[Bug 1185015] Review Request: gap-pkg-browse - GAP browser for 2-dimensional arrays of data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185015
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #1)
> Same comments as in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185014#c1
> (except for license), but all in all ok.
I have made the same fixes to this spec file, namely marking the documentation
directory as %docdir and adding Requires(post) and Requires(postun).
> Only additional thing:
> [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> Consider adding
>
> LDFLAGS="%{__global_ldflags}"
>
> to make (despite these currently being the same as the default flags, but
> i.e. %cmake etc. also explicitly set these).
Done (although I used $RPM_LD_FLAGS, but it has the same effect).
New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-browse/gap-pkg-browse.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-browse/gap-pkg-browse-1.8.6-2.fc22.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 1185014] Review Request: gap-pkg-atlasrep - GAP interface to the Atlas of Group Representations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185014 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James --- (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #1) > From the review (see below), two points: > MUST > [?]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > ==> I guess the location of /usr/lib/gap/pkg/atlasrep/doc/ is > predictated by gap, so this is probably a non-issue. I have marked /usr/lib/gap/pkg/atlasrep/doc as %docdir to partially address this. > SHOULD > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Okay, I have sent an email to upstream asking them to add the license text in the next release. > Looking at the spec, unless I'm mistaken about the purpose of these, I think > you need: > Requires(pre): gap-core > Requires(postun): gap-core You're right! I've added that in all of the gap-pkg-* spec files. Good catch. > Not strictly related to this package, but I noticed this when uninstalling: > - > Running transaction (shutdown inhibited) > Erasing: gap-pkg-atlasrep-1.5.0-1.fc22.noarch > 1/4 > Updating GAP workspace /var/lib/gap/workspace.gz: done. > Erasing: GAPDoc-1.5.1-5.fc21.noarch > 2/4 > Updating GAP workspace /var/lib/gap/workspace.gz: Error, failed to load > needed package `gapdoc' (version >= 1.2) called from > brk> true > brk> done. Oops. That's a bug in the gap and GAPDoc packages. I will push a fix for this to Rawhide shortly. New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-atlasrep/gap-pkg-atlasrep.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-atlasrep/gap-pkg-atlasrep-1.5.0-2.fc22.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 1159044] Review Request: lxqt-notificationd - Notification daemon for LXQt desktop suite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159044 Jonathan Underwood changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Underwood --- Shouldn't this be closed? -- 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 1159829] Review Request: lxqt-openssh-askpass - Askpass openssh transition dialog for LXQt desktop suite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159829 Jonathan Underwood changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Underwood --- Shouldn't this be closed? -- 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 976714] Review Request: python-scikit-learn - Machine learning in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976714 Sergio Pascual changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed|2013-07-30 11:50:18 |2015-01-23 20:05:09 -- 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 1166851] Review Request: python-husl - A Python implementation of HUSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166851 Sergio Pascual changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-01-23 19:45:31 -- 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 1167136] Review Request: python-seaborn - Statistical data visualization in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167136 Bug 1167136 depends on bug 1166851, which changed state. Bug 1166851 Summary: Review Request: python-husl - A Python implementation of HUSL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166851 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- 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 1185509] Review Request: python-photutils - Astropy affiliated package for image photometry tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185509 Sergio Pascual changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||115 (Astronomy-SIG) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=115 [Bug 115] Astronomy SIG - review tracker -- 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 1185509] New: Review Request: python-photutils - Astropy affiliated package for image photometry tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185509 Bug ID: 1185509 Summary: Review Request: python-photutils - Astropy affiliated package for image photometry tasks Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sergio.pa...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/python-photutils.spec SRPM URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/python-photutils-0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Photutils contains functions for: * estimating the background and background rms in astronomical images * detecting sources in astronomical images * estimating morphological parameters of those sources (e.g., centroid and shape parameters) * performing aperture and PSF photometry Fedora Account System Username: sergiopr -- 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 1184600] Review Request: python-sep -Astronomical source extraction and photometry in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184600 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python-sep-0.2.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-sep-0.2.0-1.fc21 -- 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 1184600] Review Request: python-sep -Astronomical source extraction and photometry in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184600 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1168333] Review Request: vagrant-libvirt - Vagrant provider for libvirt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168333 James (purpleidea) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jshu...@redhat.com --- Comment #13 from James (purpleidea) --- FYI: this RPM seems to be missing the work maxamillion and I did ~7 months ago: https://github.com/maxamillion/vagrant-libvirt-rpm/ In particular it's missing: .bashrc_vagrant vagrant-libvirt.pkla Please include these two changes. They're quite vital for making vagrant on fedora suck less :) -- 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 1180698] Review Request: sflphone - SIP/IAX2 compatible enterprise-class software phone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180698 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Sandro Mani --- Oh, never noticed that before, will need to fix it in a number of other packages as well! Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sflphone Short Description: SIP/IAX2 compatible enterprise-class software phone Owners: smani Branches: f20 f21 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 1121601] Review Request: rt - request tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601 --- Comment #39 from Jason Tibbitts --- Shelling out will spell super fun for selinux, I'm sure. So, basically we need to fix the policy to allow writes to /var/lib/rt and /var/log/rt (which shouldn't be too difficult). I'll bug the selinux folks. -- 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 1183235] Review Request: kdeedu-data - Shared icons, artwork and data files for educational applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183235 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: kdeedu-data Short Description: Shared icons, artwork and data files for educational applications Upstream URL: https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdeedu/kdeedu-data Owners: group::kde-sig Branches: f20 f21 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 1183235] Review Request: kdeedu-data - Shared icons, artwork and data files for educational applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183235
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8710097
$ rpmlint -i -v *
kdeedu-data.src: I: checking
kdeedu-data.src: I: checking-url
https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdeedu/kdeedu-data (timeout 10 seconds)
kdeedu-data.src: I: checking-url
http://download.kde.org/stable/applications/14.12.1/src/kdeedu-data-14.12.1.tar.xz
(timeout 10 seconds)
kdeedu-data.noarch: I: checking
kdeedu-data.noarch: I: checking-url
https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdeedu/kdeedu-data (timeout 10 seconds)
kdeedu-data.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
kdeedu-data.noarch: W: gzipped-svg-icon
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/integral_func.svgz
Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
(.svgz). Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.
kdeedu-data.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/apps/kvtml
../../kde4/apps/kvtml
The target of the symbolic link does not exist within this package or its file
based dependencies. Verify spelling of the link target and that the target is
included in a package in this package's dependency chain.
kdeedu-data.noarch: W: gzipped-svg-icon
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/editplots.svgz
Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
(.svgz). Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.
kdeedu-data.noarch: W: gzipped-svg-icon
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/maximum.svgz
Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
(.svgz). Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.
kdeedu-data.noarch: W: gzipped-svg-icon
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/minimum.svgz
Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
(.svgz). Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.
kdeedu-data.noarch: W: gzipped-svg-icon
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/newpolar.svgz
Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
(.svgz). Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.
kdeedu-data.noarch: W: gzipped-svg-icon
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/newfunction.svgz
Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
(.svgz). Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.
kdeedu-data.noarch: W: gzipped-svg-icon
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/deriv_func.svgz
Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
(.svgz). Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.
kdeedu-data.noarch: W: gzipped-svg-icon
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/newparametric.svgz
Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
(.svgz). Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.
kdeedu-data.noarch: W: gzipped-svg-icon
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/functionhelp.svgz
Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
(.svgz). Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.
kdeedu-data.noarch: W: gzipped-svg-icon
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/resetview.svgz
Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
(.svgz). Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.
kdeedu-data.noarch: W: gzipped-svg-icon
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/editconstants.svgz
Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped
(.svgz). Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG.
kdeedu-data.spec: I: checking
kdeedu-data.spec: I: checking-url
http://download.kde.org/stable/applications/14.12.1/src/kdeedu-data-14.12.1.tar.xz
(timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
Most warnings refer to the svgz icons. I've thought about again. The installed
icons are intended to be used in kdeedu apps. All of them are in the "actions"
folders, so they don't affect the display in simple window manager menus. This
would be the only usecase which I can imagine as a problem. Leave the
compressed icons untouched.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in
[Bug 1183218] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Random-TESHA2 - Random numbers using timer/schedule entropy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183218 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Crypt-Random-TESHA2-0.01-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Crypt-Random-TESHA2-0.01-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1180698] Review Request: sflphone - SIP/IAX2 compatible enterprise-class software phone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180698 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jerry James --- Hmmm, the -Wl,--as-needed addition stomped on Fedora's relro flags. How about doing this instead? LDFLAGS="$RPM_LD_FLAGS -Wl,--as-needed" %configure No need to delay the review for that change, though. Please do that when you import the package into git. This package is 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 1183218] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Random-TESHA2 - Random numbers using timer/schedule entropy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183218 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Crypt-Random-TESHA2-0.01-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Crypt-Random-TESHA2-0.01-1.fc21 -- 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 1183218] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Random-TESHA2 - Random numbers using timer/schedule entropy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183218 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177191] Review Request: jacop - Java Constraint Programming solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177191 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@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 1181793] Review Request: mp - An open-source library for mathematical programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181793
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE.rst in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
= 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:
"BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or
later)", "Unknown or generated". 275 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1181793-mp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package 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.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Pack
[Bug 1181793] Review Request: mp - An open-source library for mathematical programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181793
--- Comment #4 from Paulo Andrade ---
Thanks for the comments!
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #3)
> - There is code licensed with BSD and involved in the compilation.
Change the License to "MIT and BSD". Otherwise, it is a free license
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
> - It's not necessary to list documentation files in the -devel package
> since it depends by the main one.
I prefer to keep it for files that are not "really" required in -devel, e.g.
one may want to create build chroots passing --excludedocs as an extra install
rpm option
> - Please, use %license macro.
Done
> - 'environment-modules' is a 'Requires' package.
> 'mp' installs files in the '/usr/share/Modules' directory.
Corrected. it was incorrectly set as BuildRequires, not Requires.
> - There are some unused-direct-shlib-dependency warnings.
It comes from CMakeLists.tst
---8<---
# Link with librt for clock_gettime (Linux on i386).
find_library(RT_LIBRARY rt)
if (RT_LIBRARY)
target_link_libraries(mp ${RT_LIBRARY})
endif ()
---8<---
But it generates two shared libraries, while it is only required for one
of them:
---8<---
$ objdump -d /lib64/libmp.so|grep clock_gettime
00016ab0 :
16ebc: e8 ef fb ff ff callq 16ab0
---8<---
I think this is not a big issue, otherwise, Fedora would have
--as-needed in __global_ldflags, but my experience is that one
just trade a kind of problems for others with that...
Anyway, I added
-DCMAKE_SHARED_LINKER_FLAGS="%{__global_ldflags} -Wl,--as-needed" \
to mp.spec, so the rpmlint warning should no longer happen.
> - Instructions to package %{_javadir}/jacop/jacop.jar file are missing.
Added information to the spec, I would appreciate a review, did
not ask earlier because it is optional :)
# Waiting for review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177191
Spec URL: https://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/mp.spec
SRPM URL: https://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/mp-1.3.0-2.fc22.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 1183218] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Random-TESHA2 - Random numbers using timer/schedule entropy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183218 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1183218] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Random-TESHA2 - Random numbers using timer/schedule entropy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183218 David Dick changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from David Dick --- Thanks Paul. I've removed perl(Config). New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Crypt-Random-TESHA2 Short Description: Random numbers using timer/schedule entropy Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Crypt-Random-TESHA2/ Owners: ddick Branches: f20, f21, el6, epel7 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 1183218] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Random-TESHA2 - Random numbers using timer/schedule entropy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183218 Paul Howarth 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 1183218] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Random-TESHA2 - Random numbers using timer/schedule entropy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183218 --- Comment #4 from Paul Howarth --- Review == rpmlint output == perl-Crypt-Random-TESHA2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jitter -> hitter, jotter, jitters perl-Crypt-Random-TESHA2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jitter -> hitter, jotter, jitters checklist = - rpmlint OK - package and spec file naming OK - package meets guidelines - license is same as perl, OK for Fedora, spec matches - upstream LICENSE file packaged - spec file written in English and is legible - source matches upstream - package builds OK in mock for Rawhide x86_64 - buildreqs OK - no locales, libraries etc. to worry about - package is not intended to be relocatable - directory ownership and permissions OK - no duplicate files - macro usage is consistent - code, not content - no large docs, docs don't affect runtime - no sub-packages present or warranted - not a GUI app, no desktop file needed - filenames are all ASCII notes = BR: perl(Config) only seems to be used in examples/threads.pl so is probably not needed Consider using %license LICENSE for EPEL-7 and all Fedora releases 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 1121601] Review Request: rt - request tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601 --- Comment #38 from Alex Vandiver --- (In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #37) > We could pretty easily mess with the packaging of that perl module if any of > this makes a difference. It appears that it's used only by publican (our > docbook publication system) so we'd have to talk to them. Maybe someone > just needs to fork the module. Unfortunately, all of the perl-based HTML -> text converters seem to be poorly-mainatined, and prone to crashing on fairly simple input. As a result, RT 4.2 is moving towards instead adding an optional dependency on HTML::FormatExternal, which shells out to w3m or elinks -- we're not interested in forking, developing, and supporting a text-based HTML rendering engine when there already exist several in the wild (aka "browsers"). I expect that 4.4 will drop HTML::FormatText::WithTables::AndLinks entirely. > And selinux would definitely keep the webserver from writing to an unlabeled > location under /var (or anywhere else; the web server is rather strictly > confined). Now, when I look in the current F21 policy, I see the following > rt-related labels: > > /var/cache/rt(3|4)(/.*)? all files > system_u:object_r:httpd_cache_t:s0 > > /var/lib/rt(3|4)/data/RT-Shredder(/.*)?all files > system_u:object_r:httpd_var_lib_t:s0 > > Which makes it pretty obvious where the problems lie. > > Since we're using "rt" and not "rt4" for these directories, none of this > matches, and even if it were fixed, the labeling for /var/lib/rt would be a > bit too restrictive, I think. > > The selinux folks are very happy to tweak policy and they usually do it > rather quickly. If we could just get a list of everywhere rt is expected to > write, it would be pretty easy to get them to patch things up. Alex, would > you happen to know that off the top of your head? /var/lib/rt needs to be writable for SQLite; the database is a file named /var/lib/rt/rt4 (assuming that $DatabaseName is set to rt4). Since SQLite is defined to be "not for production" there's some slack here in how much we care, though. If file-based logging is enabled, writing to /var/log/rt is also necessary. The above rules (fixed for "rt" not "rt4") cover Mason's cache. The shredder directories also need to be writable. I _believe_ that to be sufficient -- in the past we've simply set httpd_sys_rw_content_t on all of /opt/rt4/var, which is a big-ish hammer. - alex -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261
--- Comment #15 from Sinny Kumari ---
Updated spec file and also ran basic checks on generated packages. Updated spec
and rpms are:
SPEC url -
https://github.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/raw/master/spec/libabigail.spec
SRPM url -
https://github.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/raw/master/srpm/libabigail-1.0-0.2.20150114git63c81f0.fc21.src.rpm
Koji Build - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8708846
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #9)
> Few more fixes required for above updated package.
>
> 1) When you prepare updated package its a good practice to do koji scratch
> build and if its a successful build then check rpmlint output for all
> generated rpm files. Or you can use fedora-review tool on your own updated
> package.
Yes, rpmlint ran on generated package
> => You need to fix the changelog version-release to
> 1.0-0.1.git.20150114git63c81f0
Fixed
> => Then the wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding warning can be fixed by adding
> BuildRequires: dos2unix
> and at the end of %install
> dos2unix doc/manuals/html/_static/jquery.js
Added dos2unix
> 3) As per new guidelines
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ,
> you need to use %license macro for license file instead of %doc
> %license COPYING-LGPLV3
Fixed
> 4) Follow the texinfo guidelines
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Texinfo
>
> You have missing Requires lines and need to use preun (not postun)
Using preun instead of postun.
Not adding
Requires(post): info
Requires(preun): info
because this dependency should be handled by yum.
> 5) I had a look at source archive and it contains approximately 2.9MB of
> .git directory which we don't need. So change the source generation step like
>
> tar -cvzf %%{name}-%%{version}.tar.gz %%{name}-%%{version} --exclude .git
>
> and generate new tarball, use it and submit new package for further review.
Thank you for telling about it. I really didn't notice it. Fixed.
> 6) Everytime you update the spec file, increase the release number tag (so
> next will be "0.2.%{checkout}%{?dist}" and add corresponding changes
> information in %changelog
Updated Release number tag and %changelog information
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #12)
> (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #9)
> > => You need to fix the changelog version-release to
> > 1.0-0.1.git.20150114git63c81f0
>
> The first git is redundant, just use:
> %global checkout %{date}git%{git_revision}
Fixed
> Probably easier to use "git archvie..." at this point. Something like:
>
> # This tarball was constructed from pulling the source code of
> # libabigail from its Git repository by doing:
> #git clone git://sourceware.org/git/libabigail.git
> #pushd libabigail
> #git archive --prefix %%{name}-%%{version}/ -o
> %%{name}-%%{version}.tar.gz %%{git_revision}
Yes, using it to generate archive and it works absolutely fine :)
Thanks
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1121601] Review Request: rt - request tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601 --- Comment #37 from Jason Tibbitts --- We could pretty easily mess with the packaging of that perl module if any of this makes a difference. It appears that it's used only by publican (our docbook publication system) so we'd have to talk to them. Maybe someone just needs to fork the module. And selinux would definitely keep the webserver from writing to an unlabeled location under /var (or anywhere else; the web server is rather strictly confined). Now, when I look in the current F21 policy, I see the following rt-related labels: /var/cache/rt(3|4)(/.*)? all files system_u:object_r:httpd_cache_t:s0 /var/lib/rt(3|4)/data/RT-Shredder(/.*)?all files system_u:object_r:httpd_var_lib_t:s0 Which makes it pretty obvious where the problems lie. Since we're using "rt" and not "rt4" for these directories, none of this matches, and even if it were fixed, the labeling for /var/lib/rt would be a bit too restrictive, I think. The selinux folks are very happy to tweak policy and they usually do it rather quickly. If we could just get a list of everywhere rt is expected to write, it would be pretty easy to get them to patch things up. Alex, would you happen to know that off the top of your head? -- 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 1185099] Review Request: opam - A source-based package manager for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185099 --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones --- Patch file should be *.patch. The rest of the spec file looks reasonable. -- 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 1183195] Review Request: ocaml-uutf - Non-blocking streaming codec for UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-16LE and UTF-16BE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1185099 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185099 [Bug 1185099] Review Request: opam - A source-based package manager for OCaml -- 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 1183826] Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - a framework for managing distribution packages and their dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183826 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1185099 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185099 [Bug 1185099] Review Request: opam - A source-based package manager for OCaml -- 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 1172771] Review Request: ocaml-cmdliner - OCaml library for dealing with command line arguments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1185099 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185099 [Bug 1185099] Review Request: opam - A source-based package manager for OCaml -- 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 1185099] Review Request: opam - A source-based package manager for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185099 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com Depends On||1172771, 1174036, 1183191, ||1183195, 1183825, 1183826 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771 [Bug 1172771] Review Request: ocaml-cmdliner - OCaml library for dealing with command line arguments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036 [Bug 1174036] Review Request: ocaml-re - OCaml regular expression library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183191 [Bug 1183191] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Common Upgradeability Description Format (CUDF) library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195 [Bug 1183195] Review Request: ocaml-uutf - Non-blocking streaming codec for UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-16LE and UTF-16BE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183825 [Bug 1183825] Review Request: ocaml-jsonm - Non-blocking streaming JSON codec for OCaml https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183826 [Bug 1183826] Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - a framework for managing distribution packages and their dependencies -- 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 1183191] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Common Upgradeability Description Format (CUDF) library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183191 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1185099 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185099 [Bug 1185099] Review Request: opam - A source-based package manager for OCaml -- 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 1183825] Review Request: ocaml-jsonm - Non-blocking streaming JSON codec for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183825 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1185099 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185099 [Bug 1185099] Review Request: opam - A source-based package manager for OCaml -- 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 1174036] Review Request: ocaml-re - OCaml regular expression library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1185099 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185099 [Bug 1185099] Review Request: opam - A source-based package manager for OCaml -- 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 1183826] Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - a framework for managing distribution packages and their dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183826 --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones --- Spec file looks OK to me. -- 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 1183191] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Common Upgradeability Description Format (CUDF) library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183191 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1183826 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183826 [Bug 1183826] Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - a framework for managing distribution packages and their dependencies -- 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 1183825] Review Request: ocaml-jsonm - Non-blocking streaming JSON codec for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183825 --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones --- Defining 'native_compiler' symbol but not using it. [Uutf] .. [] doesn't mean anything to rpm - this is not ocamldoc! It's probably better just to remove the square brackets. The rest looks good to me. -- 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 1183826] Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - a framework for managing distribution packages and their dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183826 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com Depends On||1183191 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183191 [Bug 1183191] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Common Upgradeability Description Format (CUDF) 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 1183195] Review Request: ocaml-uutf - Non-blocking streaming codec for UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-16LE and UTF-16BE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1183825 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183825 [Bug 1183825] Review Request: ocaml-jsonm - Non-blocking streaming JSON codec for OCaml -- 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 1183195] Review Request: ocaml-uutf - Non-blocking streaming codec for UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-16LE and UTF-16BE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones --- Patch file should probably be named '.patch'. You're defining 'native_compiler' but not actually using 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 1183825] Review Request: ocaml-jsonm - Non-blocking streaming JSON codec for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183825 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com Depends On||1183195 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183195 [Bug 1183195] Review Request: ocaml-uutf - Non-blocking streaming codec for UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-16LE and UTF-16BE -- 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 1183191] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Common Upgradeability Description Format (CUDF) library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183191 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones --- You can probably ignore the "error" ocaml-cudf.x86_64: E: no-binary rpmlint has some problems with OCaml packages, although it has improved over time. The spec file looks reasonable to me. -- 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 1121601] Review Request: rt - request tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601 --- Comment #36 from Alex Vandiver --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #34) > Fedora's perl-HTML-FormatText-WithLinks-AndTable has 2 patches applied: > c.f. > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/perl-HTML-FormatText-WithLinks-AndTables. > git/tree/ > > Reverting one of these (col_0_fix.patch), lets the t/mail/html-outgoing.t > test succeed - Unfortunately, this patch isn't documented at all - No idea > what it is trying to address nor about its origins :( It's from https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=55919#txn-753466 , which is a (IMHO) worse fix than we attempted to supply to the module author in https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=63555 Reverting col_0_fix.patch in Fedora is likely not the correct fix here -- the patch in perl-HTML-FormatText-WithLinks-AndTables is absolutely fixing a bug, and one that the original CPAN author has failed to address. The RT tests are merely being pessimistic and were expecting that the module would _always_ fail; the Fedora patched version doesn't so do, which isn't really a failure of the Fedora version of the module -- we should be fixing the test to mark those tests as TODO, or not test them at all. For the short term, you can remove lines 85-106 of t/mail/html-outgoing.t in Fedora. I'll ponder what the most right fix is for code. > => Something for me to bugzilla. As noted above, I disagree that 1185427 is a bug that Fedora needs to address. > A pretty complex html page with embedded js. I am going to attach it. Thanks. The core of it is "Failed to connect to database: unable to open database file". Can you think of anything that might prevent the webserver from writing to $RT::VarPath (which I believe is /var/lib/rt under the Fedora layout)? Presumably selinux kicking in? - Alex -- 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 1174036] Review Request: ocaml-re - OCaml regular expression library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones --- Usually better for patches to be '*.patch' since it makes it clearer what the file is when looking at the git repo. You probably don't need a newline after %description. Not sure what rpm does - whether it ignores it or adds whitespace to the rpm header. Rest looks fine to me. -- 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 1172771] Review Request: ocaml-cmdliner - OCaml library for dealing with command line arguments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172771 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones --- In general, the spec file looks OK. I can't find any specific problem to point out. -- 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 1185424] Review Request: mate-user-guide - User Guide for MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185424 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 1185301] Review Request: gnome-builder - IDE for writing GNOME-based software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185301 David King changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||gnome-builder-3.15.4.1-1.fc ||22 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-01-23 12:57:07 --- Comment #13 from David King --- Thanks for the reviews! -- 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 1185424] Review Request: mate-user-guide - User Guide for MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185424
Christian Dersch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch ---
Package looks nice, I have one suggestion: Starting with Fedora 21 there is a
special %license macro for the license files, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text and
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411
Solution: APPROVED
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help,
/usr/share/help/C
> Seems to be the same problem as here (false positive):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?format=multiple&id=1043290
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/help/C/mate-user-
guide/figures(mate-desktop-libs, mate-desktop), /usr/share/help/C/mate-
user-guide(mate-desktop-libs, mate-desktop)
> Seems to be the same problem as here (false positive):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?format=multiple&id=1043290
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package 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.
[-]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[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.
= 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages
[Bug 1121601] Review Request: rt - request tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #35 from Ralf Corsepius ---
Created attachment 983480
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=983480&action=edit
$m->content as requested in comment#31
Contents of t/tmp/web-install.t-*/rt.debug.log:
[3022] [Fri Jan 23 17:35:34 2015] [warning]: DBI
connect('dbname=rt4test;host=localhost','urt4test',...) failed: Unknown
database 'rt4test' at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/DBIx/SearchBuilder/Handle.pm
line 105. (/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Carp.pm:168)
[3022] [Fri Jan 23 17:35:35 2015] [warning]: DBI
connect('dbname=rt4test;host=localhost','urt4test',...) failed: Unknown
database 'rt4test' at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/DBIx/SearchBuilder/Handle.pm
line 105. (/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Carp.pm:168)
--
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 1178940] Review Request: libqhyccd - Library to control QHY CCD devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178940 Wolfgang Ulbrich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||chat-to...@raveit.de Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|chat-to...@raveit.de -- 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 1181193] Review Request: cdsclient - Tools to query databases at CDS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181193 Wolfgang Ulbrich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||chat-to...@raveit.de Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|chat-to...@raveit.de -- 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 1121601] Review Request: rt - request tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1185427 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185427 [Bug 1185427] col_0_fix.patch breaks rt-4.2.x -- 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 1179336] Review Request: python-pytest-multihost - Utility for writing multi-host tests for pytest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179336
Stephen Gallagher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pvikt...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(pviktori@redhat.c
||om)
--- Comment #1 from Stephen Gallagher ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= Issues
- Use %license instead of %doc for COPYING. This will ensure that it's still
installed, even if someone uses --nodocs with RPM (to maintain legal
requirements. Also, in the future, RPM will treat %license as a hardlink
opportunity to avoid duplicating licenses on the disk.
- Upstream tarball contains tests but they are not run in %check
If they cannot be run in %check, a comment to that effect should be
provided.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /dev/shm/reviews/1179336-python-pytest-
multihost/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 102400 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]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applica
[Bug 1185424] Review Request: mate-user-guide - User Guide for MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185424 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lupi...@mailbox.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lupi...@mailbox.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Christian Dersch --- Taken! Review will follow soon :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1121601] Review Request: rt - request tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601 --- Comment #34 from Ralf Corsepius --- (In reply to Alex Vandiver from comment #33) Thanks, for your hints, Alex! > The first test failure on 4.2 is due to something _not_ failing as it does > everywhere else. That is, RT uses the > HTML::FormatText::WithLinks::AndTables module to render HTML to plain text > -- which unfortunately fails spectacularly if there are tables involved. > Does Fedora have local patches applied to the HTML::FormatText module, or > HTML::FormatText::WithLinks::AndTables ? You are right on the spot! Fedora's perl-HTML-FormatText-WithLinks-AndTable has 2 patches applied: c.f. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/perl-HTML-FormatText-WithLinks-AndTables.git/tree/ Reverting one of these (col_0_fix.patch), lets the t/mail/html-outgoing.t test succeed - Unfortunately, this patch isn't documented at all - No idea what it is trying to address nor about its origins :( => Something for me to bugzilla. > The second failure (with the web-based installer) is also odd -- it's a > failure to create a test SQLite DB. What does adding a "die $m->content;" > on line 81 yield? A pretty complex html page with embedded js. I am going to attach 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 1185424] New: Review Request: mate-user-guide - User Guide for MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185424 Bug ID: 1185424 Summary: Review Request: mate-user-guide - User Guide for MATE desktop Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: chat-to...@raveit.de QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate/SPECS/mate-user-guide.spec SRPM URL: https://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/Mate/SRPM/mate-user-guide-1.9.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Documentations for MATE desktop Fedora Account System Username: raveit65 -- 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 1179336] Review Request: python-pytest-multihost - Utility for writing multi-host tests for pytest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179336 Stephen Gallagher changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sgall...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sgall...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 592500] Review Request: libeatmydata - Disable fsync() and friends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592500 Dave Love changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk --- Comment #5 from Dave Love --- For what it's worth, there's a currently-current srpm with several updates at https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/copr/libeatmydata-105-1.el6.src.rpm and a copr build under http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/loveshack/livhpc -- 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 1178912] Review Request: cairo-dock-plug-ins - Plug-ins files for Cairo-Dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912
--- Comment #23 from Mamoru TASAKA ---
See comment 16, one can install A.i686 B.noarch, C.x86_64 manually using rpm -i
(normal install using default "yum" option won't do that, dnf - I don't know
well) and this won't work because actually C.x86_64 needs A.i686.
One can write "Requires: A%{?_isa}" on C explicitly, however this is redundant.
If B is _VERY_ large (like game data), it is preferable to make it noarch,
however this case I see no gain.
--
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 1168333] Review Request: vagrant-libvirt - Vagrant provider for libvirt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168333 Michael Adam changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|ma...@redhat.com|vondr...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Michael Adam --- Vít, Setting the review flag and reassigning to you for final review of my changes and further processing. If you don't like something I changed, please bounce back to me. I'd be glad if you would incorporate the changes from my git in the scm if possible. (I was not aware how I can create a repo in the exact format for fedpkg.) Thanks - Michael -- 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 1178912] Review Request: cairo-dock-plug-ins - Plug-ins files for Cairo-Dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912 --- Comment #22 from Jan Pokorný --- Not just %_isa but marking subpackages as noarch properly. IIUIC, it would save some space on the mirrors, etc. so in case there is no strong argument not to make it noarch (which may still be the case and cairo-dock-python2 may qualify) I don't like much. Not a blocker, but would like to know what issues you've hit that are being prevented by not using noarch. -- 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 1168333] Review Request: vagrant-libvirt - Vagrant provider for libvirt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168333 --- Comment #11 from Michael Adam --- Change history for this version on top of Vít's is to be found here: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/obnox/public_git/fedora-vagrant-libvirt.git/ Michael -- 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 1168333] Review Request: vagrant-libvirt - Vagrant provider for libvirt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168333
--- Comment #10 from Michael Adam ---
Ok, now I completed the review.
~~~
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/obnox/review/vagrant-libvirt/1168333-vagrant-
libvirt/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
--> fixed
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/vagrant/gems/doc,
/usr/share/vagrant/gems/specifications, /usr/share/vagrant/gems/gems,
/usr/share/vagrant/gems, /usr/share/vagrant
--> TODO: fix vagrant RPM
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/vagrant/gems/doc,
/usr/share/vagrant/gems/specifications, /usr/share/vagrant,
/usr/share/vagrant/gems, /usr/share/vagrant/gems/gems
--> TODO: fix vagrant RPM
[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.
[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 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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in vagrant-
libvirt-doc
--> not applicable for noarch package.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if avai
[Bug 1121601] Review Request: rt - request tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601 --- Comment #33 from Alex Vandiver --- Huzzah for 4.0 in Fedora! The first test failure on 4.2 is due to something _not_ failing as it does everywhere else. That is, RT uses the HTML::FormatText::WithLinks::AndTables module to render HTML to plain text -- which unfortunately fails spectacularly if there are tables involved. Does Fedora have local patches applied to the HTML::FormatText module, or HTML::FormatText::WithLinks::AndTables ? The second failure (with the web-based installer) is also odd -- it's a failure to create a test SQLite DB. What does adding a "die $m->content;" on line 81 yield? - Alex -- 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 960056] Review Request: rubygem-debug_inspector - A Ruby wrapper for the MRI 2.0 debug_inspector API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960056 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1184910 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184910 [Bug 1184910] Ruby on Rails 4.2 -- 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 960056] Review Request: rubygem-debug_inspector - A Ruby wrapper for the MRI 2.0 debug_inspector API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960056 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vondr...@redhat.com Flags|needinfo?(anujmorex@gmail.c | |om) | --- Comment #5 from Vít Ondruch --- Since Anuj is unresponsive, I took the liberty to follow from the point he ended and updated the .spec file. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/rubygem-debug_inspector.git/tree/rubygem-debug_inspector.spec?id=a791e72b22ade661073caa499a8fdf368f55e759 SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-debug_inspector-0.0.2-2.fc22.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8707535 -- 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 1128754] Review Request: mozilla-requestpolicy - Firefox and Seamonkey extension that gives you control over cross-site requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128754 --- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande --- SPEC URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/mozilla-requestpolicy/mozilla-requestpolicy.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/mozilla-requestpolicy/mozilla-requestpolicy-1.0-0.2.20141213gitd27363.fc21.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 1121601] Review Request: rt - request tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601 --- Comment #32 from Ralf Corsepius --- Created attachment 983414 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=983414&action=edit Log from running rt-4.2.9-0.20150123.0.fc21's testsuites -- 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 1121601] Review Request: rt - request tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601 --- Comment #31 from Ralf Corsepius --- rt-4.0.22 now is in rawhide and f21's package queue. Thanks to tibbs' finding, we're now at 0 testsuite failures on f21! Should somebody still be interested in continuing with rt-4.2.9, I've uploaded new rt-4.2.9 rpms to http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages There are 2 testsuite failures with these rpms on f21. Unfortunately, I can't spot anything obvious. -- 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 1185301] Review Request: gnome-builder - IDE for writing GNOME-based software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185301 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1185301] Review Request: gnome-builder - IDE for writing GNOME-based software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185301 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 1181793] Review Request: mp - An open-source library for mathematical programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181793
--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande ---
- There is code licensed with BSD and involved in the compilation.
BSD (2 clause)
--
mp-35060ba2a59f2b0f0fd622ed9df678f142f846ed/include/mp/format.h
mp-35060ba2a59f2b0f0fd622ed9df678f142f846ed/include/mp/posix.h
mp-35060ba2a59f2b0f0fd622ed9df678f142f846ed/include/mp/rstparser.h
mp-35060ba2a59f2b0f0fd622ed9df678f142f846ed/include/mp/safeint.h
mp-35060ba2a59f2b0f0fd622ed9df678f142f846ed/src/format.cc
mp-35060ba2a59f2b0f0fd622ed9df678f142f846ed/src/posix.cc
mp-35060ba2a59f2b0f0fd622ed9df678f142f846ed/src/rstparser.cc
mp-35060ba2a59f2b0f0fd622ed9df678f142f846ed/test/gtest-extra.cc
mp-35060ba2a59f2b0f0fd622ed9df678f142f846ed/test/gtest-extra.h
mp-35060ba2a59f2b0f0fd622ed9df678f142f846ed/test/mock-allocator.h
mp-35060ba2a59f2b0f0fd622ed9df678f142f846ed/test/rstparser-test.cc
mp-35060ba2a59f2b0f0fd622ed9df678f142f846ed/test/safeint-test.cc
- It's not necessary to list documentation files in the -devel package
since it depends by the main one.
- Please, use %license macro.
- 'environment-modules' is a 'Requires' package.
'mp' installs files in the '/usr/share/Modules' directory.
- There are some unused-direct-shlib-dependency warnings.
- Instructions to package %{_javadir}/jacop/jacop.jar file are missing.
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or
later)", "Unknown or generated". 275 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/mp/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/Modules/modulefiles,
/usr/share/Modules
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[!]: 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
[Bug 1178912] Review Request: cairo-dock-plug-ins - Plug-ins files for Cairo-Dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912
--- Comment #21 from Mamoru TASAKA ---
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #20)
> Maybe I would suggest grouping BuildRequires with respective subpackage
> (e.g., ruby-devel under "-n cairo-dock-ruby") to make the relationships
> more obvious.
Well, actually I object to this and I always recommend to write BRs in the
same place (some other reviewers also suggests so)
> > (What is difficult for noarch is that if B.noarch depends on A.%{?_isa}, and
> > C%{?_isa} depends on B.noarch, then the %{?_isa} dependency between A and C
> > becomes obscure.)
> > [...]
> > for now I want to make all %_isa specific because dependency is not simple
>
> This relates to cairo-dock-python2 only, or am I missing something?
Anyway using %_isa is much safer. Or is this a blocker?
--
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 1185301] Review Request: gnome-builder - IDE for writing GNOME-based software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185301 --- Comment #11 from David King --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-builder Short Description: IDE for writing GNOME-based software Upstream URL: https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Builder Owners: amigadave group::gnome-sig ignatenkobrain 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 1185301] Review Request: gnome-builder - IDE for writing GNOME-based software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185301 --- Comment #7 from David King --- (In reply to David King from comment #6) > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #5) > > directory /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/autocomplete/ without known > > owner > > Ooh. That's not part of the icon theme, so is probably worth an upstream bug > (and owning in this package)? I owned the directory now, and reuploaded the fixed spec and srpm in place. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8707271 -- 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 1185301] Review Request: gnome-builder - IDE for writing GNOME-based software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185301 Mathieu Bridon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mbri...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Mathieu Bridon --- Don't add me as owner, add group::gnome-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 1185301] Review Request: gnome-builder - IDE for writing GNOME-based software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185301 --- Comment #4 from David King --- (In reply to Mathieu Bridon from comment #3) > License tag is incorrect, if I checked correctly it should be: >… Thanks for that! I would normally trim this down a bit to the effective license of the binary, which in this case would allow dropping of the LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ bits (as all the files under those licenses are built into a binary with GPLv3+ code, and effectively GPLv3+). However, this probably needs too much careful examination of licenses to maintain well. In any case, fixed now. > Other than that, please use %license for the COPYING file, rather than %doc. Cool, this was not part of the licensing guidelines the last time I checked, so fixed too. > Finally, that #VCS comment seems wrong, unless you're packaging cheese > again. :) Whoops! Fixed now. Scratch build, including the changes, and a 32-bit build fix from upstream (also reuploaded in place): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8707142 -- 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 1185301] Review Request: gnome-builder - IDE for writing GNOME-based software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185301 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Igor Gnatenko --- directory /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/autocomplete/ without known owner E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/org.gnome.Builder.appdata.xml interesting. -- 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 1185301] Review Request: gnome-builder - IDE for writing GNOME-based software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185301 David King changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from David King --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnome-builder Short Description: IDE for writing GNOME-based software Upstream URL: https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Builder Owners: amigadave bochecha ignatenkobrain 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 1178912] Review Request: cairo-dock-plug-ins - Plug-ins files for Cairo-Dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912 --- Comment #19 from Mamoru TASAKA --- > something slightly related (perhaps unnecessary arch-specificity) is being discussed above This is okay (and anyway with the existence of -common, EVRs of subpackages installed are all the same) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1185301] Review Request: gnome-builder - IDE for writing GNOME-based software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185301 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Igor Gnatenko --- APPROVED. Please add `ignatenkobrain` and `bochecha` to owners when you will create SCM 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 1185301] Review Request: gnome-builder - IDE for writing GNOME-based software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185301 --- Comment #6 from David King --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #5) > directory /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/autocomplete/ without known owner Ooh. That's not part of the icon theme, so is probably worth an upstream bug (and owning in this package)? > E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/org.gnome.Builder.appdata.xml > interesting. Probably related to comment #1. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1178912] Review Request: cairo-dock-plug-ins - Plug-ins files for Cairo-Dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912 --- Comment #17 from Mamoru TASAKA --- Sorry for sequent post, however so for now I want to make all %_isa specific because dependency is not simple. -- 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 1178912] Review Request: cairo-dock-plug-ins - Plug-ins files for Cairo-Dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912
--- Comment #18 from Jan Pokorný ---
> = SHOULD items =
>
> Generic:
> [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
> [ ]: 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.
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in cairo-dock-
> plug-ins-xfce , cairo-dock-plug-ins-kde , cairo-dock-plug-ins-webkit ,
> cairo-dock-plug-ins-unstable , cairo-dock-python2 , cairo-dock-python3 ,
> cairo-dock-ruby , cairo-dock-vala , cairo-dock-vala-devel
something slightly related (perhaps unnecessary arch-specificity) is being
discussed above
> [x]: Package functions as described.
> [x]: Latest version is packaged.
> [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
> [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 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]: Buildroot is not present
> [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
> [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
> [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
> [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
> [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
> [x]: SourceX is a working URL.
> [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
--
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 1178912] Review Request: cairo-dock-plug-ins - Plug-ins files for Cairo-Dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912
--- Comment #20 from Jan Pokorný ---
Maybe I would suggest grouping BuildRequires with respective subpackage
(e.g., ruby-devel under "-n cairo-dock-ruby") to make the relationships
more obvious.
> (What is difficult for noarch is that if B.noarch depends on A.%{?_isa}, and
> C%{?_isa} depends on B.noarch, then the %{?_isa} dependency between A and C
> becomes obscure.)
> [...]
> for now I want to make all %_isa specific because dependency is not simple
This relates to cairo-dock-python2 only, or am I missing something?
--
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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261
--- Comment #14 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #12)
> (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #9)
> > => You need to fix the changelog version-release to
> > 1.0-0.1.git.20150114git63c81f0
>
> The first git is redundant, just use:
> %global checkout %{date}git%{git_revision}
>
You are right. My eyes missed that.
>
> > 5) I had a look at source archive and it contains approximately 2.9MB of
> > .git directory which we don't need. So change the source generation step
> > like
> >
> > tar -cvzf %%{name}-%%{version}.tar.gz %%{name}-%%{version} --exclude .git
> >
> > and generate new tarball, use it and submit new package for further review.
>
> Probably easier to use "git archvie..." at this point. Something like:
>
> # This tarball was constructed from pulling the source code of
> # libabigail from its Git repository by doing:
> #git clone git://sourceware.org/git/libabigail.git
> #pushd libabigail
> #git archive --prefix %%{name}-%%{version}/ -o
> %%{name}-%%{version}.tar.gz %%{git_revision}
Not tested but looks this can also work fine.
(In reply to Sinny Kumari from comment #13)
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for your feedback. I am making changes into spec file according to
> your feedback. Have one question though (mentioned in inline comment)
> (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #9)
> > Few more fixes required for above updated package.
>
> > 6) Everytime you update the spec file, increase the release number tag (so
> > next will be "0.2.%{checkout}%{?dist}" and add corresponding changes
> > information in %changelog
>
> Yes, I am aware of updating release number when any modification is done in
> spec file. But, currently this package is under review and no non-scratch
> build has been done so far. So, is it really needed now? Asking it because I
> couldn't find answer to it in Fedora wiki.
>
Yes you do need to update release number. Many new people asks same question
but we need to track how the package got updated since its initial submission.
This also helps other people to track how this package is reviewed and
approved.
I generally don't ask people if its a minor update but in your case there are
many changes. Just go through already done package reviews in bugzilla and you
will find people did update release number everytime they submitted new
changes. You may want to check reviews that got progressed since its submission
-> http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html or
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/REVIEW.html
Also, this is needed in case when new update fails to build/work we can go to
previous changes and find the issues in new update.
I too can't find any reference for this in fedora wiki.
--
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 1178912] Review Request: cairo-dock-plug-ins - Plug-ins files for Cairo-Dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912 --- Comment #15 from Mamoru TASAKA --- For may-be-noarch subpackage, I will check afterwards. -- 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 1178912] Review Request: cairo-dock-plug-ins - Plug-ins files for Cairo-Dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912
--- Comment #16 from Mamoru TASAKA ---
(What is difficult for noarch is that if B.noarch depends on A.%{?_isa}, and
C%{?_isa} depends on B.noarch, then the %{?_isa} dependency between A and C
becomes obscure.)
--
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 1168333] Review Request: vagrant-libvirt - Vagrant provider for libvirt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168333 --- Comment #9 from Michael Adam --- Ok, this is a bug in fedora-review. Not sure why it was triggered by my packages, but it is fixed in this update: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-review-0.5.2-2.fc21 Thanks to Vít for the hint!!! -- 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 1185301] Review Request: gnome-builder - IDE for writing GNOME-based software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185301 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com -- 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 1178912] Review Request: cairo-dock-plug-ins - Plug-ins files for Cairo-Dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912 --- Comment #14 from Jan Pokorný --- cairo-dock-python[23] and cairo-dock-ruby should be noarch as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1121601] Review Request: rt - request tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System --- rt-4.0.22-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rt-4.0.22-3.fc21 -- 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 1121601] Review Request: rt - request tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1128754] Review Request: mozilla-requestpolicy - Firefox and Seamonkey extension that gives you control over cross-site requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128754
--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #4)
>
> 2. It is the owner of %{firefox_inst_dir} and %{seamonkey_inst_dir}
> This looks wrong. Too bad firefox-filesystem is not the onwer of
> %{firefox_inst_dir}, but there are other packages that think they are the
> owner.
> seamonkey is the owner of %{seamonkey_inst_dir}.
> I think it should be worth a bug report for firefox-filesystem for it to
> become owner of %{firefox_inst_dir}
> """
> [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners:
> /usr/share/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}
> [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/mozilla/extensions
> /{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}(mozilla-esteid, seamonkey,
> mozilla-https-everywhere)
> """
%{firefox_inst_dir}=%{moz_extensions}/%{firefox_app_id}/requestpol...@requestpolicy.com
must be owned by this package.
%{moz_extensions}/%{firefox_app_id} is co-owned with 'firefox'.
%{moz_extensions} is owned by 'mozilla-filesystem' that is required by
'firefox'.
Is it not right?
--
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 1178912] Review Request: cairo-dock-plug-ins - Plug-ins files for Cairo-Dock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912
--- Comment #13 from Jan Pokorný ---
As for cairo-dock-plug-ins-common (only license files for now, which is
OK), I think it should rather be norach (and, consequently, internal
Requires without %{?_isa}).
--
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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261
--- Comment #13 from Sinny Kumari ---
Hi,
Thank you for your feedback. I am making changes into spec file according to
your feedback. Have one question though (mentioned in inline comment)
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #9)
> Few more fixes required for above updated package.
> 6) Everytime you update the spec file, increase the release number tag (so
> next will be "0.2.%{checkout}%{?dist}" and add corresponding changes
> information in %changelog
Yes, I am aware of updating release number when any modification is done in
spec file. But, currently this package is under review and no non-scratch build
has been done so far. So, is it really needed now? Asking it because I couldn't
find answer to it in Fedora wiki.
Thanks
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
