[Bug 1089002] Review Request: carterone-fonts - CarterOne fonts released by Vernon Adams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089002 --- Comment #9 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Maybe I am wrong in my understanding but our policy says For Fedora purposes a “foundry” is an entity that publishes a set of fonts with consistent font QA rules. whose meaning i took as google is also publishing fonts so we can consider it as a foundry to make sure difference from some other website which is also publishing this font. Let me check with someone on this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 905304] Review Request: OpenDMARC - Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting Conformance (DMARC) milter and library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905304 Murray McAllister mmcal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mmcal...@redhat.com --- Comment #52 from Murray McAllister mmcal...@redhat.com --- Hi, There are two crashes (not sure if there is more impact than that) reported in the Debian bug tracking system: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=755808 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=760491 Those may be worth following to ensure they are fixed before the package is released in Fedora. -- 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 1079745] Review Request: perl-Excel-Template - Create Excel files from templates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079745 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sven.nierl...@consol.de Flags||needinfo?(Sven.Nierlein@con ||sol.de) --- Comment #14 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- Ping, Sven? -- 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 1135424] Review Request: python-XStatic-JSEncrypt - JSEncrypt (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135424
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
as for the other XStatic packages, don't forget to request upstream to include
the license file.
Since this packages complies with Fedora packaging guidelines, I hereby approve
it into Fedora Packages Collection. Please submit a scm request.
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.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/builder/reviews/1135424-python-XStatic-
JSEncrypt/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/xstatic/pkg
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/xstatic/pkg
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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 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:
[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]: Description and summary sections in the
[Bug 1135448] Review Request: python-XStatic-QUnit - QUnit (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135448
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
As for the other XStatic packages, don't forget to request upstream to include
the license file.
Since this packages complies with Fedora packaging guidelines, I hereby approve
it into Fedora Packages Collection. Please submit a scm request.
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.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/builder/reviews/1135448-python-XStatic-
QUnit/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/xstatic/pkg
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/xstatic/pkg
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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 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.
[ ]: 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:
[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]: Description and summary sections in the package
[Bug 1079745] Review Request: perl-Excel-Template - Create Excel files from templates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079745 Sven Nierlein sven.nierl...@consol.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(Sven.Nierlein@con | |sol.de) | --- Comment #15 from Sven Nierlein sven.nierl...@consol.de --- Sorry, quite busy lately. Hopefully i can continue on this during the weekend. -- 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 1135457] Review Request: python-XStatic-Rickshaw - Rickshaw (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135457 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||karlthe...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- Package is ok, a small fix: license is MIT -- 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 1136972] Review Request: paflib - POWER Arch facilities library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136972
Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@danny.cz
--- Comment #5 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz ---
some notes for the start:
- the source archive is weird, it contains another copy of the paflib tree,
please use github provided archive
(https://github.com/paflib/paflib/archive/0.1-2.tar.gz)
- would be great if upstream could switch to versioning without the dash, eg.
0.1-2.tar.gz will be 0.1.2.tar.gz
- use %{configure} macro, no need to manually step into the build directory,
rpmbuild does that on its own
- drop outdated %defattr() definitions, rpmbuild adds the defaults itself
- simplify %install section to just make install ...
- as Ralf said, look into another package how the main/devel/static split
should look like, but are the static libs necessary, Fedora discourages
packaging them
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries)
--
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 1136972] Review Request: paflib - POWER Architecture facilities library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136972 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: paflib -|Review Request: paflib - |POWER Arch facilities |POWER Architecture |library|facilities library -- 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 1135168] Review Request: perl-MIME-Lite-TT-HTML - Create html mail with MIME::Lite and TT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135168
--- Comment #8 from David Dick dd...@cpan.org ---
Okay. Looking good. Last things.
Add the LICENSE file to %doc
Remove the find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} ';' 2/dev/null
line. It is intended to fix a very old bug and is no longer required.
Replace the chmod -R u+w $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/* line with %{_fixperms}
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*.
--
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 1134338] Review Request: python-XStatic-Angular - Angular (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134338
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
As for the other XStatic packages, don't forget to request upstream to include
the license file.
Since this packages complies with Fedora packaging guidelines, I hereby approve
it into Fedora Packages Collection. Please submit a scm request.
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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/builder/reviews/1134338-python-XStatic-
Angular/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/xstatic/pkg
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/xstatic/pkg
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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 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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is
[Bug 1134376] Review Request: python-XStatic-Angular-Mock - Angular-Mock (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134376 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||karlthe...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- There's a typo in the provided spec (no need to bump spec) = %changelogA -- 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 1134561] Review Request: python-XStatic-D3 - D3 (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134561
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
As for the other XStatic packages, don't forget to request upstream to include
the license file.
Since this packages complies with Fedora packaging guidelines, I hereby approve
it into Fedora Packages Collection. Please submit a scm request.
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.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/haikel/1134561-python-XStatic-D3/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/xstatic/pkg
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/xstatic/pkg
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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 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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does
[Bug 1138589] New: Review Request: osc - Open Build Service Commander
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138589 Bug ID: 1138589 Summary: Review Request: osc - Open Build Service Commander Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jstri...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/obs/osc.spec SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/obs/osc-0.147.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: osc is a command-line client for the Open Build Service, which allows you to interact with your corresponding OBS account as well as do local builds. See http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:OSC for a general introduction. Fedora Account System Username: jstribny Note: osc have a a few optional dependencies such as OBS build script for doing local builds. I don't want to include them as hard dependencies as many people might want to just interact with OBS server instance (such as build.opensuse.org). osc will kindly remind the user about such missing dependency so I hope there shouldn't be any confusion. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517 --- Comment #55 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr --- Anybody willing to do the final review? It's been 10 months since I first opened this request! :-) Now I think it's OK at last. -- 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 1032425] Review Request: perl-XML-Parser-Lite - Lightweight regexp-based XML parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032425 --- Comment #7 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- Sorry for the delay. Plan fixed and reported. Spec URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-XML-Parser-Lite/perl-XML-Parser-Lite.spec SRPM URL: http://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-XML-Parser-Lite/perl-XML-Parser-Lite-0.719-3.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1138476] Review Request: percona-toolkit - A MySQL Toolkit by Percona
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138476 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i...@cicku.me Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- I could review this on next Monday, in the past I found it useful. Please drop those obsolete macros like defattr. -- 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 1138610] New: Review Request: xacml - SAML 2.0 profile of XACML v2.0 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138610 Bug ID: 1138610 Summary: Review Request: xacml - SAML 2.0 profile of XACML v2.0 library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: denni...@nikhef.nl QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ndpfsvn.nikhef.nl/ro/mwsec/packaging/fedora/branches/rawhide/xacml.spec SRPM URL: http://software.nikhef.nl/dist/mwsec/rpm/testing/f20/SRPMS/xacml-1.5.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: (from the spec file:) This API provides a basic implementation of the SAML 2.0 profile of XACML v2.0, including support for obligations in XACML response messages. It aids in writing XACML clients and servers. More on the specification can be found here: http://docs.oasis-open.org/xacml/3.0/xacml-profile-saml2.0-v2-spec-en.html This package is a prerequisite for some authorisation software I intend to include later, such as SCAS, EES and argus-pep-api-c. For more information about this software, see http://wiki.nikhef.nl/grid/Site_Access_Control. This packaging was done earlier for the EU funded EGEE project; it carries a few historic obsoletes/provides in order to remain backward compatibility with other packages from this era. I've done a self-review of the software and I found no major trespasses (although I'm biased, of course. ;-) ) I will attach the review text. In summary, there are 4 rpmlint warnings which are fairly innocent: Checking: xacml-1.5.0-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm xacml-devel-1.5.0-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm xacml-1.5.0-1.fc22.src.rpm xacml.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C XACML (This is a false positive; XACML is the name of the standard as well as the package.) xacml-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib (Seems to occur when devel packages only contain the .so symlink to the full library.) xacml-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation (Yeah, there is none in the package.) xacml.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C XACML 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. The spec file contains on occurrence of %define where %global should be used, but this is innocent and will be fixed in a future release. The package is aimed at Fedora as well as EPEL5 so we still include BuildRoot. Fedora Account System Username: dennisvd -- 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 1138610] Review Request: xacml - SAML 2.0 profile of XACML v2.0 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138610
--- Comment #1 from Dennis van Dok denni...@nikhef.nl ---
The self-review text:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), GPL (v2 or later). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/user/dennisvd/fedora-review/xacml/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: 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]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present for EPEL5
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present for EPEL5
[-]: 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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve
[Bug 1138610] Review Request: xacml - SAML 2.0 profile of XACML v2.0 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138610 Dennis van Dok denni...@nikhef.nl changed: What|Removed |Added 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 1138610] Review Request: xacml - SAML 2.0 profile of XACML v2.0 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138610 Dennis van Dok denni...@nikhef.nl changed: What|Removed |Added 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 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 --- Comment #42 from jiri vanek jva...@redhat.com --- I would rather disable groovy now..:( Well It seems that update of netty is not necessary, but there is exactly 100 erros to solve... see build log. I have updated the Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/elasticsearch/v1-reallyBad/elasticsearch.spec SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/elasticsearch/v1-reallyBad/elasticsearch-1.3.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Now it starts to build:) ..For some reason.. It complains to sigar nd groovy (yes I removed them, but they should be optional :( ) Not suree baout other failures - maybe really wrong netty? /me hands off for some time -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1033494] Review Request:perl-Cache-Memory-Simple - Yet another on memory cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033494 --- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- I'm sorry for the long delay. Finally getting to this then. Your package is missing some buildtime deps, namely: - constant, lib/Cache/Memory/Simple/Scalar.pm:9, via t/03_scalar.t:6 - strict, various files, including Build.PL itself - utf8, ditto - warnings, ditto Both Summary and %description appear to be missing some words. Consider Yet another take on memory cache implementation as Summary. Change the %description in a similar way. Also, there's been a new release meanwhile. -- 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 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 --- Comment #43 from jiri vanek jva...@redhat.com --- Created attachment 934730 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=934730action=edit build log for updated v1 -- 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 1032425] Review Request: perl-XML-Parser-Lite - Lightweight regexp-based XML parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032425 --- Comment #8 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- The SPEC file is unchanged and the SRPM file does not exist. -- 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 1033481] Review Request: perl-Test-Time - Overrides the time() and sleep() core functions for testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033481 --- Comment #4 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- Acking changes, however, the module used in Makefile.PL is actually `inc::Module::Install', not `Module::Install'. BuildRequire that. We have the magic module in Fedora. The other `Module::Install' deps are fine. There are some more buildtime deps missing, namely strict, Test::More and warning. All three of them are used by both tests and the module itself. No other issues here. -- 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 1136946] Review Request: python-retrying - General-purpose retrying library in Python.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136946 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||karlthe...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #56 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Have you pointed the fedora-review tool at this ticket yet? - fedora-review
-b 1040517
After a brief look at the spec file, I think there are a couple of places that
would benefit from trying to perform a self-review of your own spec file. It
will help you understanding the package more deeply.
%files
%{_libdir}/julia/*.so
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
%{_datadir}/julia/base/
Same here.
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/julia/juliarc.jl
Same here.
%post devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
Very doubtful. Typically, ldconfig is only run for _runtime_ library packages,
whereas -devel packages only contain symlinks needed at build-time, and that's
not ldconfig's area.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages
%files doc
%docdir %{_datadir}/julia/doc
%{_datadir}/julia/doc
Unowned directories here, too. Using %docdir here is not convenient, since you
add the contents of a single directory only.
%dir %{_datadir}/julia/doc
%doc %{_datadir}/julia/doc/*
%files devel
%{_bindir}/julia-debug
%{_libdir}/libjulia.so
Please double-check whether this is a runtime library that belongs into the
base %name package instead:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages
%package doc
Summary:Julia documentation and code examples
Group: Development/Languages
Group: Documentation if you really want to set the Group tag.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag
Requires: fftw = 3.3.2
Requires: gmp
Requires: lapack
Requires: mpfr
Requires: openblas
Requires: openlibm = 0.4
Requires: openspecfun = 0.4
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
--
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 1135411] Review Request: python-XStatic-Angular-Cookies - Angular-Cookies (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135411 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Thank you very much for your review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-XStatic-Angular-Cookies Short Description: Angular-Cookies (XStatic packaging standard) Upstream URL: http://angularjs.org Owners: mrunge Branches: f20 f21 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962806] Review Request: perl-Dumbbench - More reliable bench-marking with the least amount of thinking
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962806 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- No issues here. There's no need for the bcond 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 1135424] Review Request: python-XStatic-JSEncrypt - JSEncrypt (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135424 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Thank you very much for your review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-XStatic-JSEncrypt Short Description: JSEncrypt (XStatic packaging standard) Upstream URL: http://travistidwell.com/jsencrypt/ Owners: mrunge Branches: f20 f21 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135448] Review Request: python-XStatic-QUnit - QUnit (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135448 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Thank you very much for your review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-XStatic-QUnit Short Description: QUnit (XStatic packaging standard) Upstream URL: http://qunitjs.com Owners: mrunge Branches: f20 f21 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135457] Review Request: python-XStatic-Rickshaw - Rickshaw (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135457 --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Fixed license tag. SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-XStatic-Rickshaw.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-XStatic-Rickshaw-1.5.0.0-3.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 1134376] Review Request: python-XStatic-Angular-Mock - Angular-Mock (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134376 --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Ooops. Fixed. SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-XStatic-Angular-Mock.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-XStatic-Angular-Mock-1.2.1.1-2.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1134561] Review Request: python-XStatic-D3 - D3 (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134561 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-XStatic-D3 Short Description: D3 (XStatic packaging standard) Upstream URL: http://d3js.org/ Owners: mrunge Branches: f20 f21 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1138610] Review Request: xacml - SAML 2.0 profile of XACML v2.0 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138610 --- Comment #2 from Dennis van Dok denni...@nikhef.nl --- I've run a scratch build on Koji with the src.rpm to confirm [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Koji build ref: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7529348 -- 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 1134338] Review Request: python-XStatic-Angular - Angular (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134338 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Thanks much for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-XStatic-Angular Short Description: Angular (XStatic packaging standard) Upstream URL: http://angularjs.org Owners: mrunge Branches: f20 f21 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962806] Review Request: perl-Dumbbench - More reliable bench-marking with the least amount of thinking
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962806 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Dumbbench Short Description: More reliable bench-marking with the least amount of thinking Upstream URL: Owners: ppisar jplesnik psabata Branches: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Dumbbench/ InitialCC: perl-sig -- 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 962806] Review Request: perl-Dumbbench - More reliable bench-marking with the least amount of thinking
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962806 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Dumbbench Short Description: More reliable bench-marking with the least amount of thinking Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Dumbbench/ Owners: ppisar jplesnik psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig Corrected request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1032425] Review Request: perl-XML-Parser-Lite - Lightweight regexp-based XML parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032425 --- Comment #9 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- 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 528476] Review Request: php-ezc-PersistentObjectDatabaseSchemaTiein - eZ Components PersistentObjectDatabaseSchemaTiein
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528476 --- Comment #22 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 528476] Review Request: php-ezc-PersistentObjectDatabaseSchemaTiein - eZ Components PersistentObjectDatabaseSchemaTiein
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528476 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 962806] Review Request: perl-Dumbbench - More reliable bench-marking with the least amount of thinking
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962806 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 962806] Review Request: perl-Dumbbench - More reliable bench-marking with the least amount of thinking
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962806 --- 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 1115709] Review Request: nodejs-w3cjs - A node.js module for using the w3c validator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115709 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 1115709] Review Request: nodejs-w3cjs - A node.js module for using the w3c validator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115709 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1132691] Review Request: OpenMesh - A generic and efficient polygon mesh data structure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1132691 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 1132691] Review Request: OpenMesh - A generic and efficient polygon mesh data structure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1132691 --- Comment #10 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 1128336] Review Request: libnsbmp - Decoding library for BMP and ICO image file formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128336 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 1128336] Review Request: libnsbmp - Decoding library for BMP and ICO image file formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128336 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 1134338] Review Request: python-XStatic-Angular - Angular (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134338 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 1136957] Review Request: python-osprofiler - OpenStack Profiler Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136957 Alan Pevec ape...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Alan Pevec ape...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-osprofiler Short Description: OpenStack Profiler Library Upstream URL: http://www.openstack.org/ Owners: apevec 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 1134338] Review Request: python-XStatic-Angular - Angular (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134338 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 1134561] Review Request: python-XStatic-D3 - D3 (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134561 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 1134561] Review Request: python-XStatic-D3 - D3 (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134561 --- 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 1135411] Review Request: python-XStatic-Angular-Cookies - Angular-Cookies (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135411 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 1135411] Review Request: python-XStatic-Angular-Cookies - Angular-Cookies (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135411 --- 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 470694] Review Request: rubygem-rack - Common API for connecting web frameworks, web servers and layers of software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470694 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rubygem-rack New Branches: epel7 Owners: stevetraylen -- 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 1135424] Review Request: python-XStatic-JSEncrypt - JSEncrypt (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135424 --- 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 1135424] Review Request: python-XStatic-JSEncrypt - JSEncrypt (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135424 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 1135448] Review Request: python-XStatic-QUnit - QUnit (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135448 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 1135448] Review Request: python-XStatic-QUnit - QUnit (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135448 --- 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 1134376] Review Request: python-XStatic-Angular-Mock - Angular-Mock (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134376
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
No problem :)
As for the other XStatic packages, don't forget to request upstream to include
the license file.
Since this packages complies with Fedora packaging guidelines, I hereby approve
it into Fedora Packages Collection. Please submit a scm request.
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.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/haikel/1134376-python-XStatic-Angular-
Mock/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/xstatic/pkg
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/xstatic/pkg
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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 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.
[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
[Bug 962806] Review Request: perl-Dumbbench - More reliable bench-marking with the least amount of thinking
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962806 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Dumbbench-0.09-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-09-05 08:39:43 --- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ppi...@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 1138589] Review Request: osc - Open Build Service Commander
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138589 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||karlthe...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2014-09-05 08:40:46 --- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- Hi Josef, osc is already in Fedora but I would welcome you as a co-maintainer. Please request ACLs ! https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/osc/ -- 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 1136946] Review Request: python-retrying - General-purpose retrying library in Python.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136946 --- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- I found that it bundles some code from six, I submitted a pull-request to upstream to fix it. Tests passes for python 2.7/3.3/3.4. https://github.com/rholder/retrying/pull/16 https://github.com/rholder/retrying/pull/16.patch (to retrieve the patch) Feel free to use it :) -- 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 1032425] Review Request: perl-XML-Parser-Lite - Lightweight regexp-based XML parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032425
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
Spec file changes:
$ diff -u perl-XML-Parser-Lite.spec{.old,}
--- perl-XML-Parser-Lite.spec.old 2014-02-06 10:37:34.0 +0100
+++ perl-XML-Parser-Lite.spec 2014-09-05 11:59:49.0 +0200
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-XML-Parser-Lite
Version:0.719
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:Lightweight regexp-based XML parser
License:(GPL+ or Artistic) and REX
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -8,6 +8,8 @@
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/P/PH/PHRED/XML-Parser-Lite-%{version}.tar.gz
# rt#91434
Patch0: perl-XML-Parser-Lite-0.719-tests.patch
+# rt#98635
+Patch1: perl-XML-Parser-Lite-0.719-plan.patch
BuildArch: noarch
# SOAP::Lite is not actually needed
BuildRequires: perl
@@ -31,6 +33,7 @@
%prep
%setup -q -n XML-Parser-Lite-%{version}
%patch0 -p1
+%patch1 -p1
%build
perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
@@ -50,6 +53,9 @@
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Fri Sep 05 2014 Petr Šabata con...@redhat.com - 0.719-3
+- Avoid koji build failures by correcting the test plan
+
* Thu Feb 06 2014 Petr Šabata con...@redhat.com - 0.719-2
- Patch the test suite so it actually works
I will use
https://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-XML-Parser-Lite/perl-XML-Parser-Lite-0.719-3.fc20.src.rpm
for the patch.
The perl-XML-Parser-Lite-0.719-plan.patch patch is good.
All tests pass. Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-XML-Parser-Lite.spec
../SRPMS/perl-XML-Parser-Lite-0.719-3.fc22.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-XML-Parser-Lite-0.719-3.fc22.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
FIX: Package does not build in F21
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6512171):
Package builds in F22
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7530258). Ok.
Resolution: Package APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1026522] Review Request: cli-parser - Command Line Interface Parser for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026522 --- Comment #1 from jiri vanek jva...@redhat.com --- Hmm, I'm facing some issue here: WARNING: Package cli-parser-1.1.2-1.fc20 not built WARNING: Package cli-parser-javadoc-1.1.2-1.fc20 not built ERROR: 'No srpm found for cli-parser' (logs in /home/jvanek/.cache/fedora-review.log) however [jvanek@jvanek ~]$ ls /home/jvanek/1026522-cli-parser/results/ build.log cli-parser-1.1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm root.log cli-parser-1.1.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm cli-parser-javadoc-1.1.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm state.log Probably bug in fedora-review no longer recognizing arch? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #57 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #56)
Have you pointed the fedora-review tool at this ticket yet? -
fedora-review -b 1040517
I wish I was able to do it myself, but I'm hitting a bug in fedora-review. I'm
only able to run it on prebuilt packages from Koji, and Julia does not build
there yet because of dSFMT. Sigh. If you can paste the raw output of
fedora-review somewhere, I can fix the warnings.
Thanks for doing the manual review!
After a brief look at the spec file, I think there are a couple of places
that would benefit from trying to perform a self-review of your own spec
file. It will help you understanding the package more deeply.
%files
%{_libdir}/julia/*.so
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
%{_datadir}/julia/base/
Same here.
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/julia/juliarc.jl
Same here.
Indeed. Fixed using %dir.
%post devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
Very doubtful. Typically, ldconfig is only run for _runtime_ library
packages, whereas -devel packages only contain symlinks needed at
build-time, and that's not ldconfig's area.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages
This was because there's only /usr/lib/libjulia.so, and no
/usr/lib/libjulia.so.X.Y, since this library is currently unstable: therefore I
included it in -devel. But it makes more sense to move it to the julia package
itself (until it gets versioned).
%files doc
%docdir %{_datadir}/julia/doc
%{_datadir}/julia/doc
Unowned directories here, too. Using %docdir here is not convenient, since
you add the contents of a single directory only.
%dir %{_datadir}/julia/doc
%doc %{_datadir}/julia/doc/*
Fixed.
%files devel
%{_bindir}/julia-debug
%{_libdir}/libjulia.so
Please double-check whether this is a runtime library that belongs into the
base %name package instead:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages
As I said above, moved to the base julia package.
%package doc
Summary:Julia documentation and code examples
Group: Development/Languages
Group: Documentation if you really want to set the Group tag.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag
Done.
Requires: fftw = 3.3.2
Requires: gmp
Requires: lapack
Requires: mpfr
Requires: openblas
Requires: openlibm = 0.4
Requires: openspecfun = 0.4
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
There's a comment about this slightly above:
# Dependencies loaded at run time by Julia code
# and thus not detected by find-requires
I've put the new package online:
Spec URL: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/julia.spec
SRPM URL: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/julia-0.3.0-2.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 1117906] Review Request: python-scikit-image - Image processing in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117906 Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-09-05 09:14:14 -- 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 1109751] Review Request: python-emcee - The Python ensemble sampling toolkit for affine-invariant MCMC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109751 Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-09-05 09:14:45 -- 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 1026522] Review Request: cli-parser - Command Line Interface Parser for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026522 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Sorry, mea culpa ... Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/cli-parser.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/cli-parser-1.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517 --- Comment #58 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr --- Hold on, I've found the problem with fedora-review: it was not finding dSFMT-devel, but the error message was really obscure. I'll post the review in a moment. -- 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 1032425] Review Request: perl-XML-Parser-Lite - Lightweight regexp-based XML parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032425 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-XML-Parser-Lite Short Description: Lightweight regexp-based XML parser Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/XML-Parser-Lite/ Owners: psabata jplesnik ppisar Branches: f21 InitialCC: perl-sig -- 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 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 --- Comment #44 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #43) Created attachment 934730 [details] build log for updated v1 build fails because ES use: lucene 4.9.0 (early should be update to 4.10.0) missing build deps: groovy, and sigar java binding -- 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 1026522] Review Request: cli-parser - Command Line Interface Parser for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026522 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7530510 -- 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 1113310] Review Request: python-libnacl - Python ctypes wrapper for libsodium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113310
--- Comment #23 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: 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.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[-]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[-]: 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.
[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.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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:
[-]: Buildroot is not present
[-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: 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.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items
[Bug 1138741] New: Review Request: os-cloud-config - Configuration for OpenStack clouds.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138741 Bug ID: 1138741 Summary: Review Request: os-cloud-config - Configuration for OpenStack clouds. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jsla...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~slagle/os-cloud-config.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~slagle/os-cloud-config-0.1.8-2.fc21.src.rpm Description: os-cloud-config offers a suite of tools and libraries used to do the initial configuration of OpenStack clouds. Fedora Account System Username: slagle -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #59 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr ---
OK, here's the review, which looks mostly OK to me. A few remarks:
- the only Fail is about a dist tag which must be due to my box's setup.
- I can fix the Issue about unversioned .so files, but that would mean putting
runtime libraries back into -devel (see end of Comment #57).
- rpmlint warnings are addressed in Comment #54.
- Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/julia I cannot explain
why this appears since I have explicitly added %dir %{_datadir}/julia/.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Note: See rpmlint output
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
Generic:
[ ]: 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:
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated, MIT/X11 (BSD like), BSD
(3 clause), GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), ISC,
BSD (2 clause), LGPL (v2.1 or later). 134 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/milan/Dev/rpmbuild/1040517-julia/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/julia
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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 4 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: 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
[Bug 1135430] Review Request: python-XStatic-jquery-ui - jquery-ui (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135430
--- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
About the python2 macros definitions, since they are specific to EL6, I'd guard
them using a conditional:
%if 0%{?rhel} 0%{?rhel} = 6
%endif
It looks good to me, I'll approve it when it's fixed.
--
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 1096479] Review Request: min-cloud-agent - Minimal client implementation of EC2/OpenStack metadata API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096479 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-09-05 11:47:05 --- Comment #4 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- Built and imported in F21+ -- 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 1074128] Review Request: libserialport - Library for accessing serial ports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074128 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mr.nuke...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(mr.nuke.me@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #10 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz --- Alex, shall I take over the review when Jamie is not responding? -- 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 470694] Review Request: rubygem-rack - Common API for connecting web frameworks, web servers and layers of software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470694 --- Comment #15 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 470694] Review Request: rubygem-rack - Common API for connecting web frameworks, web servers and layers of software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470694 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 1032425] Review Request: perl-XML-Parser-Lite - Lightweight regexp-based XML parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032425 --- Comment #12 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 1032425] Review Request: perl-XML-Parser-Lite - Lightweight regexp-based XML parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032425 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 1136957] Review Request: python-osprofiler - OpenStack Profiler Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136957 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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 1136957] Review Request: python-osprofiler - OpenStack Profiler Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136957 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 1138476] Review Request: percona-toolkit - A MySQL Toolkit by Percona
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138476 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Alessandro Locati fabioloc...@gmail.com --- Thankyou Christopher for reviewing this package :). I've dropped the defattr macro as you pointed out, thankyou :). Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/percona-toolkit/percona-toolkit.spec SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/percona-toolkit/percona-toolkit-2.2.10-2.fc20.src.rpm RPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/percona-toolkit/percona-toolkit-2.2.10-2.fc20.noarch.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7531737 -- 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 1122777] Review Request: tcpcrypt - Opportunistically encrypt TCP connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122777
Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(puiterwijk@redhat |
|.com) |
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/home/puiterwijk/Documents/Development/Fedora/Review/1122777-tcpcrypt/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
- Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Note: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: tcpcrypt-cacd9789/user/configure.ac:51
- Rpmlint is run
Note: you have some unused linked dependencies, check rpmlint output.
Note2: Check here for info on this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 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]: 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]: 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
[Bug 1138850] New: Review Request: openstack-zaqar - Message queuing service for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138850 Bug ID: 1138850 Summary: Review Request: openstack-zaqar - Message queuing service for OpenStack Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: echevemas...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/openstack-zaqar/openstack-zaqar.spec SRPM URL: https://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/openstack-zaqar/openstack-zaqar-2014.2-0.1.b3.fc20.src.rpm Description: Zaqar is a new OpenStack project to create a multi-tenant cloud queuing service.The project will define a clean, RESTful API, use a modular architecture, and will support both eventing and job-queuing semantics. Users will be able to customize Zaqar to achieve a wide range of performance, durability, availability,and efficiency goals Fedora Account System Username: echevemaster -- 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 1138850] Review Request: openstack-zaqar - Message queuing service for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138850 --- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- BTW, this is renaming of an existent package in fedora, openstack-marconi, which will to be retired once time that this be 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 1060804] Review Request: flamp - Amateur Multicast Protocol - file transfer program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804 --- Comment #12 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com --- I tried substituting lzma-sdk in it's place but it seems to be missing some symbols so it looks to be modified so we're in a similar boat as xmlrpc... -- 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 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 --- Comment #45 from jiri vanek jva...@redhat.com --- missing build deps: groovy, and sigar java binding Still those two are optional for build. Is there osme trickI'm missing? -- 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 1057876] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057876 Andrew J. Schorr ajsch...@alumni.princeton.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ajschorr@alumni.princeton.e ||du --- Comment #2 from Andrew J. Schorr ajsch...@alumni.princeton.edu --- Hi, Thanks for doing this work. This is sorely needed. Why does the spec file declare a dependency on sendmail? Requires: sendmail = 8.12 Our site uses postfix. As far as I can tell, this dependency is not required. Can you please remove it? Thanks, Andy -- 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 1127169] Review Request: perl-CPAN-Reporter - Adds CPAN Testers reporting to CPAN.pm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127169 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-CPAN-Reporter-1.2011-1 ||.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-09-05 18:22:19 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-CPAN-Reporter-1.2011-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1128409] Review Request: perl-Module-Data - Introspect context information about modules in @INC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128409 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Module-Data-0.007-1.fc ||20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-09-05 18:21:55 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Module-Data-0.007-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 --- Comment #46 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- you should remove src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/script/groovy or try to use groovy 1.x with %pom_xpath_set pom:dependencies/pom:dependency[pom:groupId= 'org.codehaus.groovy']/pom:artifactId groovy %pom_xpath_set pom:dependencies/pom:dependency[pom:groupId= 'org.codehaus.groovy']/pom:version 1.8.9 or sed -i s|artifactIdgroovy-all|artifactIdgroovy| pom.xml sed -i s|version2.3.2|version1.8.9| pom.xml and remove also src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/monitor/sigar if you're lucky you should not use any patch :) -- 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 1089002] Review Request: carterone-fonts - CarterOne fonts released by Vernon Adams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089002 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- carterone-fonts-1.00-2.716ff965e2b0hg.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing 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 1081782] Review Request: astloch-fonts - Astloch fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081782 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- astloch-fonts-1.00-2.41528389c445hg.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing 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
