[Bug 1200762] Review Request: eclipse-m2e-workspace - M2E CLI workspace resolver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200762 --- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2) Issues: [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share /maven-metadata, /usr/share/java/eclipse-m2e-workspace Not an issue: /usr/share/licenses is owned by filesystem /usr/share/maven-metadata is owned by javapackages-tools /usr/share/java/eclipse-m2e-workspace is owned by the package itself [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. I asked the same upstream to include license texts in different projects, but they refused. I'm not going to waste my time asking again. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. This is also OK. License text must be installed to comply with licensing terms. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200321] Review Request: rubygem-fog-atmos - Module for the 'fog' gem to support Atmos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200321 Bug 1200321 depends on bug 1200310, which changed state. Bug 1200310 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-fog-xml - XML parsing for fog providers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200310 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200384] Review Request: ocaml-config-file - Configuration file management for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200384 --- Comment #2 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavr...@redhat.com --- Updated spec and srpm: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/ocaml-config-file.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/ocaml-config-file-1.2-2.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 1200378] Review Request: rubygem-fog-aws - Module for the 'fog' gem to support Amazon Web Services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200378 Bug 1200378 depends on bug 1200310, which changed state. Bug 1200310 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-fog-xml - XML parsing for fog providers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200310 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200762] Review Request: eclipse-m2e-workspace - M2E CLI workspace resolver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200762 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: eclipse-m2e-workspace Short Description: M2E CLI workspace resolver Owners: mizdebsk msimacek msrb eclipse-sig Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-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 1200762] New: Review Request: eclipse-m2e-workspace - M2E CLI workspace resolver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200762 Bug ID: 1200762 Summary: Review Request: eclipse-m2e-workspace - M2E CLI workspace resolver Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mizde...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/eclipse-m2e-workspace/eclipse-m2e-workspace.spec SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/eclipse-m2e-workspace/eclipse-m2e-workspace-0.2.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Workspace dependency resolver implementation for Maven command line build. Fedora Account System Username: mizdebsk Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693 --- Comment #2 from Paul Colby red...@colby.id.au --- Thanks Michael. I'll take a look at the fedora-review tool, and fix whatever it finds. Thanks again :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200769] Review Request: takari-incrementalbuild - Takari Incremental Build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200769 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: takari-incrementalbuild Short Description: Takari Incremental Build Owners: mizdebsk msrb msimacek Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-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 1200866] Review Request: perl-ZMQ-LibZMQ4 - Libzmq 4.x wrapper for Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200866 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1199573 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199573 [Bug 1199573] Review Request: perl-Alien-ZMQ - Find and install libzmq 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 1154650] Review Request: python-oslotest - OpenStack test framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154650 --- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Also it would be great if you package this also for Python 3 if possible (and from the usage of six, I guess this is supposed to work with both Python 3 and Python 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 1197471] Review Request: tonto - Tools for Pronto programmable remote controls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197471
--- Comment #8 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com ---
First, the main license in tonto-1.44/doc/LICENSE.txt file is not the Artistic
license described on Fedora wiki - license texts differ. Fedora legal should
check if this license is free software license and whether it is compatible
with GPL or not. They will either add a new license tag or permit use of
existing Artistic tag.
Other minor issues found so far:
1. You should use %{version} in source URLs, this will make updating package
easier.
2. get-source1.sh should have mktemp -d instead of pure mktemp. mktemp
without -d creates regular file
3. %{name} should be used in the whole spec file, but especially in paths. This
is to minimize changes needed when the package is renamed (eg. when introducing
compat package or SCL-izing package)
4. desktop files should not use --vendor tag, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
5. missing %license in javadoc subpackage
rpmlint output:
tonto.src:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(acme-IntHashtable)
tonto.src:24: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(acme-ImageEncoder)
tonto.src:25: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(acme-GifEncoder)
tonto.src:26: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(acme-GifEncoderHashitem)
tonto.src: W: invalid-url Source1: tonto-font.tar.gz
tonto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tonto
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
I'll continue with the review once licensing is cleared 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 1200709] Review Request: hadoop Updated dependency for groovy18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200709 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com, ||cools...@gmail.com, ||m...@cs.wisc.edu, ||moc...@hotmail.com, ||rr...@redhat.com Component|Package Review |hadoop Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rr...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Just talk together with hadoop co-maintainers. No re-review needed (for just adding BR: groovy18) If other maintainers think it is okay (or if you are confident this change is okay), you can just commit -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200769] Review Request: takari-incrementalbuild - Takari Incremental Build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200769 --- Comment #4 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2) Issues: [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share /maven-metadata, /usr/share/java/takari-incrementalbuild Not an issue: /usr/share/licenses is owned by filesystem /usr/share/maven-metadata is owned by javapackages-tools /usr/share/java/takari-incrementalbuild is owned by the package itself - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) Please, remove io.takari.incrementalbuild-io.takari.incrementalbuild-0.10.0/ incrementalbuild/src/test/projects/dummy/dummy-1.0.jar This is not bundled software. This is test resource in its preferable form for editing, so it qualifies as source code IMHO. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. Upstream deliberately doesn't include license text, but we (downstream) must convey license text in order to comply with licensing terms. No issue here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195375] Review Request: autoconf268 - autoconf 2.68 for epel6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375 Dave Love d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Dave Love d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: autoconf268 Short Description: A GNU tool for automatically configuring source code Upstream URL: http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/ Owners: loveshack Branches: el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200814] Review Request: okio - Java I/O library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200814 --- Comment #6 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Previous task failed. New task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9204544 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200814] Review Request: okio - Java I/O library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200814 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-03-11 10:21:00 --- Comment #5 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Built for rawhide. Closing. Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9204481 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200814] Review Request: okio - Java I/O library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200814 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197471] Review Request: tonto - Tools for Pronto programmable remote controls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197471 --- Comment #10 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Michal Srb from comment #9) (In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #8) First, the main license in tonto-1.44/doc/LICENSE.txt file is not the Artistic license described on Fedora wiki - license texts differ. Fedora legal should check if this license is free software license and whether it is compatible with GPL or not. They will either add a new license tag or permit use of existing Artistic tag. I believe it's Artistic 1.0 (original) license [1], listed under bad licenses in [2]. [1]: http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Artistic_v1.0 [2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Bad_Licenses The text on Fedora wiki points to http://www.perl.com/pub/a/language/misc/Artistic.html, which is not the same text as http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Artistic_v1.0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199938] Review Request: simsu - Basic Sudoku game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199938 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- simsu-1.3.1-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/simsu-1.3.1-2.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200889] New: Review Request: lpod-python - a python library implementing the OpenDocument Format standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200889 Bug ID: 1200889 Summary: Review Request: lpod-python - a python library implementing the OpenDocument Format standard Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dtar...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/lpod-python.spec SRPM URL: https://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/lpod-python-1.1.5-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: lpod-python is the python implementation of the lpOD Project (Languages Platforms OpenDocument, definition of a Free Software API implementing the ISO/IEC 26300 standard). Fedora Account System Username: dtardon -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201176] New: Review Request: python-pygatt - A Python Module for Bluetooth LE Generic Attribute Profile
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201176 Bug ID: 1201176 Summary: Review Request: python-pygatt - A Python Module for Bluetooth LE Generic Attribute Profile Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-pygatt.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-pygatt-1.0.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/ampledata/pygatt Description: This Module allows reading and writing to GATT descriptors on devices such as fitness trackers, sensors, and anything implementing standard GATT Descriptor behavior. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9208120 rpmlint output: [fab@laptop017 SRPMS]$ rpmlint python*-pygatt* python-pygatt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gatttool - tattoo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [fab@laptop017 noarch]$ rpmlint python*-pygatt* python3-pygatt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gatttool - tattoo python-pygatt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gatttool - tattoo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200769] Review Request: takari-incrementalbuild - Takari Incremental Build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200769 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2) Issues: [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share /maven-metadata, /usr/share/java/takari-incrementalbuild - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) Please, remove io.takari.incrementalbuild-io.takari.incrementalbuild-0.10.0/ incrementalbuild/src/test/projects/dummy/dummy-1.0.jar [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. these aren't blocking issues, please fix at import time -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693
--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
There's also a warning for no-documentation on the *-devel package.
The story about warnings and errors is really just that rpmlint (and a few
other tools) _try_ to be helpful by pointing out things which may be bad. It
is not always MUST-FIX error condition, and in some cases rpmlint is mistaken.
Also see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#no-documentation
( from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers )
There are doc files in the tarball, which you could include.
Especially:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
%clean
%if 0%{?rhel} 6
%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
%endif
You can wrap the entire %clean section in the conditionals, since if you don't
need it you don't need to include an empty section.
%if 0%{?rhel} 6
%clean
%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
%endif
Name: pcp-pmda-cpp
Group: Development/Libraries
The group for base runtime libraries has been System Environment/Libraries
for many years. The group Development/Libraries is for the separate -devel
buildtime packages.
%description devel
PMDA++ is a header-only library
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Header_Only_Libraries
%files examples
%{_bindir}/pmda*
%{_datadir}/doc/pcp-cpp/examples/
Directory %{_datadir}/doc/pcp-cpp is not included, and no other package
provides it yet either (repoquery --whatprovides /usr/share/doc/pcp-cpp). This
needs to be examined.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
unit test coverage
If the tests are suitable for a %check section, one should be added to the spec
file. [Some people disagree because they would like tests to be run much more
often than at rpmbuild-time, but %check sections can be helpful if they reveal
incompatibilities in a changed build environment.]
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195054] Review Request: php-pear-Net-LDAP2 - Object oriented interface for searching and manipulating LDAP-entries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195054 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|php-pear-Net-LDAP2-2.1.0-1. |php-pear-Net-LDAP2-2.1.0-1. |el6 |el7 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-pear-Net-LDAP2-2.1.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1188530] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-reflection-docblock - DocBlock parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188530 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|php-phpdocumentor-reflectio |php-phpdocumentor-reflectio |n-docblock-2.0.4-1.fc21 |n-docblock-2.0.4-1.el7 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-phpdocumentor-reflection-docblock-2.0.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200955] Review Request: python-wrapt - A Python module for decorators, wrappers and monkey patching
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200955 Alan Pevec ape...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1200520 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200520 [Bug 1200520] Review Request: python-debtcollector - A collection of Python deprecation patterns and strategies -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197471] Review Request: tonto - Tools for Pronto programmable remote controls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197471 --- Comment #11 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #10) The text on Fedora wiki points to http://www.perl.com/pub/a/language/misc/Artistic.html, which is not the same text as http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Artistic_v1.0 Hmm, interesting. The wiki also points to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense, which further points to http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Artistic_v1.0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200885] New: Review Request: airline - Java annotation-based framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200885 Bug ID: 1200885 Summary: Review Request: airline - Java annotation-based framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: punto...@libero.it QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/airline.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/airline-0.7-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Airline is a Java annotation-based framework for parsing Git like command line structures. Fedora Account System Username: gil Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9204748 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200955] Review Request: python-wrapt - A Python module for decorators, wrappers and monkey patching
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200955 Chandan Kumar chku...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Assignee|panem...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197471] Review Request: tonto - Tools for Pronto programmable remote controls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197471 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@redhat.com --- Comment #9 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #8) First, the main license in tonto-1.44/doc/LICENSE.txt file is not the Artistic license described on Fedora wiki - license texts differ. Fedora legal should check if this license is free software license and whether it is compatible with GPL or not. They will either add a new license tag or permit use of existing Artistic tag. I believe it's Artistic 1.0 (original) license [1], listed under bad licenses in [2]. [1]: http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Artistic_v1.0 [2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Bad_Licenses -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196290] Review Request: nodejs-wcwidth - Determine columns needed for a fixed-size wide-character string
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196290 --- Comment #2 from Zuzana Svetlikova zsvet...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs/nodejs-wcwidth/nodejs-wcwidth.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs/nodejs-wcwidth/nodejs-wcwidth-1.0.0-4.fc23.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 1196290] Review Request: nodejs-wcwidth - Port of C's wcwidth() and wcswidth()
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196290 Zuzana Svetlikova zsvet...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |nodejs-wcwidth - Determine |nodejs-wcwidth - Port of |columns needed for a|C's wcwidth() and |fixed-size wide-character |wcswidth() |string | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200768] Review Request: takari-archiver - Takari Archiver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200768 --- Comment #5 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #4) Not a big issue IMO (these are used for tests only and tests are skipped), but I will remove bundled JARs from SRPM. No need, it's perfectly ok if you remove them in %prep -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196925] Review Request: jsemver - A Java implementation of the Semantic Versioning Specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196925 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Assigning, forgot that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197471] Review Request: tonto - Tools for Pronto programmable remote controls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197471 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- In any case, the text in the tonto package is indeed Artistic 1.0 as defined in the Licensing::Main. So, in order to use this sw I need to talk to upstream about using another license. Putting package on hold. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200768] Review Request: takari-archiver - Takari Archiver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200768 --- Comment #4 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #3) Mikolaj: I see basically three issues with this package. The first is licensing. I cannot find any sign of a EPL or other license in any README, pom.xml or source files (besides in FileMode.java, below). POM files use inheritance to avoid information duplication. pom.xml of takari-archiver specifies its parent as io.takari:takari:15 (see parent Po: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/io/takari/takari/15/takari-15.pom), which defines license as The Eclipse Public License, Version 1.0. Due to POM inheritance this information is effectively part of takari-archiver POM. Furthermore, you download a license file separate from upstream which normally not is OK. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Please provide more info on what grounds you are applying the EPL license to this software, possibly after contacting upstream. In the past I tried working with the same upstream (Takari/Tesla, it's the same) - I contacted them more than once and they either refused to include licensing texts in their repos or not responded at all. They said that licensing information it POM itself in enough in their opinion. I had to add license text to RPM package because it is required by EPL license. Quoting from the license, When the Program is made available in source code form [...] a copy of this Agreement [EPL] must be included with each copy of the Program, see section 3 of EPL. This case is explicitly allowed by guidelines linked by you. The other is that the jar files are not removed in %prep: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre- built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software Not a big issue IMO (these are used for tests only and tests are skipped), but I will remove bundled JARs from SRPM. The third is that the BSD licensed file FileMode.java seems to be a bundled copy of http://git.eclipse.org/c/jgit/jgit.git/diff/org.eclipse.jgit/src/org/eclipse/ jgit/lib/FileMode.java. This is just a single file, but I still think you need an FPC exemption for it. Good catch. I will try to unbundle parts of jgit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200768] Review Request: takari-archiver - Takari Archiver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200768 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #4) (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #3) POM files use inheritance to avoid information duplication. pom.xml of takari-archiver specifies its parent as io.takari:takari:15 (see parent Po: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/io/takari/takari/15/takari-15.pom), which defines license as The Eclipse Public License, Version 1.0. Due to POM inheritance this information is effectively part of takari-archiver POM. Fair enough. Still, this is hard to look through without maven knowledge. I'm fine as long as you just add short comment with a hint in the spec. Please provide more info on what grounds you are applying the EPL license to this software, possibly after contacting upstream. In the past I tried working with the same upstream (Takari/Tesla, it's the same) - I contacted them more than once and they either refused to include licensing texts in their repos or not responded at all. They said that licensing information it POM itself in enough in their opinion. I had to add license text to RPM package because it is required by EPL license. Quoting from the license, When the Program is made available in source code form [...] a copy of this Agreement [EPL] must be included with each copy of the Program, see section 3 of EPL. This case is explicitly allowed by guidelines linked by you. Fair enough, also this. Still, some kind of reference in the spec would a lot of sense. One idea could be to add a short comment with a link to comment #4 in spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200768] Review Request: takari-archiver - Takari Archiver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200768 --- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Alexander: thanks for changing my bad habits. Mikolaj: I see basically three issues with this package. The first is licensing. I cannot find any sign of a EPL or other license in any README, pom.xml or source files (besides in FileMode.java, below). Furthermore, you download a license file separate from upstream which normally not is OK. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Please provide more info on what grounds you are applying the EPL license to this software, possibly after contacting upstream. The other is that the jar files are not removed in %prep: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre- built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software The third is that the BSD licensed file FileMode.java seems to be a bundled copy of http://git.eclipse.org/c/jgit/jgit.git/diff/org.eclipse.jgit/src/org/eclipse/jgit/lib/FileMode.java. This is just a single file, but I still think you need an FPC exemption for 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 1201270] New: Review Request: takari-plugin-testing - Maven plugin testing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201270 Bug ID: 1201270 Summary: Review Request: takari-plugin-testing - Maven plugin testing library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: msima...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Spec URL: http://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/review/takari-plugin-testing/takari-plugin-testing.spec SRPM URL: http://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/review/takari-plugin-testing/takari-plugin-testing-2.1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Small, cohesive, one-stop library for developing unit and integration tests for Maven plugins. Provides alternative to, and arguably supersedes, maven-plugin-testing-harness and maven-verifier. Fedora Account System Username: msimacek Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428
--- Comment #6 from Luboš Uhliarik luhli...@redhat.com ---
Good job Tomas, I can confirm that all marked problems have been fixed,
so I'm approving this package.
(In reply to Tomas Hozza from comment #5)
(In reply to Luboš Uhliarik from comment #4)
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]: 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:
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated, Public +domain ISC, BSD
(3
clause) ISC, BSD (3 clause), BSD (2 clause) ISC, ISC, BSD (2
clause). 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck
in /tmp/1199428-bind99/licensecheck.txt
- multiple licences in source files, but only license in SPEC file
- some of source files don't have any license
All software from ISC is released under ISC license.
https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/
Based on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field
The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary
rpm.
Using licensecheck on files installed by binary RPMs I see there ISC, Public
domain and BSD.
So I changed the license to ISC and BSD and Public Domain. I also added
explanation as a comment before License: field.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/include/bind99, /usr/lib64/bind99
Thanks for catching this. I added those to the %files section
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/bind99,
/usr/lib64/bind99
- please solve permissions for directories /usr/include/bind99 and
/usr/lib64/bind99
same as the above.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
- option --localstatedir in SPEC file in %configure part uses hardcoded
directory
name (/var), use macro %{_localstatedir} instead
fixed
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 440320 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' '
[Bug 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338 Murilo Opsfelder Araújo muri...@br.ibm.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200771] Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771 --- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2) Issues: [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated. 193 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1200771-takari-lifecycle /review-takari-lifecycle/licensecheck.txt Apache (v2.0) takari-lifecycle-takari-lifecycle-1.10.2/takari-lifecycle-plugin/src/main/ java/io/takari/maven/plugins/util/AetherUtils.java Fixed license tag, added ASL 2.0 license text. - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build ./takari-lifecycle-takari-lifecycle-1.10.2/takari-lifecycle-plugin/src/test/ jars/commons-lang-2.0.jar Replaced commons-lang-2.0.jar with symlink to system JAR. Other JARs are left because they meet definition of source code. Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/takari-lifecycle/takari-lifecycle.spec SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/takari-lifecycle/takari-lifecycle-1.10.2-3.fc23.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 1200771] Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- 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 1201291] Review Request: rubygem-fog-voxel - Module for the 'fog' gem to support Voxel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201291 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1152158 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152158 [Bug 1152158] rubygem-fog-1.28.0 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Luboš Uhliarik luhli...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200776] Review Request: takari-pom - Takari parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200776 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200771] Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200769] Review Request: takari-incrementalbuild - Takari Incremental Build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200769 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-03-12 09:14:59 --- Comment #7 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Built for rawhide. Closing. Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9209883 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200768] Review Request: takari-archiver - Takari Archiver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200768 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201338] New: Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338 Bug ID: 1201338 Summary: Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: muri...@br.ibm.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://mopsfelder.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/python-uniseg.spec SRPM URL: https://mopsfelder.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-uniseg-0.7.1-1.20150312git6b1560cedb19.fc23.src.rpm Description: Uniseg is a Python module that provides functions to wrap words based on Unicode Character Database (UCD) version 6.2.0. Fedora Account System Username: mopsfelder Koji task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9210020 I need a sponsor. 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 1201291] New: Review Request: rubygem-fog-voxel - Module for the 'fog' gem to support Voxel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201291 Bug ID: 1201291 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-fog-voxel - Module for the 'fog' gem to support Voxel Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vondr...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/rubygem-fog-voxel.git/tree/rubygem-fog-voxel.spec?id=47ef69c836000f58d06d52893bebe206e1f95e78 SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-fog-voxel-0.0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm Description:This library can be used as a module for `fog` or as standalone provider to use the Voxel in applications. Fedora Account System Username: vondruch Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9209902 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1197471] Review Request: tonto - Tools for Pronto programmable remote controls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197471 --- Comment #15 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Sorry, I read the manpage wrong (how has this script ever worked?). Updated in-place, same links, changelog update. Did I say that the license was a good catch? And so was this... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200768] Review Request: takari-archiver - Takari Archiver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200768 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-03-12 09:15:55 --- Comment #12 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Built for rawhide. Closing. Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9209891 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200762] Review Request: eclipse-m2e-workspace - M2E CLI workspace resolver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200762 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-03-12 09:15:44 --- Comment #6 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Built for rawhide. Closing. Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9209889 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200771] Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it 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 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com --- Thank you Lubos for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: bind99 Short Description: The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) DNS (Domain Name System) libraries Upstream URL: http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/ Owners: thozza jpopelka Branches: f22 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 1200771] Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.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 1195375] Review Request: autoconf268 - autoconf 2.68 for epel6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375 --- Comment #11 from Dave Love d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk --- (In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #10) Well, it was nice thought: autoreconf268: running: aclocal --force -I ../build-config/m4 -I ../vendor/common/build-config/m4 ../build-includes/common.m4:100: error: Libtool version 2.4 or higher is required I don't understand. That's not a problem with autoconf, just a requirement of a package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200771] Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Issues: [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated. 193 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1200771-takari-lifecycle /review-takari-lifecycle/licensecheck.txt Apache (v2.0) takari-lifecycle-takari-lifecycle-1.10.2/takari-lifecycle-plugin/src/main/java/io/takari/maven/plugins/util/AetherUtils.java - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build ./takari-lifecycle-takari-lifecycle-1.10.2/takari-lifecycle-plugin/src/test/jars/commons-lang-2.0.jar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200771] Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1183193] Review Request: ceres-solver - A non-linear least squares minimizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183193
--- Comment #15 from Taylor Braun-Jones tay...@braun-jones.org ---
Thanks, Rich. I had played with the idea of using EIGENSPARSE=ON originally,
but converted back to using SUITESPARSE=ON and forgot to add back the
CXSPARSE_INCLUDE_DIR. I never had a problem finding BLAS, but adding the
BLAS_LIBRARIES flag is a good idea anyway. While were on the topic, what is the
preferred approach for the Fedora package?
(1) Use SUITESPARSE for sparse metrix support. Increases the package
dependencies but results in a ceres-solver package with a more
permissive license (BSD)
(2) Use EIGENSPARSE for sparse metrix support. Results in fewer package
dependencies (because Eigen is already a hard dependency), but then
ceres-solver becomes LGPL licensed.
Chris - Thanks for the review. 1, 2 fixed.
3, 4 - For the cmake files, it would be helpful if the CMake packaging
documentation[1] covered more details like this. I wasn't sure what was
preferred in Fedora and was trying copy what I'd seen in some other Fedora
packages. For now, I've just removed the mv line so that the .cmake files stay
at the original upstream installation path %{_datadir}/Ceres.
New spec and SRPM here:
http://files.braun-jones.org/ceres-solver.spec
http://files.braun-jones.org/ceres-solver-1.10.0-3.el7.centos.src.rpm
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Cmake
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200771] Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771 Bug 1200771 depends on bug 1200768, which changed state. Bug 1200768 Summary: Review Request: takari-archiver - Takari Archiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200768 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200321] Review Request: rubygem-fog-atmos - Module for the 'fog' gem to support Atmos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200321 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1152158 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152158 [Bug 1152158] rubygem-fog-1.28.0 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200771] Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771 Bug 1200771 depends on bug 1200762, which changed state. Bug 1200762 Summary: Review Request: eclipse-m2e-workspace - M2E CLI workspace resolver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200762 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200771] Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771 Bug 1200771 depends on bug 1200769, which changed state. Bug 1200769 Summary: Review Request: takari-incrementalbuild - Takari Incremental Build https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200769 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201325] New: Review Request: python-oslo-context - OpenStack Oslo context library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201325 Bug ID: 1201325 Summary: Review Request: python-oslo-context - OpenStack Oslo context library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: chkumar...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-oslo-context.spec SRPM URL: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-oslo-context-0.2.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: The OpenStack Oslo context library has helpers to maintain useful information about a request context. The request context is usually populated in the WSGI pipeline and used by various modules such as logging. Fedora Account System Username: chandankumar Successful Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9210068 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200771] Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE.txt in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to
get additional checks
- Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Note: Jar files in source (see attachment)
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-
built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software'
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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:
Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated. 193 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1200771-takari-lifecycle
/review-takari-lifecycle/licensecheck.txt
Apache (v2.0)
takari-lifecycle-takari-lifecycle-1.10.2/takari-lifecycle-plugin/src/main/java/io/takari/maven/plugins/util/AetherUtils.java
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/maven-metadata
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share
/maven-metadata
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including
[Bug 1200776] Review Request: takari-pom - Takari parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200776 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it 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 1200771] Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: takari-lifecycle Short Description: Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle Owners: mizdebsk msrb msimacek Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-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 1194428] Review Request: fedfind - Fedora image finder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194428 --- Comment #3 from Pete Travis m...@petetravis.com --- Besides the bundling, I see * rpmlint complains about shebangs in %python2_sitelib. These aren't executed directly, the shebangs can go. Not a blocker. * A manpage would be nice. Again, not a blocker per se, but a very strong NTH. I'll write one for you, if you're patient enough. Otherwise, no complaints. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061883] Review Request: rubygem-syslog-logger - Logger replacement that logs to syslog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061883 Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ta...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com --- Apparently missing BR for rubygem-test-unit. otherwise %check fails with command not found. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1061883] Review Request: rubygem-syslog-logger - Logger replacement that logs to syslog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061883 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Note that /usr/bin/testrb2 no longer exists on F-22 and above https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2015-January/001732.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1194545] Review Request: python-cached_property - A cached-property for decorating methods in Python classes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194545 --- Comment #5 from Pete Travis m...@petetravis.com --- Spec URL: https://immanetize.fedorapeople.org/python-cached_property.spec SRPM URL: https://immanetize.fedorapeople.org/python-cached_property-1.0.0-2.fc23.src.rpm * Fri Mar 13 2015 Pete Travis m...@petetravis.com - 1.0.0-2 - Use the module name for the package name. * Fri Feb 20 2015 Pete Travis m...@petetravis.com 1.0.0-1 - Initial packaging. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200771] Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200771] Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200384] Review Request: ocaml-config-file - Configuration file management for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200384 --- Comment #6 from Tomas Heinrich thein...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #4) Thanks for the comments. In this very specific instance (but not in OCaml libraries in general) the ocaml-config-file package contains only bytecode. However we have found in the past that bytecode isn't completely non-arch-specific, so I'd be very dubious about making the subpackage noarch. It would require you to build on arm/x86/x86-64 and then manually compare the files to check there are really no differences. The -devel subpackage has a *.cmxs file which is really a shared library of native code, so that's certainly not noarch. I would not advise making either subpackage noarch. OK, just want to have this documented here. rpms/x86_64/ocaml-config-file-debuginfo-1.2-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm ocaml-config-file-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Can't really say why this one is happening. Have you got the filelist handy? Since OCaml 4, the compiler supports fairly good DWARF generation, but our debuginfo tooling doesn't think *.ml is a source file. $ rpm -qlp rpms/x86_64/ocaml-config-file-debuginfo-1.2-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib/debug /usr/lib/debug/.build-id /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/49 /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/49/e2bfe8f16e0685485f0c8fa717cc2a8b61feb1 /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/49/e2bfe8f16e0685485f0c8fa717cc2a8b61feb1.debug /usr/lib/debug/usr /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64 /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/config-file /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ocaml/config-file/config_file.cmxs.debug $ find build/config-file-1.2/ | sort ... build/config-file-1.2/config_file.cmi build/config-file-1.2/config_file.cmo build/config-file-1.2/config_file.cmx build/config-file-1.2/config_file.cmxs build/config-file-1.2/config_file.ml build/config-file-1.2/config_file.mli build/config-file-1.2/config_file.o build/config-file-1.2/config_file_parser.ml4 build/config-file-1.2/debugfiles.list build/config-file-1.2/debuglinks.list build/config-file-1.2/debugsources.list build/config-file-1.2/elfbins.list build/config-file-1.2/example.ml ... Also you may have to change the invocation of ocamlc ocamlopt to pass -g everywhere. Typically upstream OCaml packages don't do this consistently. If you're not passing -g to everything, then you'll end up with empty/broken debuginfo which might be what's happening here. Looking at the Makefile, I guess it would have to be patched to pass -g everywhere. Looks benign, but I guess it won't hurt to add an explicit --libdir=... It depends if the configure script supplied by upstream is a real autotools configure, or something else. It might choke on --libdir. Checked the configure script and tried a buildrun with the flag, didn't notice any issues. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1130097] Review Request: python-cjson - Fast JSON encoder/decoder for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1130097 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-cjson-1.1.0-5.el7|python-cjson-1.1.0-5.fc21 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-cjson-1.1.0-5.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200384] Review Request: ocaml-config-file - Configuration file management for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200384 Tomas Heinrich thein...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||thein...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Tomas Heinrich thein...@redhat.com --- rpmlint: (rpmlint-1.6-2.fc22.noarch) rpms/x86_64/ocaml-config-file-1.2-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm ocaml-config-file.x86_64: E: no-binary ocaml-config-file.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Should this package actually be noarch? Can you provide a rationale why, either way? rpms/x86_64/ocaml-config-file-debuginfo-1.2-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm ocaml-config-file-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Can't really say why this one is happening. rpms/x86_64/ocaml-config-file-devel-1.2-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. srpms/ocaml-config-file-1.2-2.fc22.src.rpm ocaml-config-file.src:40: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Looks benign, but I guess it won't hurt to add an explicit --libdir=... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200384] Review Request: ocaml-config-file - Configuration file management for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200384
--- Comment #5 from Tomas Heinrich thein...@redhat.com ---
The 'Requires:' in -devel should be made arch-specific:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
Couple of minor things:
- You can make the build process more verbose by adding V=1, e.g.
make V=1 opt
- You can disregard and trim the %changelog section until an actual first
release
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200384] Review Request: ocaml-config-file - Configuration file management for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200384 --- Comment #8 from Tomas Heinrich thein...@redhat.com --- One more thing (based on the previous srpm): The datadir (e.g. /usr/lib64/ocaml/config-file) isn't owned by the package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1130097] Review Request: python-cjson - Fast JSON encoder/decoder for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1130097 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-cjson-1.1.0-5.fc21 |python-cjson-1.1.0-5.fc20 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-cjson-1.1.0-5.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- bind99-9.9.7-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bind99-9.9.7-3.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200672] Review Request: python-keystoneclient-kerberos - Kerberos authentication for the OpenStack clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200672
Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
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 in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
--- NOT an issue! Package uses %license
= 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:
Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated, *No copyright* Apache (v2.0).
1 files have unknown license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
--- remove the dependency on oslotest which is not currently packaged
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
---
[Bug 1193175] Review Request: skylable-sx - Scalable public and private cloud storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193175
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tcall...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
Check and resolve the few TODO items and I'll approve this package and sponsor
you.
== Review ==
TODO items:
* Please make sure the systemd scripts work properly. This isn't a blocker, but
I just didn't have the arrangement to test them out fully.
* The -devel package has these files in it:
/usr/lib64/sxclient/libsxf_aes256.so
/usr/lib64/sxclient/libsxf_attribs.so
/usr/lib64/sxclient/libsxf_undelete.so
/usr/lib64/sxclient/libsxf_zcomp.so
I know sometimes the .so files in a subdir of %{_libdir} are not devel
libraries, but rather, plugin libraries/modules that are needed for proper
operation. Please confirm that these files should be in the -devel subpackage.
* Spec says license is GPLv2, COPYING says it is GPLv2 with exceptions and
LGPLv2+ and BSD and MIT. Please correct the spec License field.
Good:
- rpmlint checks return:
skylable-sx.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Scalable - Salable,
Callable, Calculable
skylable-sx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deduplication -
reduplication, duplication, quadruplication
Safe to ignore.
skylable-sx.src:4: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/systemd/system/sx-nginx.service
skylable-sx.src:5: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/systemd/system/sxserver.service
Safe to ignore.
skylable-sx.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libselinux-utils
Safe to ignore, false positive.
skylable-sx.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Scalable - Salable,
Callable, Calculable
skylable-sx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deduplication -
reduplication, duplication, quadruplication
Safe to ignore.
skylable-sx.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/share/selinux/packages/sxserver.pp
0600L
Fine. Selinux policy does not need to be +r.
skylable-sx.x86_64: W: non-ghost-in-run /run/sxserver
This is safe to ignore, package follows Fedora /run guidelines.
skylable-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sx.fcgi
skylable-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sxserver
skylable-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sxsetup
skylable-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sxreport-server
skylable-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sxadm
skylable-sx-client.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sxsim
Upstream should consider writing man pages for these binaries, but it is not a
blocker for Fedora/EPEL.
skylable-sx-client.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Cloud Infrastructure
Group is unused, this is safe to ignore.
skylable-sx-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Safe to ignore.
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines (except license tag, see above)
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
(ba96db807c1ff1265a7476d31c2d7fbb14a9a3f3bc55950e1c8da7edaa00a98a)
- package compiles on F-22 (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
- devel package ok
- no .la files
- post/postun ldconfig ok
- devel requires libs package n-v-r
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200776] Review Request: takari-pom - Takari parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200776
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
IGNORE
- 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 epl-v10.html in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
IGNORE
- Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
IGNORE
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/maven-metadata
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share
/maven-metadata
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT
[Bug 1201270] Review Request: takari-plugin-testing - Maven plugin testing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201270 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200776] Review Request: takari-pom - Takari parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200776 Bug 1200776 depends on bug 1200771, which changed state. Bug 1200771 Summary: Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201270] Review Request: takari-plugin-testing - Maven plugin testing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201270 Bug 1201270 depends on bug 1200771, which changed state. Bug 1200771 Summary: Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200776] Review Request: takari-pom - Takari parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200776 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.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 1200771] Review Request: takari-lifecycle - Optimized replacement for the Maven default lifecycle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200771 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-03-12 12:42:07 --- Comment #7 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Built for rawhide. Closing. Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9211051 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200776] Review Request: takari-pom - Takari parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200776 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: takari-pom Short Description: Takari parent POM Owners: mizdebsk msrb msimacek Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-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 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com 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 1201270] Review Request: takari-plugin-testing - Maven plugin testing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201270 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it 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 1201469] Review Request: gegl03 - Graph based image processing framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201469 --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com --- koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9211479 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186976] Review Request: gnome-battery-bench - Measure power usage in defined scenarios
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186976 Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-03-12 14:33:12 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1194576] Review Request:python-docx - Lib for creating/updating docx files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194576 Kushal Khandelwal (kushal124) kushal...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Kushal Khandelwal (kushal124) kushal...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-docx Short Description: Create and update Microsoft Word .docx files Upstream URL: https://github.com/python-openxml/python-docx Owners: kushal124 Branches: f20 f21 f22 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 1193175] Review Request: skylable-sx - Scalable public and private cloud storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193175
--- Comment #2 from Török Edwin ed...@skylable.com ---
(In reply to Tom spot Callaway from comment #1)
Check and resolve the few TODO items and I'll approve this package and
sponsor you.
Thanks a lot for reviewing the package!
== Review ==
TODO items:
New SRPM:
http://vol-public.s3.indian.skylable.com:8008/fedorareview/skylable-sx-1.0-5.fc22.src.rpm
New koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9212411
* Please make sure the systemd scripts work properly. This isn't a blocker,
but I just didn't have the arrangement to test them out fully.
Works, tested on F22 Workstation Alpha, see below [1].
* The -devel package has these files in it:
/usr/lib64/sxclient/libsxf_aes256.so
/usr/lib64/sxclient/libsxf_attribs.so
/usr/lib64/sxclient/libsxf_undelete.so
/usr/lib64/sxclient/libsxf_zcomp.so
I know sometimes the .so files in a subdir of %{_libdir} are not devel
libraries, but rather, plugin libraries/modules that are needed for proper
operation. Please confirm that these files should be in the -devel
subpackage.
I confirm that the real plugins are in the -libs package, and they work even if
-devel is not installed, see [2]:
/usr/lib64/sxclient/libsxf_aes256-13.so
/usr/lib64/sxclient/libsxf_attribs-11.so
/usr/lib64/sxclient/libsxf_undelete-11.so
/usr/lib64/sxclient/libsxf_zcomp-10.so
* Spec says license is GPLv2, COPYING says it is GPLv2 with exceptions and
LGPLv2+ and BSD and MIT. Please correct the spec License field.
Updated the License field to:
main package and -client:
License: GPLv2 with exceptions and LGPLv2+ and BSD and MIT
-devel: License: LGPLv2+ with exceptions
-libs: License: LGPLv2+ with exceptions and MIT
Good:
skylable-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sx.fcgi
skylable-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sxserver
skylable-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sxsetup
skylable-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sxreport-server
skylable-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sxadm
skylable-sx-client.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sxsim
Upstream should consider writing man pages for these binaries, but it is not
a blocker for Fedora/EPEL.
We have this on our roadmap for version 1.1:
https://bugzilla.skylable.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136
[1] How to test systemd units
# sxsetup
[...]
Enter the cluster name (use the same across all nodes) []: testme
[... accept defaults...]
# systemctl status sxserver sx-nginx
● sxserver.service - Scalable public and private cloud storage server
Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/sxserver.service; disabled; vendor
preset: disabled)
Active: active (running) since Thu 2015-03-12 22:45:14 EET; 1min 25s ago
[...]
● sx-nginx.service - The SX nginx HTTP server instance
Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/sx-nginx.service; disabled; vendor
preset: disabled)
Active: active (running) since Thu 2015-03-12 22:45:15 EET; 1min 25s ago
[...]
# systemctl stop sxserver
# systemctl status sxserver sx-nginx
● sxserver.service - Scalable public and private cloud storage server
Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/sxserver.service; disabled; vendor
preset: disabled)
Active: inactive (dead)
[...]
● sx-nginx.service - The SX nginx HTTP server instance
Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/sx-nginx.service; disabled; vendor
preset: disabled)
Active: inactive (dead)
# systemctl start sxserver
# systemctl status sxserver sx-nginx
● sxserver.service - Scalable public and private cloud storage server
Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/sxserver.service; disabled; vendor
preset: disabled)
Active: active (running) since Thu 2015-03-12 22:47:44 EET; 1s ago
[...]
● sx-nginx.service - The SX nginx HTTP server instance
Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/sx-nginx.service; disabled; vendor
preset: disabled)
Active: active (running) since Thu 2015-03-12 22:47:44 EET; 951ms ago
After a reboot the service is not running, however after running
'sudo systemctl enable sxserver' and rebooting it will (this should be
consistent with how sshd behaves).
[2] Testing plugins (filters)
# sudo sxvol filter
NameVerTypeShort description
----
attribs 1.1genericPreserve file attributes
aes256 1.4cryptEncrypt data using AES-256-CBC-HMAC-512
mode.
zcomp 1.0compressCompress files using zlib
undelete1.1genericBackup removed files
# sxvol create -o admin -r 1 -f aes256 -s 10G sx://admin@testme/enc
[aes256]: Enter encryption password:
[aes256]: Re-enter encryption password:
Volume 'enc' (replica: 1, size: 10G, max-revisions: 1) created.
# sxcp /etc/redhat-release sx://admin@testme/enc/
Uploading /etc/redhat-release (size: 80B)
Transferred 4KB in 1s (@127.52KB/s)
# sxcp sx://admin@testme/enc/redhat-release .
Downloading redhat-release (size: 80B)
Transferred 4KB in 1s
[Bug 1193175] Review Request: skylable-sx - Scalable public and private cloud storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193175 --- Comment #3 from Török Edwin ed...@skylable.com --- Created attachment 1001206 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1001206action=edit skylable-sx.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
