[Bug 1111232] Review Request: perl-App-a2p - Awk to Perl translator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=232 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-App-a2p-1.007-1.fc21 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-06-24 02:29:23 --- Comment #6 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review and the 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 1111691] Review Request: qore - multithreaded programming/scripting language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #19 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to David Nichols from comment #18)
OK I have it like this now:
Provides: qore-module(abi) = 0.19
Provides: qore-module(abi) = 0.18
Provides: libqore5 = %{version}
Obsoletes: libqore5 0.8.11.1
I also updated the module (and library) ABI because I moved the user (text)
modules to $(datarootdir)/qore-modules (ie /usr/share/qore-modules/...) to
address one of the fedora-review issues, and for this I also added
additional symbols to the library.
However now I'm getting a new error in fedora-review as follows:
libqore.x86_64: E: useless-provides qore-module(abi)
I also checked https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/audacious/sources/spec
and see that audacious-libs only uses one versioned Provides: declaration for
audacious(plugin-api) (they also use %{?_isa} in the declaration, which I've
added).
So basically the question is if:
Provides: qore-module(abi)%{?_isa} = 0.19
%{?_isa:Provides: qore-module(abi) = 0.19}
Provides: qore-module(abi)%{?_isa} = 0.18
%{?_isa:Provides: qore-module(abi) = 0.18}
is OK despite the error in fedora-review (libqore.x86_64: E: useless-provides
qore-module(abi)). I found another fedora package (rubygem-em-socksify) that
passed review with this error, so maybe it's ok - not totally clear to me why
it's not a warning if under some circumstances it's OK.
Anyway, assuming it's OK, the new URLs are:
Spec URL: http://qore.org/srpms/qore.spec
SRPM URL: http://qore.org/srpms/qore-0.8.11.1-1.fc20.src.rpm
Changes:
- added explicit versioned capability for library ABI compatibility for module
RPMs
- added explicit versioned capability for libqore5 due to name change on
fedora/rhel
- obsoletes previous versions of libqore5 in case of foreign RPM installation
- added %%{optflags} to configure
- updated license text in library source to reflect most liberal license option
(MIT) with reference to LGPL and GPL options
- replaced GPL getopt_long.* files with BSD variants (not used on Linux builds)
- updated module and library ABI info
- moved user module directory to ${_datarootdir}
- moved module and user module directories to libqore package where they should
be
- disabled dependency tracking in configure
The upstream source has been significantly updated with the license text
updates as mentioned above.
There are still some GPL files included in licensecheck.txt: ltmain.sh
(included by autotools from libtool) and parser.cpp/parser.hpp which are
generated by Bison and subject to the Bison special exception.
there are some rpmlint warnings still present, but I hope they are acceptable
(the spelling ones are definitely OK I believe). There are missing man pages
for two programs used in C++ development for libqore, and the devel
documentation is in a separate package due to its size, so there are no docs in
the devel package.
--
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 1054938] Review Request: esteidpkcs11loader - Estonian ID card extension for Mozilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054938 Mihkel Vain tura...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Mihkel Vain tura...@gmail.com --- (In reply to František Dvořák from comment #9) And I guess this package should be released later, together with upcoming firefox-esteid-plugin? (or let the Provides+Obsoletes commented out for now?) Yes. I will not request a build for rawhide before firefox-esteid-plugin is in too. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: firefox-esteidpkcs11loader Short Description: Loads PKCS#11 module for web authentication with smart cards. Owners: mihkel Branches: f19 f20 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 1061801] Review Request: gmic - GREYC's Magic for Image Computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061801 --- Comment #12 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Put the latest version SRPM here and I will take a look again. ;) -- 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 1111242] Review Request: perl-App-s2p - Convert sed script to Perl program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242 --- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com --- Updated. Links are the same. -- 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 1108810] Review Request: kf5-kiconthemes - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 integration module with icon themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108810 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jgrul...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jgrul...@redhat.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 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663
--- Comment #24 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net ---
Two more nitpicks:
The -doc subpackage doesn't depend on the main package, so it could be
installed without it and the LICENSE file would not be present then.
The -doc subpackage places its files in:
/usr/share/doc/tetgen-doc
this is not ideal and you could use _pkgdocdir macro to keep manual.pdf in
/usr/share/doc/tetgen
For example, like this:
%install
...
cp -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_pkgdocdir}/
%files
...
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/manual.pdf
%files doc
%{_pkgdocdir}/manual.pdf
--
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 1062542] Review Request: libdatrie - Implementation of Double-Array structure for representing trie
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062542 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(dominik@greysecto ||r.net) -- 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 1112434] Review Request: brd - Scans directories and files for damage due to decay of storage medium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112434
Benedikt Morbach bmorb...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bmorb...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Benedikt Morbach bmorb...@redhat.com ---
Note: This is an unofficial/preliminary review
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later). Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bmorbach
/fedora-review/1112434-brd/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.4
those are okay, owned by python3 on rawhide (see bug 1112409)
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.4
see above
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Please do a release and package that or add the date of the commit you are
packaging
to the Release field as per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Version_Tag
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 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]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]:
[Bug 1112246] Review Request: rebase-helper - Tool for package maintainers to help them with updating their package to the latest upstream version.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112246 Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(phra...@redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #13 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- New SPEC file and SRPM package was uploaded. SPEC Url: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper.spec SRPM Url: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.1.20140624git.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 1108810] Review Request: kf5-kiconthemes - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 integration module with icon themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108810 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com --- Looks good, just add GPLv2+ (from src/tools/kiconfinder) to the license. Also fedora-review and rpmlint don't show any issue, 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 1112010] Review Request: pysubnettree - A Python Module for CIDR Lookups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112010 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- pysubnettree-0.23-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pysubnettree-0.23-3.fc20 -- 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 1112010] Review Request: pysubnettree - A Python Module for CIDR Lookups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112010 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663 --- Comment #25 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Documentation packages that pull in dependencies (just for a license file) are inconvenient. Please duplicate the license file instead of adding dependencies on base packages and lots of other stuff. -- 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 1108811] Review Request: kf5-kservice - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution for advanced plugin and service introspection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108811
Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||jgrul...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jgrul...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com ---
Add %config in front of %{_kf5_sysconfdir}/xdg/menus/kf5-applications.menu in
%files, because all non-executable files in /etc should be config files. Except
of this issue it looks good, just fix it during import. 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 1062542] Review Request: libdatrie - Implementation of Double-Array structure for representing trie
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062542
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(dominik@greysecto |
|r.net) |
--- Comment #16 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net ---
So you did, but now all the API docs are in the main package instead of -devel.
I don't think that was intended, either. You can use the _pkgdocdir macro like
Ralf suggested, but you must %exclude the files that should be in the -devel
package in %files section for the main package.
For example, like this (I'd keep AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog NEWS README in the
main package):
%files
%doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog NEWS README
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/*.html
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/*.png
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/*.js
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/*.css
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/README.migration
%{_libdir}/libdatrie.so.*
%files devel
%{_pkgdocdir}/*.html
%{_pkgdocdir}/*.png
%{_pkgdocdir}/*.js
%{_pkgdocdir}/*.css
%{_pkgdocdir}/README.migration
%{_includedir}/datrie/
%{_libdir}/libdatrie.so
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/datrie-0.2.pc
%{_bindir}/trietool*
%{_mandir}/man1/trietool*.1*
--
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 1067665] Review Request: xtrace - Utility for tracing X11 protocol for debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067665 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED CC||jchal...@redhat.com Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #18 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- There is a conflict with glibc xtrace utility. $ rpm -qf $(which xtrace) glibc-utils-2.18-12.fc20.x86_64 $ sudo yum install xtrace -y ... Transaction check error: file /usr/bin/xtrace from install of xtrace-1.3.1-5.fc20.x86_64 conflicts with file from package glibc-utils-2.18-12.fc20.x86_64 xtrace from glibc-utils is older: https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=history;f=debug/xtrace.sh;h=1e7635cbe49f9ed546d4ce19388ce08bb64701b0;hb=HEAD so xtrace from xtrace should be renamed to x11xtrace as noted at http://xtrace.alioth.debian.org/ at the bottom. -- 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 1108812] Review Request: kf5-knotifications - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution with abstraction for system notifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108812 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jgrul...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jgrul...@redhat.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 1094289] Review Request: perl-Term-Encoding - Detect encoding of the current terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094289 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Term-Encoding-0.02-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Term-Encoding-0.02-2.el6 -- 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 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663
--- Comment #26 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com ---
Uhm, the -doc is not requiring the main package, and does ship a copy of the
license file.
As for the pkgdocdir, /usr/share/doc/tetgen-doc would need to exist anyways for
LICENSE, so I would end up having
%files
%doc README LICENSE
%dir %{_pkgdocdir}
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/manual.pdf
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/example.poly
%files doc
%doc LICENSE
%dir %{_pkgdocdir}
%{_pkgdocdir}/manual.pdf
%{_pkgdocdir}/example.poly
In my opinion, it is cleaner to just keep
%files
%doc README LICENSE
%files doc
%doc example.poly LICENSE manual.pdf
--
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 1108812] Review Request: kf5-knotifications - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution with abstraction for system notifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108812 --- Comment #1 from Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com --- Looks good, no issue spotted, 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 1108817] Review Request: kf5-ktextwidgets - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 addon with advanced text editing widgets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108817 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jgrul...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jgrul...@redhat.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 1111691] Review Request: qore - multithreaded programming/scripting language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #20 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
libqore.x86_64: E: useless-provides qore-module(abi)
rpmlint is mistaken in this case. A bug report had been filed years ago in bug
460872, but it has been closed due to a misunderstanding.
Provides: qore-module(abi)%{?_isa} = 0.19
At some time, adding %{?_isa} to create arch-specific dependencies has become
popular and can also help the depsolver. For example, when the depsolver
encounters broken deps in a multiarch repo such as x86_64, it would try to
resolve the deps with i686 packages (even older ones), which sometimes leads to
pulling in lots of i686 packages.
If you choose to add %{?_isa}, there is not much reason to also add the
non-%isa Provides.
The audacious packages had started with non-%isa Provides, which should be
dropped nowadays since nothing depends on them anymore.
--
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 1108817] Review Request: kf5-ktextwidgets - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 addon with advanced text editing widgets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108817 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com --- Looks good, no issue spotted, 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 1108824] Review Request: kf5-kxmlgui - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution for user-configurable main windows
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108824 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jgrul...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jgrul...@redhat.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 1108811] Review Request: kf5-kservice - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution for advanced plugin and service introspection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108811 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |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 1108812] Review Request: kf5-knotifications - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution with abstraction for system notifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108812 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |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 1089213] Review Request: openstack-trove - OpenStack DBaaS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089213 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo+ -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.fc20 -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.fc19 -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.el6 -- 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 1108824] Review Request: kf5-kxmlgui - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution for user-configurable main windows
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108824
Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com ---
Missing %config before %{_kf5_sysconfdir}/xdg/ui/ui_standards.rc in %files. The
rest looks good, just fix it during import, 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 1111181] Review Request: perl-WWW-DuckDuckGo - Access to the DuckDuckGo APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=181
Benedikt Morbach bmorb...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bmorb...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Benedikt Morbach bmorb...@redhat.com ---
Note: This is an unofficial/preliminary review
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bmorbach/fedora-review/181-perl-WWW-
DuckDuckGo/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/WWW
(perl-WWW-Mechanize, perl-WWW-Bugzilla, kgb-bot-client, perl-WWW-
RobotRules, perl-Test-WWW-Selenium, perl-WWW-Salesforce, perl-WWW-
Babelfish, perl-WWW-Splunk, perl-WWW-Search, perl-WWW-Shorten, perl-WWW-
OrangeHRM-Client, perl-WWW-Mechanize-GZip, perl-WWW-GoodData, perl-WWW-
Pastebin-PastebinCom-Create, perl-WWW-Mechanize-TreeBuilder, perl-WWW-
Google-Contacts)
fine, as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Directory_Ownership
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.
= 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).
It requires its own contents, but that seems to work fine.
I can't find anything in the
[Bug 1108827] Review Request: kf5-kbookmarks - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 addon for bookmarks manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108827 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jgrul...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jgrul...@redhat.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 1111691] Review Request: qore - multithreaded programming/scripting language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #21 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #20)
libqore.x86_64: E: useless-provides qore-module(abi)
rpmlint is mistaken in this case. A bug report had been filed years ago in
bug 460872, but it has been closed due to a misunderstanding.
ok thanks for that info.
Provides: qore-module(abi)%{?_isa} = 0.19
At some time, adding %{?_isa} to create arch-specific dependencies has
become popular and can also help the depsolver. For example, when the
depsolver encounters broken deps in a multiarch repo such as x86_64, it
would try to resolve the deps with i686 packages (even older ones), which
sometimes leads to pulling in lots of i686 packages.
If you choose to add %{?_isa}, there is not much reason to also add the
non-%isa Provides.
The audacious packages had started with non-%isa Provides, which should be
dropped nowadays since nothing depends on them anymore.
ok I see that makes sense - I also had the same thought, but thought it was
safer to do it just like an already-accepted package.
new URLs:
Spec URL: http://qore.org/srpms/qore.spec
SRPM URL: http://qore.org/srpms/qore-0.8.11.1-2.fc20.src.rpm
only the qore-module(abi) Provides were updated to remove the non-%isa
versions.
Michael, thanks a lot for your time, expertise, and help with this package
submission 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 1108827] Review Request: kf5-kbookmarks - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 addon for bookmarks manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108827 --- Comment #1 from Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com --- Everything looks good, 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 1108827] Review Request: kf5-kbookmarks - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 addon for bookmarks manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108827 Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |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 1089213] Review Request: openstack-trove - OpenStack DBaaS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089213 --- Comment #11 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- It installs and the API endpoint works under rawhide. It builds under all Fedora: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7070451 Forget my previous comment on the configuration files permissions, they hold sensitive data like credentials. You must also use macroized scriptlets for systemd (required for systemd presets). http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Macroized_scriptlets_.28Fedora_18.2B.29 I'm still advancing in my review but at the moment, the only blockers are the systemd macros, the explicit requirements (unless there's a valid explanation). -- 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 1112246] Review Request: rebase-helper - Tool for package maintainers to help them with updating their package to the latest upstream version.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112246 --- Comment #14 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- New SPEC with corrected Summary. DistGit tag has been added too. SPEC Url: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper.spec SRPM Url: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.1.20140624git.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 1112246] Review Request: rebase-helper - Tool for package maintainers to help them with updating their package to the latest upstream version.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112246 --- Comment #15 from Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #14) New SPEC with corrected Summary. DistGit tag has been added too. SPEC Url: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper.spec SRPM Url: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.1. 20140624git.fc20.src.rpm The release number is wrong. it should be 0.3.0-0.3.20140624git instead of 0.3.0-0.1.20140624git. Also the changelog entry is wrong for the same reason. -- 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 946856] Review Request: spectrwm - Minimalist tiling window manager written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1095967 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095967 [Bug 1095967] Packaging Issues -- 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 946856] Review Request: spectrwm - Minimalist tiling window manager written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #39 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Then, in addition to installing libspectrwm.so.0.0.0, you'll want to create
symlinks to libspectrwm.so.0 and libspectrwm.so. The unversioned .so file
should go in a -devel subpackage, along with the few .h files it pulls in.
The devel subpackage needs to Require: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
This is completely wrong for this library. :-(
See bug 1095967 comment 5
--
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 1089213] Review Request: openstack-trove - OpenStack DBaaS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089213 Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo+ | --- Comment #12 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com --- I disagree about minimizing dependencies. If trove needs X and Y it should depend on those. Reducing that because Y also depends on X only introduces a possibly hard to track failure, as dependencies are adjusted in future. The spec is using systemd macros isn't it? Now it was using the depending on the older systemd-units package, which is now provided by the systemd package itself. So I'll clean that up, but it shouldn't have caused any issue. -- 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 1111691] Review Request: qore - multithreaded programming/scripting language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691 --- Comment #22 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Are these obsoletes lines needed? These are not available in the official repo but only in the qore 3rd party yum 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 1089213] Review Request: openstack-trove - OpenStack DBaaS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089213 --- Comment #13 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/openstack-trove.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/openstack-trove-2014.1-5.fc20.src.rpm Description: OpenStack DBaaS (codename trove) provisioning service. Fedora Account System Username: pbrady -- 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 1097384] Review Request: baloo-kcmadv - Baloo Desktop Search Advanced configuration module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097384 Lukáš Tinkl lti...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lti...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lti...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 1003188] Review Request: eclipse-pdt - PHP Development Tools (PDT) Eclipse plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003188 --- Comment #31 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com --- Latest tycho in F20 is aware of eclipse-license, please verify and drop the lines dealing with it from the spec. -- 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 1111242] Review Request: perl-App-s2p - Convert sed script to Perl program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.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 1111691] Review Request: qore - multithreaded programming/scripting language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691 --- Comment #23 from David Nichols da...@qore.org --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #22) Are these obsoletes lines needed? These are not available in the official repo but only in the qore 3rd party yum repo. There is only Obsoletes line in the most recent spec file: Obsoletes: libqore5 0.8.11.1 This is needed for people that have the 3rd-party rpm installed, since now the name will have changed since people should use the official yum repo in the future since it will ideally be fed directly from upstream. -- 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 1089213] Review Request: openstack-trove - OpenStack DBaaS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089213 --- Comment #14 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- Minimizing dependencies is a must in Fedora guidelines, but in openstack case, I agree it will be difficult to track dependencies, at least without looking at the global picture. For systemd, I mixed up but yes, it should be fine. For notice, I haven't mentionned the %defattr sections, though the packages only support EPEL6+ and rawhide, they're legit (giving ownership of trove specific directories to the trover user/group) Formal review will be up soon. -- 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 1111181] Review Request: perl-WWW-DuckDuckGo - Access to the DuckDuckGo APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=181 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||psab...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Benedikt Morbach from comment #2) [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). It requires its own contents, but that seems to work fine. I can't find anything in the guidelines about that though. That's indeed not an issue :) -- 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 1089213] Review Request: openstack-trove - OpenStack DBaaS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089213 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(p...@draigbrady.com) --- Comment #15 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- Ok, it's almost ok, just sed -i 's/%define/%global/g' in the spec and it could be approved. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define -- 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 1097384] Review Request: baloo-kcmadv - Baloo Desktop Search Advanced configuration module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097384
--- Comment #1 from Lukáš Tinkl lti...@redhat.com ---
The package has wrong license (GPLv2 stated, LGPLv2 actual) and no LICENSE or
COPYING file. Otherwise looks good, full report below.
--
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (v2), Unknown or generated. 3 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ltinkl/tmp/1097384-baloo-
kcmadv/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 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]: Package installs properly.
[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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[!]: 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]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if
[Bug 1108828] Review Request: kf5-kcmutils - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 addon with extra API to write KConfigModules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108828 Lukáš Tinkl lti...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lti...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lti...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 1111242] Review Request: perl-App-s2p - Convert sed script to Perl program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- URL and Source0 are usable. Ok. Source archive is original (SHA-256: bf147b7268a46bef07b4046c3f67504a7be482bbf25ccd2abec8abcf2d95375a). Ok. Summary is Ok. Description is Ok. License verified from README, LICENSE, and script/s2p. FIX: The script/s2p license is: This program is free and open software. You may use, modify, distribute, and sell this program (and any modified variants) in any way you wish, provided you do not restrict others from doing the same. This does not look like the GPL or the Artistic license. Please negotiate with the upstream a change, or ask Fedora legal department for a new license identifier. No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok. TODO: Constrain `perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)' build-requirement with `= 6.30' (Makefile.PL:10). $ rpmlint perl-App-s2p.spec ../SRPMS/perl-App-s2p-1.001-1.fc21.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-App-s2p-1.001-1.fc21.noarch.rpm perl-App-s2p.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sed - tied, ed, seed perl-App-s2p.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sed - tied, ed, seed perl-App-s2p.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sed - tied, ed, seed perl-App-s2p.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sed - tied, ed, seed 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. rpmlint is Ok. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-App-s2p-1.001-1.fc21.noarch.rpm -rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot53275 Jun 24 13:12 /usr/bin/psed -rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot53275 Jun 24 13:12 /usr/bin/s2p drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 24 13:12 /usr/share/doc/perl-App-s2p -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 230 Dec 4 2013 /usr/share/doc/perl-App-s2p/Changes -rw-r--r--1 rootroot18356 Dec 4 2013 /usr/share/doc/perl-App-s2p/LICENSE -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 279 Dec 4 2013 /usr/share/doc/perl-App-s2p/README -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 8907 Jun 24 13:12 /usr/share/man/man1/psed.1.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 8906 Jun 24 13:12 /usr/share/man/man1/s2p.1.gz File permissions and layout are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-App-s2p-1.001-1.fc21.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 /usr/bin/perl 1 perl(Config) 1 perl(integer) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(Symbol) 1 perl(vars) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1 Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-App-s2p-1.001-1.fc21.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 perl-App-s2p = 1.001-1.fc21 Binary provides are Ok. $ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/noarch/perl-App-s2p-1.001-1.fc21.noarch.rpm Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok. Package builds in F21 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7070741). Ok. Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Please correct all `FIX' items and provide updated package. Resolution: NOT 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 1111541] Review Request: ansifilter - ANSI terminal escape code converter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541
--- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later), GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or
generated. 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/yarda/git-fedora/ansifilter/review-ansifilter/licensecheck.txt
See notes bellow
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
See notes bellow
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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.
Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 6 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
See notes bellow
[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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ansifilter-
gui
No need, it is standalone subpackage by design. It would be nice if
upstream
could split the shared code to e.g. library, but due to the size (e.g.
160kB)
this is not an issue.
[?]: Package functions as described.
Not fully tested.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if
[Bug 1111602] Review Request: dhex - Ncurses based hexadecimal editor with a diff mode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=602 --- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #4) PACKAGE APPROVED. Thanks. -- 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 1111602] Review Request: dhex - Ncurses based hexadecimal editor with a diff mode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=602 Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: dhex Short Description: Ncurses based hexadecimal editor with a diff mode Upstream URL: http://www.dettus.net/dhex/ Owners: jskarvad Branches: f20 -- 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 1062542] Review Request: libdatrie - Implementation of Double-Array structure for representing trie
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062542
--- Comment #17 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
No sweat, I understand your logic now:
Here is my new %files section:
%doc COPYING
%{_libdir}/libdatrie.so.*
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/*.css
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/*.html
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/*.js
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/*.png
%files devel
%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog NEWS README*
%{_pkgdocdir}/*.css
%{_pkgdocdir}/*.html
%{_pkgdocdir}/*.js
%{_pkgdocdir}/*.png
%{_includedir}/datrie/
%{_libdir}/libdatrie.so
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/datrie-0.2.pc
%{_bindir}/trietool*
Note that I don't want to put useless files for end users in main-pkg, I hope
you can understand. Thus only the license file packaged in main-pkg.
Is it OK? If so please set + on this review, thanks in advance.
--
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 1062542] Review Request: libdatrie - Implementation of Double-Array structure for representing trie
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062542
--- Comment #18 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #17)
No sweat, I understand your logic now:
Here is my new %files section:
%doc COPYING
%{_libdir}/libdatrie.so.*
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/*.css
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/*.html
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/*.js
%exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/*.png
%files devel
%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog NEWS README*
%{_pkgdocdir}/*.css
%{_pkgdocdir}/*.html
%{_pkgdocdir}/*.js
%{_pkgdocdir}/*.png
%{_includedir}/datrie/
%{_libdir}/libdatrie.so
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/datrie-0.2.pc
%{_bindir}/trietool*
Note that I don't want to put useless files for end users in main-pkg, I
hope you can understand. Thus only the license file packaged in main-pkg.
That is OK. I personally like to read ChangeLogs and READMEs from time to time,
but that's not a review blocker.
Is it OK? If so please set + on this review, thanks in advance.
Not quite. The %doc macro in -devel subpackage will put the listed files
in /usr/share/doc/libdatrie-devel instead of libdatrie. If you're putting the
HTML docs from -devel in /usr/share/doc/libdatrie, you should be consistent and
put all the docs there.
--
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 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #27 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net ---
Well, the Guidelines don't mandate putting docs in %{_pkgdocdir} yet, so I
won't consider this a review blocker.
You could expand the description of the -doc subpackage a bit (saying that it
contains the manual and an example file), but that's not a blocker either.
Source checksums match:
http://www.tetgen.org/1.5/src/tetgen1.5.0.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
4d114861d5ef2063afd06ef38885ec46822e90e7b4ea38c864f76493451f9cf3
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
4d114861d5ef2063afd06ef38885ec46822e90e7b4ea38c864f76493451f9cf3
http://www.tetgen.org/1.5/doc/manual/manual.pdf :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
ce71e755c33dc518b1a3bc376fb860c0659e7e14b18e4d9798edcbda05a24eca
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
ce71e755c33dc518b1a3bc376fb860c0659e7e14b18e4d9798edcbda05a24eca
Package APPROVED.
--
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 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||483663 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663 [Bug 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator -- 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 1111388] Review Request: gmsh - A three-dimensional finite element mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=388 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|483663 | Depends On||483663 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663 [Bug 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator -- 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 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||505154 (FE-SCITECH), ||388 Depends On|388 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 [Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=388 [Bug 388] Review Request: gmsh - A three-dimensional finite element mesh generator -- 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 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||721112 (vmtk) See Also|https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=721112 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721112 [Bug 721112] Review Request: vmtk - The Vascular Modeling Toolkit -- 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 721112] Review Request: vmtk - The Vascular Modeling Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721112 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net changed: What|Removed |Added See Also|https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=483663 | Depends On||483663 --- Comment #19 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net --- tetgen is free software now and I've just approved Sandro's package, so it can be unbundled from vmtk. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663 [Bug 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator -- 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 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||721112 (vmtk) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721112 [Bug 721112] Review Request: vmtk - The Vascular Modeling Toolkit -- 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 721112] Review Request: vmtk - The Vascular Modeling Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721112 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||505154 (FE-SCITECH) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 [Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages -- 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 1112246] Review Request: rebase-helper - Tool for package maintainers to help them with updating their package to the latest upstream version.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112246 --- Comment #16 from Petr Hracek phra...@redhat.com --- Yeah, good catch. SPEC Url: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper.spec SRPM Url: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.3.20140624git.fc20.src.rpm As release number as changelog entry were corrected. -- 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 1112649] New: Review Request: jpnevulator - Serial line sniffer including very simple terminal emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112649 Bug ID: 1112649 Summary: Review Request: jpnevulator - Serial line sniffer including very simple terminal emulator Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jskar...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/jpnevulator/jpnevulator.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/jpnevulator/jpnevulator-2.1.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Jpnevulator is a handy serial sniffer. You can use it to send data on a serial device too. You can read or write from/to one or more serial devices at the same time. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad -- 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 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663
Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #28 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com ---
Well, the Guidelines don't mandate putting docs in %{_pkgdocdir} yet, so I
won't consider this a review blocker.
yet - Do you know whether a corresponding discussion ongoing? Personally I'd
also like to see the -doc situation cleaned up, since most of the time when
packaged separately they should most likely either go into
%{_datadir}/doc/%{name} or in %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-devel. However, the issue
that remains is what to do with the license file.
Anyhow, thanks for the review! Will adapt the -doc description when importing.
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: tetgen
Short Description: A tetrahedral mesh generator (
Owners: smani
Branches: f20 el6 epel7
InitialCC:
--
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 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663 --- Comment #29 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com --- (Copy-paste mistake fix...) New Package SCM Request === Package Name: tetgen Short Description: A tetrahedral mesh generator Owners: smani Branches: f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- 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 1112649] Review Request: jpnevulator - Serial line sniffer including very simple terminal emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112649 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||i...@cicku.me Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i...@cicku.me 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 1108810] Review Request: kf5-kiconthemes - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 integration module with icon themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108810 Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.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 1108810] Review Request: kf5-kiconthemes - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 integration module with icon themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108810 --- Comment #2 from Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request\n===\nPackage Name: kf5-kiconthemes\nShort Description: KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 integration module with icon themes\nUpstream URL: http://www.kde.org\nOwners: dvratil ltinkl jgrulich kkofler rdieter than\nBranches: \nInitialCC: \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 1108810] Review Request: kf5-kiconthemes - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 integration module with icon themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108810 --- Comment #3 from Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: kf5-kiconthemes Short Description: KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 integration module with icon themes Upstream URL: http://www.kde.org Owners: dvratil ltinkl jgrulich kkofler rdieter than Branches: 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 1108811] Review Request: kf5-kservice - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution for advanced plugin and service introspection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108811 Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.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 1108811] Review Request: kf5-kservice - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution for advanced plugin and service introspection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108811 --- Comment #2 from Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: kf5-kservice Short Description: KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution for advanced plugin and service introspection Upstream URL: http://www.kde.org Owners: dvratil ltinkl jgrulich kkofler rdieter than Branches: 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 1067665] Review Request: xtrace - Utility for tracing X11 protocol for debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067665 --- Comment #19 from David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com --- so xtrace from xtrace should be renamed to x11xtrace as noted at http://xtrace.alioth.debian.org/ at the bottom. Actually, it suggests x11trace. What do we do about this? I assume the package needs renaming? -- 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 1108812] Review Request: kf5-knotifications - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution with abstraction for system notifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108812 --- Comment #2 from Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: kf5-knotifications Short Description: KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution with abstraction for system notifications Upstream URL: http://www.kde.org Owners: dvratil ltinkl jgrulich kkofler rdieter than Branches: 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 1108812] Review Request: kf5-knotifications - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution with abstraction for system notifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108812 Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.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 1108817] Review Request: kf5-ktextwidgets - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 addon with advanced text editing widgets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108817 --- Comment #2 from Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: kf5-textwidgets Short Description: KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 addon with advanced text editing widgets Upstream URL: http://www.kde.org Owners: dvratil ltinkl jgrulich kkofler rdieter than Branches: 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 1108817] Review Request: kf5-ktextwidgets - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 addon with advanced text editing widgets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108817 Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.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 1108824] Review Request: kf5-kxmlgui - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution for user-configurable main windows
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108824 --- Comment #2 from Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: kf5-kxmlgui Short Description: KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution for user-configurable main windows Upstream URL: http://www.kde.org Owners: dvratil ltinkl jgrulich kkofler rdieter than Branches: 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 1108824] Review Request: kf5-kxmlgui - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 solution for user-configurable main windows
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108824 Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.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 1108827] Review Request: kf5-kbookmarks - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 addon for bookmarks manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108827 --- Comment #2 from Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: kf5-kbookmarks Short Description: KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 addon for bookmarks manipulation Upstream URL: http://www.kde.org Owners: dvratil ltinkl jgrulich kkofler rdieter than Branches: 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 1108827] Review Request: kf5-kbookmarks - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 addon for bookmarks manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108827 Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.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 1112649] Review Request: jpnevulator - Serial line sniffer including very simple terminal emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112649
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later). Detailed output of licensecheck:
GPL (v2 or later)
-
jpnevulator-2.1.2/byte.c
jpnevulator-2.1.2/byte.h
jpnevulator-2.1.2/checksum.c
jpnevulator-2.1.2/checksum.h
jpnevulator-2.1.2/crc16.c
jpnevulator-2.1.2/crc16.h
jpnevulator-2.1.2/crc8.c
jpnevulator-2.1.2/crc8.h
jpnevulator-2.1.2/interface.c
jpnevulator-2.1.2/interface.h
jpnevulator-2.1.2/io.c
jpnevulator-2.1.2/io.h
jpnevulator-2.1.2/jpnevulator.c
jpnevulator-2.1.2/jpnevulator.h
jpnevulator-2.1.2/list.c
jpnevulator-2.1.2/list.h
jpnevulator-2.1.2/main.c
jpnevulator-2.1.2/misc.h
jpnevulator-2.1.2/options.c
jpnevulator-2.1.2/options.h
jpnevulator-2.1.2/pty.c
jpnevulator-2.1.2/pty.h
jpnevulator-2.1.2/tty.c
jpnevulator-2.1.2/tty.h
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 7 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]:
[Bug 1089213] Review Request: openstack-trove - OpenStack DBaaS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089213 Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(p...@draigbrady.com) | --- Comment #16 from Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/openstack-trove.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/openstack-trove-2014.1-6.fc20.src.rpm Description: OpenStack DBaaS (codename trove) provisioning service. Fedora Account System Username: pbrady -- 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 1111541] Review Request: ansifilter - ANSI terminal escape code converter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541 --- Comment #3 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com --- Also please next time upload the sources to place wherefrom they could be simple wget-ed, e.g. fedorapeople.org. or anywhere, in such case it could be automatically processed by the fedora-review tool. -- 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 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 483663] Review Request: tetgen - A tetrahedral mesh generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483663 --- Comment #30 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 546445] Review Request: nagios-plugins-check-updates - A Nagios plugin to check if Red Hat or Fedora system is up-to-date
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546445 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 546445] Review Request: nagios-plugins-check-updates - A Nagios plugin to check if Red Hat or Fedora system is up-to-date
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546445 --- Comment #25 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1054938] Review Request: esteidpkcs11loader - Estonian ID card extension for Mozilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054938 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- WARNING: Requested package name firefox-esteidpkcs11loader doesn't match bug summary esteidpkcs11loader Please correct. -- 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 1054938] Review Request: esteidpkcs11loader - Estonian ID card extension for Mozilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054938 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 1108810] Review Request: kf5-kiconthemes - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 integration module with icon themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108810 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 1108810] Review Request: kf5-kiconthemes - KDE Frameworks 5 Tier 3 integration module with icon themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108810 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 1076456] Review Request: mingw-libid3tag - ID3 tag manipulation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076456
František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|val...@civ.zcu.cz
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
Only problem seems to be rpmlint crying about changed address of the Bearded
Guy. But the last version of libid3tag were released in 2004, so I wouldn't
chase upstream to update it...
Package approved!
= 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:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or generated.
2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/valtri/fedora-scm/REVIEWS/mingw-libid3tag/1076456-mingw-
libid3tag/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 81920 bytes in 10 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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
Note: mingw32-libid3tag : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-
root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/id3tag.pc mingw64-libid3tag :
