[Bug 1097089] Re-Review Request: libeio - Event-based fully asynchronous I/O library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097089 --- Comment #2 from Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com --- Thanks, everything should be fixed now. Spec URL: http://jkaluza.fedorapeople.org/libeio.spec SRPM URL: http://jkaluza.fedorapeople.org/libeio-4.19-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722874] Review Request: python-html5lib - A python based HTML parser/tokenizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722874 Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Praveen Kumar kumarpraveen.nit...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-html5lib New Branches: epel7 Owners: kumarpraveen salimma RFE: epel7 branch for python-html5lib [#1098382] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1097089] Re-Review Request: libeio - Event-based fully asynchronous I/O library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097089 --- Comment #3 from Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com --- I've asked upstream about ecb.h on mailing list: http://lists.schmorp.de/pipermail/libev/2014q2/002411.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075601] Review Request: ghc-exceptions - Extensible optionally-pure exceptions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075601 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1074898 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074898 [Bug 1074898] ghc-ghc-mtl-1.2.1.0 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1092022] Review Request: rubygem-drake - A branch of Rake supporting automatic parallelizing of tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092022 Jan Pradac jan.pra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jan.pra...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jan.pra...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079589] Review Request: piglit - Collection of automated tests for OpenGL implementations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079589 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||piglit-1-0.14.20140414GIT87 ||75223.fc20 Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- piglit-1-0.14.20140414GIT8775223.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087737] Review Request: php-horde-ingo - An email filter rules manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087737
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pa...@hubbitus.info
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pa...@hubbitus.info
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 124 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/pasha/SOFT/Review/php-horde-ingo/1087737-php-
horde-ingo/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/horde
horde package contain that directory should be required.
Package horde should be required?
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/horde/ingo/lib(ingo),
/usr/share/horde/ingo/lib/Storage(ingo),
/usr/share/horde/ingo/locale/zh_CN(ingo), /etc/horde/ingo(ingo),
/usr/share/horde/ingo/lib/Block(ingo),
/usr/share/horde/ingo/templates(ingo),
/usr/share/horde/ingo/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES(ingo),
/usr/share/horde/ingo/lib/tests(ingo),
/usr/share/horde/ingo/locale/zh_TW/LC_MESSAGES(ingo),
/usr/share/horde/ingo(ingo), /usr/share/horde/ingo/locale/zh_TW(ingo),
/usr/share/horde/ingo/themes(ingo), /usr/share/horde/ingo/js(ingo),
/usr/share/horde/ingo/locale(ingo),
/usr/share/horde/ingo/lib/Script(ingo)
Files present also in ingo package which is obsoleted by that one (ingo
orphaned for devel). So it should not be issue.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
Other legacy stuff found like %defattr(-,root,root,-). It should be fixed if
package does not targeted to EL-5.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: 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
[Bug 1083721] Review Request: rendercheck - Tool to verify correct operation of the XRENDER extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1083721 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|rendercheck-1.4-1.0.2.20140 |rendercheck-1.4-1.0.2.20140 |402GIT589bb58.el6 |402GIT589bb58.fc20 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rendercheck-1.4-1.0.2.20140402GIT589bb58.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1090933] Review Request : fusioninventory-agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090933 --- Comment #2 from maria...@tuxette.fr maria...@tuxette.fr --- New release : updated spec and srpm http://giverny.tuxette.fr/copr/fusioninventory/fusioninventory-agent-2.3.8-0.fc20.src.rpm http://giverny.tuxette.fr/copr/fusioninventory/fusioninventory-agent.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010741] Review Request: python-nikola - Static website and blog generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010741 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-nikola-6.4.0-1.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-05-16 06:10:05 --- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-nikola-6.4.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1086444] Review Request: ghc-optparse-applicative - Utilities and combinators for parsing command line options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086444 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-optparse-applicative-0. ||8.0.1-2.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-05-16 06:10:51 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-optparse-applicative-0.8.0.1-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ 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 1086444, which changed state. Bug 1086444 Summary: Review Request: ghc-optparse-applicative - Utilities and combinators for parsing command line options https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086444 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 --- Comment #14 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- librfm-5.2.9 is available from Rawhide for some weeks, could we close this ticket as CLOSED RAWHIDE now? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866265] Review Request: opentrep - C++ API for parsing travel-focused requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866265 --- Comment #25 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- opentrep-python.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/libpyopentrep/libpyopentrep.so If you have any idea as how to remove that warning, it is welcome! It's a limitation of the fedora-review tool, which apparently doesn't recognize Python's module path as a valid location for .so files. https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ - filing an RFE might lead to something. $ rpmls opentrep-data-0.6.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/opentrep/data/por/README.md -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/opentrep/data/por/ori_por_public.csv It doesn't require the base package yet for proper directory ownership: $ rpm -qpR opentrep-data-0.6.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm |grep -v ^rpm $ If it shall be possible for the -data subpackage to be installed independently, you may include the directories in it, too. Currently, the dependency is backwards, i.e. the base package requires the -data package. $ grep lib64 rpms-unpacked/opentrep-devel-0.6.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm/usr/bin/opentrep-config #libdir=/usr/lib64 It would still cause a conflict, because of that line. Other conflicts found in /usr/share/opentrep/CMake files: /usr/share is for arch-independent data, but several of the CMake files refer to /usr/lib64. A wrong Python path has been spotted in them, too: $ grep python/open * opentrep-config.cmake:set (OPENTREP_LIBRARY_DIRS /usr/lib64:/usr/lib64/python/opentrep) opentrep-library-depends-debug.cmake: IMPORTED_LOCATION_DEBUG /usr/lib64/python/opentrep/libpyopentrep.so.0.6.1 opentrep-library-depends-debug.cmake:list(APPEND _IMPORT_CHECK_FILES_FOR_pyopentreplib /usr/lib64/python/opentrep/libpyopentrep.so.0.6.1 ) Then, the following now works: $ /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/libpyopentrep/pyopentrep /usr/share/man/man1/pyopentrep.1.gz $ pyopentrep bash: pyopentrep: command not found... I still think it's a bad idea to include the manual page in section 1 without making available the pyopentrep command in $PATH. Since the -python subpkg is arch-specific and not multilib'ed it would be possible to symlink /usr/bin/pyopentrep to the script in Python module path. (cf. comment 22) $ pkg-config --variable=docdir opentrep /usr/share/doc/opentrep-0.6.1 Invalid for Fedora = 20 unversioned docdirs. The opentrep-config script also contains this path, albeit unused in the script. /usr/share/aclocal/opentrep.m4 One place that mentions Boost as requirement. Some of the header files want Boost headers, too, but the -devel package does not depend on any Boost -devel packages yet. Should the pkgconfig file depend on Boost, too? All are issues that sometimes are (re)introduced into packages also some time after review - any suggestions on how to proceed? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098480] New: Review Request: fts-rest - The REST interface for FTS (File Transfer Service V3)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098480 Bug ID: 1098480 Summary: Review Request: fts-rest - The REST interface for FTS (File Transfer Service V3) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: michal.si...@cern.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/fts3/epel_release/fts-rest.spec SRPM URL: https://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/fts3/epel_release/fts-rest-3.2.5-1.src.rpm Description: The REST interface for FTS (File Transfer Service V3). The package includes the server site Web API and the corresponding CLI. Fedora Account System Username: simonm I would really appreciate a review so fts-rest can get into EPEL6. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6855286 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866265] Review Request: opentrep - C++ API for parsing travel-focused requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866265 --- Comment #26 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- It's a limitation of the fedora-review tool, rpmlint precisely -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1092022] Review Request: rubygem-drake - A branch of Rake supporting automatic parallelizing of tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092022
--- Comment #1 from Jan Pradac jan.pra...@gmail.com ---
Please check rpmlint issue:
- rubygem-drake.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/gems/gems/drake-0.9.2.0.3.1/lib/rake/ruby182_test_unit_fix.rb
Please do not run tests by itself (drake):
- ./bin/drake test
Installation verified manually with installed rubygem-comp_tree.
= 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
/usr/share/gems/doc
[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
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: 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/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
[x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
= 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]: 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.
[x]: %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]: 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
[Bug 1092022] Review Request: rubygem-drake - A branch of Rake supporting automatic parallelizing of tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092022 --- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- (In reply to Jan Pradac from comment #1) Please check rpmlint issue: - rubygem-drake.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/gems/gems/drake-0.9.2.0.3.1/lib/rake/ruby182_test_unit_fix.rb The file should not be executable. Fixed in new revision. Please do not run tests by itself (drake): - ./bin/drake test This should actually work (if deps were satisfied). SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/rubygem-drake.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/rubygem-drake-0.9.2.0.3.1-2.el7.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087740] Review Request: php-horde-nag - A web based task list manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087740
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pa...@hubbitus.info
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pa...@hubbitus.info
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 101 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/pasha/SOFT/Review/php-horde-nag/1087740-php-
horde-nag/licensecheck.txt
Why GPLv2+? README said:
Licensing
=
For licensing and copyright information, please see the file COPYING_ in the
Nag distribution.
There no COPYING_ file, COPYING contain GPLv2 license, but some files (like a
data.php, index.php) contain header:
* Copyright 2001-2013 Horde LLC (http://www.horde.org/)
*
* See the enclosed file COPYING for license information (GPL). If you
* did not receive this file, see http://www.horde.org/licenses/gpl
So GPLv2 deducted.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/horde
Require horde needed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
Please replace:
%setup -q -c -T
tar xif %{SOURCE0}
just by:
%setup -qcn %{pear_name}-%{version}
[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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[ ]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: 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.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
Other legacy stuff cleanup required also if it is not targeted to EL-5
[-]: If the source package does not include license
[Bug 1023769] Review Request: golang-github-goerlang-dist - An implementation of Erlang node
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023769 --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- As far as I can see, the problem with the multiple folder ownerships has been solved in bug #1010713. Can we proceed here (and in bug #1023771)? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1048493] Review Request: icecat - GNU version of Firefox browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493 --- Comment #27 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- Any changes occured in the spec since the last conversation? (I'd like to get them if any to perform new formal review) BTW, that's a pity that Icecat has no updates since that time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087737] Review Request: php-horde-ingo - An email filter rules manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087737
--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com ---
(In reply to Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) from comment #1)
Conclusion:
1) Requires horde missing.
Requires: php-pear(%{pear_channel}/horde) = 5.0.0
Requires: php-pear(%{pear_channel}/horde) 6.0.0
2) tests run needed.
Current test are not usable.
(upstream) work is in progress in master branch, so for next major version.
https://github.com/horde/horde/tree/FRAMEWORK_5_1/ingo/lib/tests = Broken
https://github.com/horde/horde/tree/master/ingo/test/Ingo = OK
So I plan to enable them for new major horde update.
3) Cleanup legacy stuff highly recommended if package does not targeted to
EL-5.
I prefer to keep them (and clean them after import), because I need them for my
backport repo.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098330] Review Request: judy-fk - General purpose dynamic array with fixed-length keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098330 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lkund...@v3.sk Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lkund...@v3.sk Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- Taking this for a review. Removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR, I'm going to sponsor Mirek. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098330] Review Request: judy-fk - General purpose dynamic array with fixed-length keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098330
Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk ---
* Package named correctly
* Packaging the latest version
* License tag correct
* License is fine for fedora
* Builds fine in mock
* Rpmlint is happy
* SPEC file is clean and legible
* Filelist sane
* Requires sane
* Provides sane
APPROVED
One minor suggestion; these are no longer required in a modern RPM:
0.) Cleaning buildroot before install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
1.) %clean section altogether
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
2.) %defattr
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
3.) BuildRoot tag
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087740] Review Request: php-horde-nag - A web based task list manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087740
--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com ---
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
So GPLv2 deducted.
Fixed
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/horde
Require horde needed.
Requires: php-pear(%{pear_channel}/horde) = 5.0.0
Requires: php-pear(%{pear_channel}/horde) 6.0.0
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Please replace:
%setup -q -c -T
tar xif %{SOURCE0}
This was required by a broken archive in previous version
Fixed.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Have to wait for next major version of the Framework.
https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/93f346f2336fa4bdd4fc79cd10f2a2442813b89e
Spec:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/93f346f2336fa4bdd4fc79cd10f2a2442813b89e/php/horde/php-horde-nag/php-horde-nag.spec
Srpm: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-horde-nag-4.1.4-2.remi.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1097089] Re-Review Request: libeio - Event-based fully asynchronous I/O library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097089 --- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jan Kaluža from comment #2) Thanks, everything should be fixed now. Spec URL: http://jkaluza.fedorapeople.org/libeio.spec SRPM URL: http://jkaluza.fedorapeople.org/libeio-4.19-2.fc19.src.rpm Thanks, please note that spec and spec from SRPM differs. SRPM adds support for SCL. Are you going to add this version to Fedora or was it intentional? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1097089] Re-Review Request: libeio - Event-based fully asynchronous I/O library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097089 --- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #4) (In reply to Jan Kaluža from comment #2) Thanks, everything should be fixed now. Spec URL: http://jkaluza.fedorapeople.org/libeio.spec SRPM URL: http://jkaluza.fedorapeople.org/libeio-4.19-2.fc19.src.rpm Thanks, please note that spec and spec from SRPM differs. SRPM adds support for SCL. Are you going to add this version to Fedora or was it intentional? s/intentional/unintentional -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1097089] Re-Review Request: libeio - Event-based fully asynchronous I/O library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097089 --- Comment #6 from Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com --- Sorry, I've uploaded the right libeio right now. I don't plan to commit SCL into Fedora, but I'm working also on SCL version of that package and uploaded wrong srpm by mistake. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1097089] Re-Review Request: libeio - Event-based fully asynchronous I/O library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097089 Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1092022] Review Request: rubygem-drake - A branch of Rake supporting automatic parallelizing of tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092022 Jan Pradac jan.pra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Jan Pradac jan.pra...@gmail.com --- Thanks for updates, now it looks well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-05-16 08:23:15 --- Comment #15 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #14) librfm-5.2.9 is available from Rawhide for some weeks, could we close this ticket as CLOSED RAWHIDE now? Done. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 Bug 1016809 depends on bug 1018568, which changed state. Bug 1018568 Summary: Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1048493] Review Request: icecat - GNU version of Firefox browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493 --- Comment #28 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #27) Any changes occured in the spec since the last conversation? (I'd like to get them if any to perform new formal review) BTW, that's a pity that Icecat has no updates since that time. No news for the moment and upstream seems no inclined to grant other informations about next release. FPC ticket will be closed soon (i hope). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517 --- Comment #35 from Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #34) Yeah, but LLVM 3.4 triggers problems when running the tests (cf. comments above). In the meantime, you can replace llvm-libs-3.4 with the old 3.3 version from the fedora repo. No, in most cases you can't. Many other packages will drag in llvm-libs-3.4 and you can't install the old version without removing them. In general, I think mesa will trip up users: repoquery --whatrequires llvm-libs-3.4 OpenGTL-0:0.9.18-9.fc20.x86_64 OpenGTL-devel-0:0.9.18-9.fc20.i686 OpenGTL-devel-0:0.9.18-9.fc20.x86_64 OpenGTL-libs-0:0.9.18-9.fc20.i686 OpenGTL-libs-0:0.9.18-9.fc20.x86_64 clang-0:3.4-6.fc20.i686 clang-0:3.4-6.fc20.x86_64 dragonegg-0:3.4-0.3.rc0.fc20.x86_64 gambas3-gb-jit-0:3.5.3-1.fc20.1.x86_64 lightspark-0:0.7.2-8.20140219git.fc20.x86_64 lldb-0:3.4-6.fc20.i686 lldb-0:3.4-6.fc20.x86_64 llvm-0:3.4-6.fc20.i686 llvm-0:3.4-6.fc20.x86_64 llvm-ocaml-0:3.4-6.fc20.i686 llvm-ocaml-0:3.4-6.fc20.x86_64 mesa-dri-drivers-0:10.1.3-1.20140509.fc20.i686 mesa-dri-drivers-0:10.1.3-1.20140509.fc20.x86_64 mesa-libOpenCL-0:10.1.3-1.20140509.fc20.i686 mesa-libOpenCL-0:10.1.3-1.20140509.fc20.x86_64 mesa-libxatracker-0:10.1.3-1.20140509.fc20.i686 mesa-libxatracker-0:10.1.3-1.20140509.fc20.x86_64 mesa-vdpau-drivers-0:10.1.3-1.20140509.fc20.i686 mesa-vdpau-drivers-0:10.1.3-1.20140509.fc20.x86_64 pocl-0:0.9-4.fc20.1.i686 pocl-0:0.9-4.fc20.1.x86_64 pure-0:0.58-3.fc20.i686 pure-0:0.58-3.fc20.x86_64 python-llvmpy-0:0.12.4-1.fc20.x86_64 python3-llvmpy-0:0.12.4-1.fc20.x86_64 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1092022] Review Request: rubygem-drake - A branch of Rake supporting automatic parallelizing of tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092022 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- Thank you. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-drake Short Description: A branch of Rake supporting automatic parallelizing of tasks Upstream URL: http://quix.github.io/rake/ Owners: lkundrak Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517 Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1098534 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098534 [Bug 1098534] Package relying on a specific LLVM version -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096796] Review Request: mingw-SDL2 - MinGW Windows port of SDL2 cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096796
Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl ---
$ rpmlint mingw-SDL2.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw-SDL2-2.0.3-2.fc21.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw32-SDL2-2.0.3-2.fc21.noarch.rpm
mingw64-SDL2-2.0.3-2.fc21.noarch.rpm
mingw32-SDL2.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-SDL2/COPYING.txt
mingw32-SDL2.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-SDL2/README.txt
mingw64-SDL2.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/mingw64-SDL2/README.txt
mingw64-SDL2.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/mingw64-SDL2/COPYING.txt
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
$ rpm --query --requires mingw32-SDL2
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
mingw32-crt
mingw32-filesystem = 95
mingw32(gdi32.dll)
mingw32(iconv.dll)
mingw32(imm32.dll)
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
mingw32(ole32.dll)
mingw32(oleaut32.dll)
mingw32-pkg-config
mingw32(shell32.dll)
mingw32(user32.dll)
mingw32(version.dll)
mingw32(winmm.dll)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --requires mingw64-SDL2
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
mingw64-crt
mingw64-filesystem = 95
mingw64(gdi32.dll)
mingw64(iconv.dll)
mingw64(imm32.dll)
mingw64(kernel32.dll)
mingw64(msvcrt.dll)
mingw64(ole32.dll)
mingw64(oleaut32.dll)
mingw64-pkg-config
mingw64(shell32.dll)
mingw64(user32.dll)
mingw64(version.dll)
mingw64(winmm.dll)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --provides mingw32-SDL2
mingw32-SDL2 = 2.0.3-2.fc21
mingw32(sdl2.dll)
$ rpm --query --provides mingw64-SDL2
mingw64-SDL2 = 2.0.3-2.fc21
mingw64(sdl2.dll)
$ wget --quiet http://www.libsdl.org/release/SDL2-2.0.3.tar.gz -O - | md5sum
fe6c61d2e9df9ef570e7e80c6e822537 -
$ md5sum SDL2-2.0.3.tar.gz
fe6c61d2e9df9ef570e7e80c6e822537 SDL2-2.0.3.tar.gz
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
[!] Compliant with generic Fedora Packaging Guidelines
[+] Source package name is prefixed with 'mingw-'
[+] Spec file starts with %{?mingw_package_header}
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem = 95 is in the .spec file
[+] BuildRequires: mingw64-filesystem = 95 is in the .spec file
[+] Spec file contains %package sections for both mingw32 and mingw64 packages
[+] Binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are noarch
[+] Spec file contains %{?mingw_debug_package} after the %description section
[+] Uses one of the macros %mingw_configure, %mingw_cmake, or %mingw_cmake_kde4
to configure the package
[+] Uses the macro %mingw_make to build the package
[+] Uses the macro %mingw_make to install the package
[/] If package contains translations, the %mingw_find_lang macro must be used
[+] No binary package named mingw-$pkgname is generated
[+] Libtool .la files are not bundled
[+] .def files are not bundled
[+] Man pages which duplicate native package are not bundled
[+] Info files which duplicate native package are not bundled
[+] Provides of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
[+] Requires of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
The rpmlint warnings still need to be resolved. This can be done
by adding a 'BuildRequires: dos2unix' and adding the command
'dos2unix COPYING.txt README.txt' after the %setup line
Please fix this before importing the package in Fedora
===
The package mingw-libSDL2 is APPROVED by epienbro
===
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517 --- Comment #36 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr --- Neal: Yeah, this works on build VMs, but is less practical on your own machine. See bug 1098534. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989850] Review Request: mingw-libmicrohttpd - MinGW package for libmicrohttpd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-05-16 10:06:04 --- Comment #13 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Package is in Fedora 20 and rawhide. Closing review request -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989850] Review Request: mingw-libmicrohttpd - MinGW package for libmicrohttpd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850 Bug 989850 depends on bug 989847, which changed state. Bug 989847 Summary: Review Request: mingw-plibc - MinGW package for plibc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989847 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989847] Review Request: mingw-plibc - MinGW package for plibc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989847 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-05-16 10:06:40 --- Comment #11 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Package is in Fedora 20 and rawhide. Closing review request -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858058] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtbase - Qt5 for Windows - QtBase component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858058 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1057911 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057911 [Bug 1057911] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwinextras - Qt5 for Windows - QtWinExtras component -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057911] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwinextras - Qt5 for Windows - QtWinExtras component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057911 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||858058 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858058 [Bug 858058] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtbase - Qt5 for Windows - QtBase component -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098330] Review Request: judy-fk - General purpose dynamic array with fixed-length keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098330 --- Comment #4 from Miroslav Spousta q...@ucw.cz --- Spec URL: http://www.ucw.cz/~qiq/rpms/judy-fk.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ucw.cz/~qiq/rpms/judy-fk-1.0.6-2.fc20.src.rpm * Fri May 16 2014 Miroslav Spousta miroslav.spou...@gooddata.com 1.0.6-2 - removal of unnecessary directives from spec file -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098330] Review Request: judy-fk - General purpose dynamic array with fixed-length keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098330 Miroslav Spousta q...@ucw.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Miroslav Spousta q...@ucw.cz --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: judy-fk Short Description: General purpose dynamic array with fixed-length keys Upstream URL: http://github.com/qiq/judy-fk Owners: qiq Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098330] Review Request: judy-fk - General purpose dynamic array with fixed-length keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098330 Miroslav Spousta q...@ucw.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722874] Review Request: python-html5lib - A python based HTML parser/tokenizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722874 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 722874] Review Request: python-html5lib - A python based HTML parser/tokenizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722874 --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851680] Review Request: mingw-libidl - MinGW Windows IDL Parsing Library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851680 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 851680] Review Request: mingw-libidl - MinGW Windows IDL Parsing Library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851680 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1082341] Review Request: nodejs-shelljs - Portable Unix shell commands for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082341 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1082341] Review Request: nodejs-shelljs - Portable Unix shell commands for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082341 --- Comment #11 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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087740] Review Request: php-horde-nag - A web based task list manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087740 --- Comment #3 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- You forgot: [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Timestamp on package.xml mangled in %prep did not preserved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1092018] Review Request: rubygem-comp_tree - A simple framework for automatic parallelism
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092018 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1092018] Review Request: rubygem-comp_tree - A simple framework for automatic parallelism
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092018 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094041] Review Request: python-inlinestyler - Inlines external CSS into HTML elements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094041 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094041] Review Request: python-inlinestyler - Inlines external CSS into HTML elements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094041 --- Comment #11 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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087737] Review Request: php-horde-ingo - An email filter rules manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087737 --- Comment #3 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- Please preserve timestamp on package.xml mangled in %prep. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1092022] Review Request: rubygem-drake - A branch of Rake supporting automatic parallelizing of tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092022 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094194] Review Request: liblogging - An easy to use logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094194 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1092022] Review Request: rubygem-drake - A branch of Rake supporting automatic parallelizing of tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092022 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094864] Review Request: php-pecl-xmldiff - Pecl package for XML diff and merge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094864 --- Comment #16 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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094194] Review Request: liblogging - An easy to use logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094194 --- 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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094864] Review Request: php-pecl-xmldiff - Pecl package for XML diff and merge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094864 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1097584] Review Request: shiny - Shader and material management library for OGRE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097584 --- Comment #16 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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1097584] Review Request: shiny - Shader and material management library for OGRE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097584 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098330] Review Request: judy-fk - General purpose dynamic array with fixed-length keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098330 --- Comment #6 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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098330] Review Request: judy-fk - General purpose dynamic array with fixed-length keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098330 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087740] Review Request: php-horde-nag - A web based task list manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087740 --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Fixed https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/797d034bac0d9313cfc7f56bc7903e5359066ada Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/797d034bac0d9313cfc7f56bc7903e5359066ada/php/horde/php-horde-nag/php-horde-nag.spec Srpm: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-horde-nag-4.1.4-2.remi.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087737] Review Request: php-horde-ingo - An email filter rules manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087737 --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Fixed: https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/5e8dc4dc45e2197e37c6ca14c353631e09380927 Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/5e8dc4dc45e2197e37c6ca14c353631e09380927/php/horde/php-horde-ingo/php-horde-ingo.spec Srpm: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-horde-ingo-3.1.4-2.remi.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087742] Review Request: php-horde-turba - A web based address book
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087742
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pa...@hubbitus.info
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pa...@hubbitus.info
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info ---
= MUST items =
Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing does not list just
ASL, only ASL 1.0, ASL 1.1, ASL 2.0 present. Needs clarification.
[!x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
Other cleanup also required if it is not targeted to EL-5. On import stage if
you are prefer.
= SHOULD items =
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
%setup -q -c -T
tar xif %{SOURCE0}
Should be just %setup…
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Please preserve timestamp on package.xml mangled in %prep.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096807] Review Request: mingw-SDL2_image - MinGW Windows port of the Image loading library for SDL2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096807 --- Comment #3 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- Fixed Links: Spec URL: https://rawgit.com/maci0/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/mingw-SDL2_image.spec SRPM URL: https://rawgit.com/maci0/rpmbuild/master/SRPMS/mingw-SDL2_image-2.0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087740] Review Request: php-horde-nag - A web based task list manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087740 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- So, all required issues fixed. Please clean spec on import please. Package APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096809] Review Request: mingw-SDL2_mixer - MinGW Windows port of Simple DirectMedia Layer's Sample Mixer Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096809 --- Comment #2 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- Fixed Links: Spec URL: https://rawgit.com/maci0/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/mingw-SDL2_mixer.spec SRPM URL: https://rawgit.com/maci0/rpmbuild/master/SRPMS/mingw-SDL2_mixer-2.0.0-2.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096807] Review Request: mingw-SDL2_image - MinGW Windows port of the Image loading library for SDL2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096807 --- Comment #4 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- woops, my bad.. SRPM URL: https://rawgit.com/maci0/rpmbuild/master/SRPMS/mingw-SDL2_image-2.0.0-2.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087737] Review Request: php-horde-ingo - An email filter rules manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087737 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- So, all required issues fixed. Please clean spec on import please and consider include tests when it became usable. Package APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087742] Review Request: php-horde-turba - A web based address book
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087742
--- Comment #2 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info ---
Formal review:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing does not list just
ASL, only ASL 1.0, ASL 1.1, ASL 2.0 present. Needs clarification.
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 127 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/pasha/SOFT/Review/php-horde-turba/1087742-php-
horde-turba/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/horde
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/horde/turba/lib/Driver(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/templates(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/locale/zh_CN(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/templates/browse(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/themes(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/locale/zh_TW(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/templates/prefs(turba), /etc/horde/turba(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/templates/list(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/lib(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/lib/Object(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/addressbooks(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/templates/data(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/lib/Data(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/locale/zh_TW/LC_MESSAGES(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/lib/Block(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/templates/block(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES(turba),
/usr/share/horde/turba/js(turba), /usr/share/horde/turba/locale(turba)
Conflicts with package turba which is obsoleted by this and orphaned in devel.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
Other cleanup also required if it is not targeted to EL-5. On import stage if
you are prefer.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
%setup -q -c -T
tar xif %{SOURCE0}
Should be just %setup…
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
Obsolete handled correctly.
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources
[Bug 1087742] Review Request: php-horde-turba - A web based address book
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087742 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Changes: https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/0255542c42d83cb28a4900eda7bf57cd1fed6411 Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/0255542c42d83cb28a4900eda7bf57cd1fed6411/php/horde/php-horde-turba/php-horde-turba.spec Srpm: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-horde-turba-4.1.4-2.remi.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087740] Review Request: php-horde-nag - A web based task list manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087740 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Great thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-horde-nag Short Description: A web based task list manager Upstream URL: php-horde-nag Owners: remi Branches: fc20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087737] Review Request: php-horde-ingo - An email filter rules manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087737 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Great thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-horde-ingo Short Description: An email filter rules manager Upstream URL: php-horde-nag Owners: remi Branches: fc20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096796] Review Request: mingw-SDL2 - MinGW Windows port of SDL2 cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096796 MinGW Maintenance Account fedora-mi...@lists.fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr | |oject.org | Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Marcel Wysocki m...@satgnu.net --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-SDL2 Short Description: MinGW Windows port of SDL2 cross-platform multimedia library Upstream URL: http://www.libsdl.org/ Owners: maci Branches: f19 f20 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087742] Review Request: php-horde-turba - A web based address book
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087742 --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- About the test suites, if you look at the ~100 horde packages already imported, you will notice than, for most of them, the tests are run during %check. I will do my best to enable the missing ones as soon as possible (working with upstream on this). Notice, I also consider %check as a MUST in most of the case (which mean, when possible). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087769] Review Request: php-horde-wicked - Wiki application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087769 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pa...@hubbitus.info Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pa...@hubbitus.info Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- Issues found so far: 1) php-horde-wicked.src:114: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 114) 2) # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/', '--releasever', '21', 'install', '/home/pasha/SOFT/Review/php-horde-wicked/1087769-php-horde-wicked/results/php-horde-wicked-2.0.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm'] Error: Package: php-horde-wicked-2.0.1-1.fc21.noarch (/php-horde-wicked-2.0.1-1.fc21.noarch) Requires: php-pear(Text_Wiki) 2.0.0 3) [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. package.xml have: required package nameText_Wiki/name channelpear.php.net/channel min1.2.0/min /package /required So, no max version should be defined: Requires: php-pear(Text_Wiki) = 1.2.0 Requires: php-pear(Text_Wiki) 2.0.0 Requires httpd, mod_php missing. 4) [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Please preserve timestamp on package.xml mangled in %prep. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087769] Review Request: php-horde-wicked - Wiki application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087769
--- Comment #2 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info ---
Formal review:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
= 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 137 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/pasha/SOFT/Review/php-horde-wicked/1087769-php-
horde-wicked/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/httpd, /etc/httpd/conf.d,
/etc/horde
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
Please cleanup package at least on import time.
[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
[-]: 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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
package.xml have:
required
package
nameText_Wiki/name
channelpear.php.net/channel
min1.2.0/min
/package
/required
So, no max version should be defined:
Requires: php-pear(Text_Wiki) = 1.2.0
Requires: php-pear(Text_Wiki) 2.0.0
Requires httpd, mod_php missing.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: 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.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[!x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the
[Bug 859671] Review Request: opencpn - A free and open source software for marine navigation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859671 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed|2014-01-03 05:46:23 |2014-05-16 13:36:18 --- Comment #13 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- I think we can close this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087737] Review Request: php-horde-ingo - An email filter rules manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087737 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087737] Review Request: php-horde-ingo - An email filter rules manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087737 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- WARNING: Invalid branch fc20 requested WARNING: Upstream URL seems to be invalid -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087740] Review Request: php-horde-nag - A web based task list manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087740 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- WARNING: Invalid branch fc20 requested WARNING: Upstream URL seems to be invalid -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087740] Review Request: php-horde-nag - A web based task list manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087740 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096796] Review Request: mingw-SDL2 - MinGW Windows port of SDL2 cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096796 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096796] Review Request: mingw-SDL2 - MinGW Windows port of SDL2 cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096796 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087740] Review Request: php-horde-nag - A web based task list manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087740 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1087772 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087772 [Bug 1087772] Review Request: php-horde-kronolith - A web based calendar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087772] Review Request: php-horde-kronolith - A web based calendar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087772 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pa...@hubbitus.info Depends On||1087740 Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pa...@hubbitus.info Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- Only semi-serious issue found: [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Please preserve timestamp on package.xml mangled in %prep. And we can't continue until php-horde-nag will be imported (bz#1087740). Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087740 [Bug 1087740] Review Request: php-horde-nag - A web based task list manager -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087772] Review Request: php-horde-kronolith - A web based calendar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087772 --- Comment #2 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- Formal review: Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: === - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines = 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: Unknown or generated. 224 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pasha/SOFT/Review/php-horde-kronolith/1087772 -php-horde-kronolith/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/horde [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/horde/kronolith/templates/fbview(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/locale/zh_TW/LC_MESSAGES(kronolith), /etc/horde/kronolith(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/locale/zh_TW(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/templates(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/templates/attendees(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/themes(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/templates/perms(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/templates/edit(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/js(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/templates/feeds(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/templates/contacts(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/templates/month(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/lib/Storage(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/templates/prefs(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/templates/view(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/lib(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/lib/Block(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/templates/search(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/templates/day(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/templates/data(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/lib/Driver(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/locale/zh_CN(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/locale(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/calendars(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/feed(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/templates/week(kronolith), /usr/share/horde/kronolith/templates/delete(kronolith) Conflicts from obsoleted kronolith package which is orphaned for devel. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package 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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. From optional requires: dependencies optional package namenag/name channelpear.horde.org/channel min4.0.0/min max5.0.0alpha1/max exclude5.0.0alpha1/exclude /package package nametimeobjects/name channelpear.horde.org/channel min2.0.0/min max3.0.0alpha1/max exclude3.0.0alpha1/exclude /package package nameHorde_ActiveSync/name channelpear.horde.org/channel min2.4.0/min max3.0.0alpha1/max exclude3.0.0alpha1/exclude /package package nameHorde_Db/name channelpear.horde.org/channel min2.0.0/min max3.0.0alpha1/max exclude3.0.0alpha1/exclude /package package nameHorde_Test/name channelpear.horde.org/channel min2.0.0/min max3.0.0alpha1/max exclude3.0.0alpha1/exclude /package package nameDate_Holidays/name channelpear.php.net/channel min0.21.0/min /package extension namexmlwriter/name /extension /optional /dependencies Only nag and php-pear(Date_Holidays) required, timeobjects marked as TODO in comment and implicitly required: Horde_Db stated in comment. Consider other on you choose. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains
[Bug 1087742] Review Request: php-horde-turba - A web based address book
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087742 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info --- (In reply to Remi Collet from comment #4) About the test suites, if you look at the ~100 horde packages already imported, you will notice than, for most of them, the tests are run during %check. I will do my best to enable the missing ones as soon as possible (working with upstream on this). Notice, I also consider %check as a MUST in most of the case (which mean, when possible). I have no doubt. Please clean spec on import please. Package APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098625] New: Review Request: php-pear-Text-Wiki - Transforms Wiki and BBCode markup into XHTML, LaTeX or plain text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098625 Bug ID: 1098625 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Text-Wiki - Transforms Wiki and BBCode markup into XHTML, LaTeX or plain text Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/c53dbf8f02c892c16c750b03caa19e9b3c1af54b/php/pear/php-pear-Text-Wiki/php-pear-Text-Wiki.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-pear-Text-Wiki-1.2.1-2.remi.src.rpm Description: Transforms Wiki and BBCode markup into XHTML, LaTeX or plain text markup. This is the base engine for all of the Text_Wiki sub-classes The text transformation is done in 2 steps. The chosen parser uses markup rules to tokenize the tags and content. Renderers output the tokens and text into the requested format. The tokenized form replaces the tags by a protected byte value associated to an index in an options table. This form shares up to 50 rules by all parsers and renderers. The package is intented for versatile transformers as well as converters. Text_Wiki is delivered with its own parser, which is used by Yawiki or Horde's Wicked and three basic renderers: XHTML , LaTeX and plain text. Strong sanitizing of XHTML is default. Parsers and Renderers exist for BBCode, Cowiki, Dokuwiki, Mediawiki and Tikiwiki. It is highly configurable and can be easily extended. Fedora Account System Username: remi -- Dependency of horde. EPEL-5 targeted. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087769] Review Request: php-horde-wicked - Wiki application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087769 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1098625 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Damn.. I forget to submit Text_Wiki... done. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098625 [Bug 1098625] Review Request: php-pear-Text-Wiki - Transforms Wiki and BBCode markup into XHTML, LaTeX or plain text -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098625] Review Request: php-pear-Text-Wiki - Transforms Wiki and BBCode markup into XHTML, LaTeX or plain text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098625 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1087769 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087769 [Bug 1087769] Review Request: php-horde-wicked - Wiki application -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087742] Review Request: php-horde-turba - A web based address book
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087742 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-horde-turba Short Description: A web based address book Upstream URL: php-horde-turba Owners: remi Branches: f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1087772] Review Request: php-horde-kronolith - A web based calendar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087772 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- For the dependencies, I should have point you to https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/tree/master/php/horde The check.php script compute the dependency chain (checking both spec and package.xml) and generate (most important) the buildorder file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
