console-based Python debugger. For more information on "pudb", please see https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pudb I would appreciate a review so that I (and others) can do "yum install python-pudb" in the near future ;) This is my first package, so be nice. Fedora Account System Username: halfie -- 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=btxoDQL0Lc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004029] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - oVirt Engine Software Development Kit (Python)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004029 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NWuI1i5SPe&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004029] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - oVirt Engine Software Development Kit (Python)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004029 --- Comment #3 from Juan Hernández --- Thanks for your comments Christopher. I have updated the spec accordingly: Spec URL: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ovirt-engine-sdk-python/3.3.0.6-2/ovirt-engine-sdk-python.spec SRPM URL: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ovirt-engine-sdk-python/3.3.0.6-2/ovirt-engine-sdk-python-3.3.0.6-2.fc19.src.rpm The updated spec builds correctly in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5892889 I also suggested the same modifications to the spec used by the upstream maintainer (this spec is basically a copy of that): http://gerrit.ovirt.org/18868 -- 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=OCh4chrtqF&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004231] New: Review Request: lv2-sorcer - a wave-table synthesizer plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004231 Bug ID: 1004231 Summary: Review Request: lv2-sorcer - a wave-table synthesizer plugin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: brendan.jones...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org lv2-sorcer is a polyphonic wavetable synth LV2 plugin. Its sonic fingerprint is one of harsh modulated sub-bass driven walls of sound. Two morphing wavetable oscillators and one sine oscillator provide the generation routines. The LFO can be mapped to wavetable modulation as well as filter cutoff. An ADSR allows for shaping the resulting sound, while a master volume finishes the signal chain. Easily creating a variety of dubstep basslines and harsh pad sounds. SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lv2-sorcer.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/lv2-sorcer-0.0.1-0.1.git62d9577.fc19.src.rpm fedora19:~ $ rpmlint /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/lv2-sorcer-0.0.1-0.1.git62d9577.fc19.src.rpm /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/lv2-sorcer-*0.0.1-0.1.git62d9577.fc19.x86_64.rpm /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SPECS/lv2-sorcer.spec lv2-sorcer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wavetable -> wave table, wave-table, vegetable lv2-sorcer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US synth -> synthesis lv2-sorcer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dubstep -> dub step, dub-step, Dumpster lv2-sorcer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US basslines -> baselines, bass lines, bass-lines lv2-sorcer.src: W: invalid-url Source2: lv2-sorcer-presets-0.0.1-20130520gite9b8c26c.tar.gz lv2-sorcer.src: W: invalid-url Source0: lv2-sorcer-0.0.1-20130815git62d9577.tar.gz lv2-sorcer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wavetable -> wave table, wave-table, vegetable lv2-sorcer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US synth -> synthesis lv2-sorcer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dubstep -> dub step, dub-step, Dumpster lv2-sorcer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US basslines -> baselines, bass lines, bass-lines /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SPECS/lv2-sorcer.spec: W: invalid-url Source2: lv2-sorcer-presets-0.0.1-20130520gite9b8c26c.tar.gz /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SPECS/lv2-sorcer.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: lv2-sorcer-0.0.1-20130815git62d9577.tar.gz 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 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=DxG7N8vAHB&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004029] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - oVirt Engine Software Development Kit (Python)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004029
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng ---
1. No need to import setup.py nowadays.
Just
%{__python} setup.py build
2. Remove %defattr(-,root,root,-)
3. BR BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel is incorrect. should be
BuildRequires: python-setuptools
4. No need to attr() if the permission is sane.
--
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=dMYtUAPHfJ&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004209] Review Request: nlopt - Open-source library for nonlinear optimization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004209 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||505154 (FE-SCITECH) Alias||nlopt -- 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=ZSVkUB1MUO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004209] New: Review Request: nlopt - Open-source library for nonlinear optimization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004209 Bug ID: 1004209 Summary: Review Request: nlopt - Open-source library for nonlinear optimization Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bjoern.es...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Description: NLopt is a library for nonlinear local and global optimization, for functions with and without gradient information. It is designed as as simple, unified interface and packaging of several free/open-source nonlinear optimization libraries. It features bindings for GNU Guile, Octave and Python. This build has been made with C++-support enabled. Koji Builds: el5: no el5 build for this, swig is far too old. el6: no el6 build for this, numpy is far too old. F18: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5892806 F19: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5892812 F20: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5892816 Frh: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5892823 Issues: fedora-review shows no issues, rpmlint reports some false positives. Fedora Account System Username: besser82 Urls: Spec URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/nlopt.spec SRPM URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/nlopt-2.4-1.git20130830.3b56837.fc19.src.rpm Additional Information: This is my first package featuring GNU Guile and Octave stuff, so someone who has deeper knowlegde in this should have look at it, too. :) # Thanks for review in advance! -- 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=0hsw2jrupM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1004192] New: Review Request: python-queuelib - A collection of persistent (disk-based) queues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004192 Bug ID: 1004192 Summary: Review Request: python-queuelib - A collection of persistent (disk-based) queues Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-queuelib.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-queuelib-1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/scrapy/queuelib Description: Queuelib is a collection of persistent (disk-based) queues for Python. Queuelib goals are speed and simplicity. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5892705 rpmlint output: [fab@laptop011 SRPMS]$ rpmlint python-queuelib-1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [fab@laptop011 noarch]$ rpmlint py*-queuelib-1.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- 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=ltbg5VyCAQ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962252] Review Request: ghc-dbus - Haskell client library for the D-Bus IPC system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962252 Dan Callaghan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Dan Callaghan --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-dbus Short Description: Haskell client library for the D-Bus IPC system Owners: dcallagh Branches: f18 f19 f20 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=NiFBZ4tAK8&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962252] Review Request: ghc-dbus - Haskell client library for the D-Bus IPC system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962252 --- Comment #4 from Dan Callaghan --- Thanks Jens! (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #3) > [?]: Package functions as described. It definitely works, I've been using it on my desktop with xmonad-log-applet. :-) -- 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=EOu6pxqSfQ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962252] Review Request: ghc-dbus - Haskell client library for the D-Bus IPC system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962252 Jens Petersen 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=B9d0x1V5mC&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962252] Review Request: ghc-dbus - Haskell client library for the D-Bus IPC system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962252
Jens Petersen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen ---
Looks good to me. This can be used by git-annex
and I think is the best Haskell dbus binding available and maintained.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: ghc-dbus-devel. Does not provide -static: ghc-
dbus-devel.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
Allowed for ghc Haskell libraries.
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB)
or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 1832960 bytes in 56 files.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
Still small compared to .a files.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/package.conf.d,
/usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3
(Owned by ghc-compiler and ghc-base respectively.)
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3,
/usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/package.conf.d
[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
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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.
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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]: 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/loc
