[Bug 1143032] Review Request: python-gssapi - GSSAPI bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1143032 Alexander Bokovoy aboko...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(abokovoy@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #13 from Alexander Bokovoy aboko...@redhat.com --- Thanks, Solly. I don't have any additional comments anymore, the package seems to be fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 715570] Review Request: rubygem-multipart-post - Creates a multipart form post accessory for Net::HTTP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=715570 Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steve.tray...@cern.ch Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch --- Package Change Request == Package Name: rubygem-multipart-post New Branches: epel7 Owners: stevetraylen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206118 is current owners permission. Steve. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196925] Review Request: jsemver - A Java implementation of the Semantic Versioning Specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196925 --- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa ngomp...@gmail.com --- Per the clarification from the other bug report, I've redone the package without license file going into %doc, since it hasn't been reviewed yet. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208001] New: python3-bokeh package request
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208001 Bug ID: 1208001 Summary: python3-bokeh package request Product: Fedora Version: 22 Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: hgkam...@hotmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Created attachment 1009509 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1009509action=edit python-bokeh.spec spec file attached bokeh is new. but spec file and srpm made in anticipation of potential necessary package. Dependency from opensuse rpmbuilds with no change python3-certifi-14.05.14-1.1.src.rpm The other dependencies are already in fedora Requires: python3-certifi Requires: python3-colorama Requires: python3-Flask Requires: python3-greenlet Requires: python3-itsdangerous Requires: python3-Jinja2 Requires: python3-Markdown Requires: python3-MarkupSafe Requires: python3-numpy Requires: python3-pandas Requires: python3-Pygments Requires: python3-pystache Requires: python3-python3_dateutil Requires: python3-pytz Requires: python3-PyYAML Requires: python3-pyzmq Requires: python3-requests Requires: python3-six Requires: python3-tornado Requires: python3-Werkzeug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208001] python3-bokeh package request
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208001 --- Comment #1 from Ganapathi Kamath hgkam...@hotmail.com --- Created attachment 1009510 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1009510action=edit python-bokeh-0.8.2-1.fc21.src.rpm srpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1116021] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-prof - a fast ruby profiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116021 --- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch --- ping. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199567] Review Request: ExchangeIR - Java infrared signals analysis and conversion library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199567 --- Comment #17 from Neal Gompa ngomp...@gmail.com --- Yeah, this is basically the confusion, then. I'll approve 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 1202303] Review Request: python-colour-runner - Colour formatting for unittest test output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202303 Robert Kuska rku...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Robert Kuska rku...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-colour-runner Short Description: Colour formatting for unittest test output Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/colour-runner Owners: rkuska Branches: 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 1080411] Review Request: trojita - Qt IMAP e-mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080411 --- Comment #34 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Not sure how long to wait for Karel as the original requester. I could take this package and open a new bug for the request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208101] New: Review Request: libbson - Building, parsing, and iterating BSON documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208101 Bug ID: 1208101 Summary: Review Request: libbson - Building, parsing, and iterating BSON documents Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/libbson/libbson.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/libbson/libbson-1.1.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This is a library providing useful routines related to building, parsing, and iterating BSON documents http://bsonspec.org/. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205793] Review Request: signon-kwallet-extension - KWallet integration for Sign-on framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205793 Daniel Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Daniel Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: signon-kwallet-extension Short KWallet integration for Sign-on framework Upstream URL: https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdenetwork/signon-kwallet-extension Owners: group::kde-sig 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 1164152] Review Request: golang-github-emicklei-go-restful - Package for building REST-style Web Services using Google Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164152 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-emicklei-go-restful-1.1.3-0.1.git5e1952e.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-emicklei-go-restful-1.1.3-0.1.git5e1952e.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196925] Review Request: jsemver - A Java implementation of the Semantic Versioning Specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196925 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Also: there are no supported versions of fedora which provides maven-compiler-plugin 3.1, maven-javadoc-plugin 2.9.1 or junit 4.11. So unless you plan to deploy this also on epel, the versioned dependencies makes no sense. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208101] Review Request: libbson - Building, parsing, and iterating BSON documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208101 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=995974 Blocks||855072 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855072 [Bug 855072] perl-MongoDB-0.708.0.0 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 995974] Review Request: libbson - BSON library for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995974 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1208101 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205793] Review Request: signon-kwallet-extension - KWallet integration for Sign-on framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205793 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- naming: ok 1. license: NOT ok, src files appear to be GPLv2+ scriptlets: ok macros: ok %files/ownership: ok (just fixed signon to properly own libdir/extensions) builds/installs ok The only item I found was the licensing, should be: License: GPLv2+ please fix prior to building. 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 1164152] Review Request: golang-github-emicklei-go-restful - Package for building REST-style Web Services using Google Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164152 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-emicklei-go-restful-1.1.3-0.1.git5e1952e.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-emicklei-go-restful-1.1.3-0.1.git5e1952e.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 1199567] Review Request: ExchangeIR - Java infrared signals analysis and conversion library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199567 Neal Gompa ngomp...@gmail.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 1207280] Review Request: python-semantic_version - A library implementing the 'SemVer' scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207280 --- Comment #4 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-semantic_version.spec SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-semantic_version-2.4.1-1.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1164152] Review Request: golang-github-emicklei-go-restful - Package for building REST-style Web Services using Google Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164152 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-emicklei-go-restful-1.1.3-0.1.git5e1952e.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-emicklei-go-restful-1.1.3-0.1.git5e1952e.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1194798] Review Request: GeoIP-GeoLite-data - Free GeoLite IP geolocation country database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194798 --- Comment #15 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org --- (In reply to Philip Prindeville from comment #14) (In reply to Paul Howarth from comment #13) (In reply to Philip Prindeville from comment #11) Issues: === - No %config files under /usr. Note: %config(noreplace) /usr/share/GeoIP/GeoIP.dat See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files This file is a symlink to GeoLiteCountry.dat, the default free database. Upstream also provides commercial versions of the databases, which users may wish to install to /usr/share/GeoIP/GeoIP.dat so that the library uses that instead of the default free database. Marking this file as %config(noreplace) means that rpm package updates won't blow away the user's paid-for database file. This approach has been present in the existing GeoIP package for a long time now, and is being carried forward to this package. I get all of that, I was just wondering if we could use %verify(...) instead of %config(noreplace) so that we have fewer rpmlint warnings. No, the %verify and %config(noreplace) are doing two very different things: By using %verify, we tell rpm that we may change files underneath it and not to worry about it. It has no effect on whether rpm will itself overwrite those files on updates. By using %config(noreplace), rpm notices if we change a file underneath it and will then not overwrite it on updates, creating a .rpmnew file with the updated content instead. So for the free database files we're providing from upstream, %verify is the right approach as we want people to be able to update the databases using the cron scripts, not be worried by rpm --verify output, and get new versions of the files when we push updates. However, for the GeoIP.dat symlink, we don't want to overwrite it if the end user has replaced it with their own database. Using %config(noreplace) is the way we have traditionally done this in the GeoIP package. There is another way though: instead of shipping GeoIP.dat as part of the package, create the symlink in %posttrans if it did not already exist. It can't be done in %post as it would break updates, where the old GeoIP.dat was still present during %post but deleted before %posttrans. An added complication during updates is that rpm will rename a modified GeoIP.dat to GeoIP.dat.rpmsave when the file is no longer packaged, so we have to rename it back again if necessary. This is the approach I've now taken, with the result that we get rid of the rpmlint warning about %config files outside /etc and replace it with one about running the dangerous command mv in %posttrans: GeoIP-GeoLite-data.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans mv I think this is the right thing to do though, as GeoIP.dat really isn't a config file. Why does the %files section treat GeoIP.dat differently from GeoLiteCountry.dat ? GeoLiteCountry.dat and the other database files from upstream are expected to be rpm-maintained, or updated by the cron scripts. The GeoIP.dat symlink is never touched after being installed in case the user wants to use a different default database, as explained above. Right, right, I get that. It's just that it's not a config file, so I hate abusing that directive. And if tools like etckeeper pay attention to files marked %config, I don't want the file being checked into SCM, either. This is addressed in the new approach. Also, the .spec files says that the license is CC-BY-SA but I can’t find explicit licensing on the databases anywhere. See the license statement at the upstream URL: http://dev.maxmind.com/geoip/legacy/geolite/ The GeoLite databases are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License Can you wget that file and bundle it as a license file? The guidelines sort of discourage this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text It is important to reiterate that in situations where the indicated license does not imply a requirement that the license be distributed along with the source/binaries, Fedora packagers are NOT required to manually include the full license text when it is absent from the source code. but are still encouraged to point out this issue to upstream and encourage them to remedy it. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines MUST: 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 must be included in %license. Given that upstream is distributing raw database files rather than tarballs, it's not practical for them to distribute a separate license file. I've added a comment in the spec pointing to the URL where upstream declares the license. Why does the %install section need rm -rf
[Bug 1196925] Review Request: jsemver - A Java implementation of the Semantic Versioning Specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196925 --- Comment #5 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Looks basically OK. Issues: - Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-poms/jsemver Seems like a bug in xmvn-install (?). For the time being the easy fix might be to claim the directory using %dir. - Please remove all class and .jar files in %prep to make sure no prebuilt binaries are used in the build process. This is not strictly required by the GL in this case since the upstream is clean in this sense, but it's a god habit to avoid surprises when upstream is updated. - PLease dont add the docs to both the -javadoc and the main package [1] [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1190269] Review Request: openstack-barbican - Secrets as a Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190269
--- Comment #3 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
Sorry for the delay:
1. python-barbican contains no python modules, that's due to missing
BuildRequires. By adding oslo stuff, I was able to fix that issue.
https://github.com/openstack/barbican/blob/stable/juno/requirements.txt
= blocker as it prevents barbican to be built properly in a chrooted env.
2. use python versioned macros %{__python2} and %{__python2_sitelib}
For EL6, here's a fallback macro
%if 0%{?rhel} 0%{?rhel} = 6
%{!?__python2:%global __python2 /usr/bin/python2}
%{!?python2_sitelib: %global python2_sitelib %(%{__python2} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib()))}
%{!?python2_sitearch: %global python2_sitearch %(%{__python2} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1)))}
%endif
3.we are dropping PBR patches starting kilo, so you may just drop it too and
add Requires: python-pbr to python-barbican
4.drop the %clean section not required for EL6+ and supported Fedora
5. drop the %defattr, RPM has sensible defaults for EL6+
6.minor but I would prefer using an openstack url rather than the cloudkeep one
Please fix and set me in the needinfo flag when you're done.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 678925] Review Request: perl-Math-Random-ISAAC - Perl interface to the ISAAC PRNG algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678925 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Math-Random-ISAAC-1.004-13.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Math-Random-ISAAC-1.004-13.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199567] Review Request: ExchangeIR - Java infrared signals analysis and conversion library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199567 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ExchangeIR Short Description: Java infrared signals analysis and conversion library Upstream URL: http://sourceforge.net/p/controlremote/ Owners: leamas Branches: f21 f22 InitialCC: Neal: Thanks for 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 1205793] Review Request: signon-kwallet-extension - KWallet integration for Sign-on framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205793 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #23 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review, Richard. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #24 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: efl Short Description: Collection of Enlightenment libraries Upstream URL: http://enlightenment.org/ Owners: spot 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 1159091] Review Request: openra - Libre/Free Real Time Strategy project that recreates the famous Command Conquer titles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159091 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|1166916 | Depends On||1166916 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166916 [Bug 1166916] Review Request: fuzzynet - Fuzzy Logic Library for Mono -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1166916] Review Request: fuzzynet - Fuzzy Logic Library for Mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166916 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1159091 Depends On|1159091 |1089278, 1089426 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089278 [Bug 1089278] Mono 3.4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089426 [Bug 1089426] Fedora's version of Mono is horrendously outdated https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159091 [Bug 1159091] Review Request: openra - Libre/Free Real Time Strategy project that recreates the famous Command Conquer titles -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1166897] Review Request: mono-nat - Mono library for automatic port forwarding (new github project name: Mono.NAT)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166897 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1089278, 1089426 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089278 [Bug 1089278] Mono 3.4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089426 [Bug 1089426] Fedora's version of Mono is horrendously outdated -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1164152] Review Request: golang-github-emicklei-go-restful - Package for building REST-style Web Services using Google Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164152 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-emicklei-go-restful-1.1.3-0.1.git5e1952e.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-emicklei-go-restful-1.1.3-0.1.git5e1952e.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 1141896] Review Request: cadvisor - Analyzes resource usage and performance characteristics of running containers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141896 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- cadvisor-0.10.1-0.1.gitef7dddf.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cadvisor-0.10.1-0.1.gitef7dddf.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 1159091] Review Request: openra - Libre/Free Real Time Strategy project that recreates the famous Command Conquer titles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159091 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1089278, 1089426 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089278 [Bug 1089278] Mono 3.4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089426 [Bug 1089426] Fedora's version of Mono is horrendously outdated -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141896] Review Request: cadvisor - Analyzes resource usage and performance characteristics of running containers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141896 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- cadvisor-0.10.1-0.1.gitef7dddf.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cadvisor-0.10.1-0.1.gitef7dddf.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206222] Review Request: perl-Dist-Zilla-Plugin-Test-Compile - Common tests to check syntax of your modules, only using core modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206222 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Dist-Zilla-Plugin-Test-Compile Short Description: Common tests to check syntax of your modules, only using core modules Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Dist-Zilla-Plugin-Test-Compile/ Owners: psabata jplesnik ppisar Branches: f21 f22 InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080411] Review Request: trojita - IMAP e-mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080411 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: trojita - |Review Request: trojita - |Qt IMAP e-mail client |IMAP e-mail client -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1143032] Review Request: python-gssapi - GSSAPI bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1143032 Alexander Bokovoy aboko...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Alexander Bokovoy aboko...@redhat.com --- Setting the review to +. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1126990] Review Request: kimchi - SImple KVM virtualization management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126990 --- Comment #13 from Brent Baude bba...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://baude.fedorapeople.org/kimchi_review/latest/kimchi.spec SRPM URL: https://baude.fedorapeople.org/kimchi_review/latest/kimchi-1.4.1-0.fc21.src.rpm Description: An HTML5-based KVM graphical interface Fedora Account System Username: baude -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 --- Comment #3 from Tonet Jallo tonet6...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/gtk-theme-config.spec SRPM URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/gtk-theme-config-0.1-2.fc21.src.rpm Description: Hi, I made a little change on %licence macro. Check it please. Here is the Koji scratch build result: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9392960 Greetings Fedora Account System Username: tonet666p -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080411] Review Request: trojita - IMAP e-mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080411 Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lupi...@mailbox.org --- Comment #35 from Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #29) SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/trojita/trojita.spec SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/trojita/trojita-0.5-1.fc21.src.rpm rawhide scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9102479 * Sat Feb 28 2015 Raphael Groner projects.rg (AT) smart.ms - 0.5-1 - clean files section and R: hicolor-icon-theme - introduce license macro - use name macro generally - new upstream version 0.5 - distribute doxygen files Any need for the doxygen stuff (I get a -doc package with 300mb size)? It generates the developer documentation, no user documentation. As trojita is a simple GUI application and no library for development I would remove it. Greetings, Christian -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 832853] Review Request: java3d - Java 3D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832853 Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org 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 1205376] Review Request: spooky-c - C port of Bob Jenkins' spooky hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205376 Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(antti.jarvinen@ka ||tiska.org) --- Comment #6 from Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net --- Antti, mind taking a look at the newer 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 1143032] Review Request: python-gssapi - GSSAPI bindings for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1143032 Simo Sorce sso...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Simo Sorce sso...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-gssapi Short Description: Python Bindings for GSSAPI (RFC 2743/2744 and extensions) Upstream URL: https://github.com/pythongssapi/python-gssapi Owners: simo sross 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 1205376] Review Request: spooky-c - C port of Bob Jenkins' spooky hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205376 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Just a drive-by comment: There are specific guidelines how to package github sources[1], and you are better off using those. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Github -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1207208] Review Request: flatbuffers - Memory Efficient Serialization Library from Google
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207208 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@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 1207208] Review Request: flatbuffers - Memory Efficient Serialization Library from Google
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207208 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jonathan.underw...@gmail.co ||m -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205376] Review Request: spooky-c - C port of Bob Jenkins' spooky hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205376 --- Comment #10 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- While I'm on it: All patches should have an upstream reference: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Patch_Guidelines -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205376] Review Request: spooky-c - C port of Bob Jenkins' spooky hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205376 Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(antti.jarvinen@ka | |tiska.org) | --- Comment #9 from Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net --- Ok, I githubisized the specfile: Spec URL: https://jlayton.fedorapeople.org/spooky-c/spooky-c.spec SRPM URL: https://jlayton.fedorapeople.org/spooky-c/spooky-c-1.0.0-3.fc21.src.rpm Thanks for the review so far! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1190269] Review Request: openstack-barbican - Secrets as a Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190269 Greg Swift gregsw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #4 from Greg Swift gregsw...@gmail.com --- 1: I'm confused. I have python modules in my python-barbican rpms that was built from this. While not BuildRequires, there are requires on oslo config and messaging attached to python-barbican. Adding them as BR didn't change the output of the build. 2: Done, and converted rest to use these macros 3: Added conditional to be removed when all the other juno specific bits are removed. python-pbr is already required. 4, 5: done 6: That was an artifact from when this was first created. Updated. URL for the item in my git repo: https://github.com/gregswift/barbican-spec/blob/juno/openstack-barbican.spec Updated info: Spec URL: http://nytefyre.net/rpms/openstack-barbican.spec SRPM URL: http://nytefyre.net/rpms/openstack-barbican-2014.2-2.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 1205376] Review Request: spooky-c - C port of Bob Jenkins' spooky hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205376 --- Comment #11 from Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net --- Pull request for the manpage patch is here: https://github.com/andikleen/spooky-c/pull/6 I'm not going to bother respinning the package for that now, but I'll add if it there are more substantive things that need changing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205376] Review Request: spooky-c - C port of Bob Jenkins' spooky hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205376 --- Comment #8 from Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #7) Just a drive-by comment: There are specific guidelines how to package github sources[1], and you are better off using those. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/ SourceURL#Github Thanks, I'll take a look at those and respin the package. Stay tuned... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199840] Review Request: thymeleaf - XML/XHTML/HTML5 template engine for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199840 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- thymeleaf-2.1.4-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205121] Review Request: perl-Net-OpenID-Common - Libraries shared between Net::OpenID::Consumer and Net::OpenID::Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205121 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package perl-Net-OpenID-Common-1.19-1.fc22: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing perl-Net-OpenID-Common-1.19-1.fc22' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-5319/perl-Net-OpenID-Common-1.19-1.fc22 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199841] Review Request: jackson-dataformat-csv - Jackson extension for adding support for reading and writing CSV formatted data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199841 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- jackson-dataformat-csv-2.5.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057874] Review Request: libspf2 - Implementation of the Sender Policy Framework for SMTP authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874 Steve Jenkins st...@stevejenkins.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |MODIFIED CC||st...@stevejenkins.com Resolution|WONTFIX |--- Flags||needinfo?(matt_domsch@dell. ||com) Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #10 from Steve Jenkins st...@stevejenkins.com --- Thanks, Scott (I'm the one who asked Scott to come chime in here as the Debian maintainer and as someone who's involved with SPF for a while). Matt: Any chance you'd consider un-withdrawing this packaging request and forging ahead with a RedHat libspf2 package? I'd love to be able to build Fedora/EPEL opendmarc against libspf2. 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 1207439] Review Request: opendaylight-helium - OpenDaylight SDN Controller
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207439 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Hi Andrew, We have this process http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group to get sponsored into the packager group. Can you either submit few more packages and/or some full detailed package reviews? This is needed to make sure package submitter understands the rpm packaging well and follows the fedora packaging guidelines. Please go through the following links 1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process 2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines 3) To find the packages already submitted for review, check http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ 4) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer is useful while doing package reviews. 5) https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ this is fedora-review tool to help review packages in fedora. You need to use this and do un-official package reviews of packages submitted by other contributors. While doing so mention This is un-official review of the package. at top of your review comment. Good to review packages listed in http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html When you do full package review of some packages, provide that review comment link here so that I can look how you have reviewed those packages. If you got any questions please ask :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057876] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057876 Bug 1057876 depends on bug 1057874, which changed state. Bug 1057874 Summary: Review Request: libspf2 - Implementation of the Sender Policy Framework for SMTP authorization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |MODIFIED Resolution|WONTFIX |--- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854723] Review Request: bat - Binary Analysis Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854723 --- Comment #22 from Wei-Lun Chao blue...@member.fsf.org --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9397728 SPEC URL: http://bluebat.fedorapeople.org/ppa/bat.spec SRPM URL: http://bluebat.fedorapeople.org/ppa/bat-20.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Contacted with upstream and still requires unrar :( -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 854728] Review Request: bat-extratools - A collection of extra tools for the BAT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854728 --- Comment #9 from Wei-Lun Chao blue...@member.fsf.org --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9397745 SPEC URL: http://bluebat.fedorapeople.org/ppa/bat-extratools.spec SRPM URL: http://bluebat.fedorapeople.org/ppa/bat-extratools-20.0-1.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1064564] Review Request: ahven – a unit testing framework for Ada 95
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064564 --- Comment #3 from Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net --- Ok, there are a number of rpmlint warnings: Rpmlint --- Checking: ahven-2.4-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm ahven-devel-2.4-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm ahven-2.4-2.fc21.src.rpm ahven.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found sv ahven.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libahven.so.24 ...the above is probably worth fixing: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Executable_stack ahven.x86_64: W: no-documentation ...meh -- not much worth including in the main package doc-wise. ahven-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ...this appears to be complaining about the GNAT libs. I'll assume they're ok, and ignore this. Please do correct this if it's wrong however. ahven-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/ahven/html/.buildinfo ...I'd also fix this. Probably simplest to just remove that file after the %install stage. It doesn't appear to be necessary in the package. ahven-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/ahven/html/_static/jquery.js ahven-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/ahven/html/objects.inv ahven-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ahven/html/objects.inv 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. I guess this is the Sphinx problem you referred to? I'll plan to just waive the check on this one since it's just the docs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1064564] Review Request: ahven – a unit testing framework for Ada 95
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064564 Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jlay...@poochiereds.net Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jlay...@poochiereds.net -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com --- In addition to all the points above, you also need to deal with installing the appdata file that's included in the source tarball: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData Unfortunately the makefile doesn't install that file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205376] Review Request: spooky-c - C port of Bob Jenkins' spooky hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205376 Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205376] Review Request: spooky-c - C port of Bob Jenkins' spooky hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205376 Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080411] Review Request: trojita - IMAP e-mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080411 --- Comment #36 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- * Wed Apr 01 2015 Raphael Groner - 0.5-3 - ease switching build with qt4 or qt5 - disable doxygen - remove toolkit from summary - use build subfolder - improve tests execution SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/trojita/trojita.spec SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/trojita/trojita-0.5-3.fc21.src.rpm rawhide scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9393885 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080411] Review Request: trojita - IMAP e-mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080411 --- Comment #40 from Jan Kundrát j...@flaska.net --- @Rex, OK, sorry for noise. @Raphael, I'm a bit confused -- the log you pointed at says that you asked ctest to skip that test, so it isn't laucnhed at all. Ctest reports 26 tests in total, while we've 27 tests -- as expected, given the -E option. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1126990] Review Request: kimchi - SImple KVM virtualization management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126990 Jaromír Cápík jca...@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 1208217] Review Request: swig2 - Connects C/C++/Objective C to some high-level programming languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208217 Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lupi...@mailbox.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lupi...@mailbox.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org --- Taken :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057874] Review Request: libspf2 - Implementation of the Sender Policy Framework for SMTP authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874 Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||skl...@kitterman.com --- Comment #9 from Scott Kitterman skl...@kitterman.com --- I'm not a Fedora/Red Hat user, but I am the Debian opendmarc maintainer as well as someone who's been involved in SPF development for a long time (for instance the editor for RFC 7208). I was asked to post to this bug to suggest reopening this as a better solution than using the internal opendmarc SPF code. The internal opendmarc SPF code is not a full SPF implementation. I have reviewed it and have not been able to (as an example) find where it implements the DNS lookup limits specified in RFC 4408 section 10.1/RFC 7208 4.6.4. While it's possible I missed something (I didn't have a huge amount of time for a thorough analysis), I don't think the opendmarc SPF code is suitable for production use and have linked opendmarc in Debian against libspf2. I would recommend Red Hat/Fedora do the same. In Debian, there are additional packages that use libspf2, so providing a libspf2 package would also make those packagable too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in gtk-theme-config
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
See that page - you're missing the postrans part.
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gcc
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
Remove the BR for gcc.
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
This needs fixing.
- All patches should have a comment linking to an upstream bug report
or otherwise justifying why they're needed. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
- The %autosetup macro makes application of patches simpler andcould
be used here. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25autosetup
- Various rpmlint issues - details below.
Various issues are also detailed below - please read carefully.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/jgu/Fedora/1199829-gtk-theme-
config/licensecheck.txt
gtk-theme-config.vala has no license specified - you need to work with
upstream to clarify this.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses
That directory is owned by the filesystem package, but I don't think
it's necessary to Require that package
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
CFLAGS isn't being set all all by the make file. You need something like:
make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS=%{optflags}
However, it's not obvious to me how valac is calling gcc - there's no output in
build.log from gcc.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
See above.
[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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name},
[Bug 1208217] New: Review Request: swig2 - Connects C/C++/Objective C to some high-level programming languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208217 Bug ID: 1208217 Summary: Review Request: swig2 - Connects C/C++/Objective C to some high-level programming languages Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bjoern.es...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Description: SWIG is a software development tool that connects programs written in C and C++ with a variety of high-level programming languages. SWIG is used with different types of target languages including common scripting languages such as Javascript, Perl, PHP, Python, Tcl and Ruby. The list of supported languages also includes non-scripting languages such as C#, Common Lisp (CLISP, Allegro CL, CFFI, UFFI), D, Go language, Java including Android, Lua, Modula-3, OCAML, Octave, Scilab and R. Also several interpreted and compiled Scheme implementations (Guile, MzScheme/Racket, Chicken) are supported. SWIG is most commonly used to create high-level interpreted or compiled programming environments, user interfaces, and as a tool for testing and prototyping C/C++ software. SWIG is typically used to parse C/C++ interfaces and generate the 'glue code' required for the above target languages to call into the C/C++ code. SWIG can also export its parse tree in the form of XML and Lisp s-expressions. SWIG is free software and the code that SWIG generates is compatible with both commercial and non-commercial projects. Issues: fedora-review shows no obvious issues. AFAIK there might be some false positives from rpmlint. FAS-User: besser82 Urls: Spec URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/swig2.spec SRPM URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/swig2-2.0.12-1.fc23.src.rpm Additional Information: The current version of SWIG (3.0.X) in Fedora 21+ generates valid but run-time segfaulting code for Python-bindings, when using `-builtin -modernargs`-flags during wrapper-generation. Thus I need this compat-pkg for SHOGUN and possibly other packages. Thanks for review in advance! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205376] Review Request: spooky-c - C port of Bob Jenkins' spooky hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205376 Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- Comment #12 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- I'll review this in exchange for Ahven: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064564 The review request is over a year old because I became very busy just after I posted it and didn't have time to arrange a review swap. Now I have 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 1126990] Review Request: kimchi - SImple KVM virtualization management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126990 --- Comment #14 from Brent Baude bba...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://baude.fedorapeople.org/kimchi_review/latest/kimchi.spec SRPM URL: https://baude.fedorapeople.org/kimchi_review/latest/kimchi-1.4.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: An HTML5-based KVM graphical interface Fedora Account System Username: baude -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199829] Review Request: gtk-theme-config - Little tool to configure GTK theme colors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208222] Review Request: okteta4 - Binary/hex editor for KDE4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208222 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1135103 (plasma5) Alias||okteta4 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135103 [Bug 1135103] Plasma 5 Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208222] New: Review Request: okteta4 - Binary/hex editor for KDE4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208222 Bug ID: 1208222 Summary: Review Request: okteta4 - Binary/hex editor for KDE4 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rdie...@math.unl.edu QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/plasma5/okteta4.spec SRPM URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/plasma5/okteta4-4.14.3-50.fc22.src.rpm Description: Binary/hex editor for KDE4 Fedora Account System Username: rdieter Compat okteta kpart/libraries, still needed by some KDE4 applications (like kdevelop). Paves the way for KF5 okteta. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1207208] Review Request: flatbuffers - Memory Efficient Serialization Library from Google
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207208
--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
URL and Source0 are usable. Ok.
Source archive is original (SHA-256:
39e749051c961f787a3a040f68bc384541235064ae907ce771685654762d9a2e). Ok.
The patch is simple but I worry that it just mask mistake about signed chars
wrapping values above 127.
TODO: Package ./docs as a documentation. (FIX: and remove bundled jquery
library (docs/html/jquery.js))
TODO: Put a comment into the spec file about other licenses of the source:
docs/html/jquery.js: (MIT or GPLv2) and (MIT or GPL+ or BSD)
android/res/values/strings.xml: zlib
android/build_apk.sh: zlib
android/.project: zlib
License tag is Ok.
TODO: Rephrase the summary not to use registered marks. Just removing the `from
Google' is enough.
TODO: Reflow the description not to exceed 80 columns.
FIX: The devel sub-package's dependency on main package must require
architecture too (%{?_isa}).
TODO: The way how you use cmake does conform to the latest practise
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Cmake. Please change it.
TODO: Execute tests.
$ rpmlint flatbuffers.spec ../SRPMS/flatbuffers-1.0.3-1.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/flatbuffers-*
flatbuffers.spec:29: W: setup-not-quiet
flatbuffers.src: E: description-line-too-long C FlatBuffers is a serialization
library for games and other memory constrained apps.
flatbuffers.src: E: description-line-too-long C FlatBuffers allows you to
directly access serialized data without unpacking/parsing
flatbuffers.src:29: W: setup-not-quiet
flatbuffers.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C FlatBuffers is a
serialization library for games and other memory constrained apps.
flatbuffers.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C FlatBuffers allows you to
directly access serialized data without unpacking/parsing
flatbuffers.x86_64: E: no-binary
flatbuffers.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/licenses/flatbuffers/LICENSE.txt
flatbuffers.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/flatbuffers/readme.md
flatbuffers-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/flatbuffers-1.0.3/src/flatc.cpp
flatbuffers-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
flatbuffers-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flatc
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 6 warnings.
TODO: Wrap description text, remove executable bits.
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/flatbuffers-1.0.3-1.x86_64.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Apr 1 18:27
/usr/share/doc/flatbuffers
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 1489 Oct 22 20:58
/usr/share/doc/flatbuffers/readme.md
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Apr 1 18:27
/usr/share/licenses/flatbuffers
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot11358 Oct 22 20:58
/usr/share/licenses/flatbuffers/LICENSE.txt
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/flatbuffers-devel-1.0.3-1.x86_64.rpm
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 320552 Apr 1 18:27
/usr/bin/flatc
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Apr 1 18:27
/usr/include/flatbuffers
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot33900 Oct 22 20:58
/usr/include/flatbuffers/flatbuffers.h
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot14893 Oct 22 20:58
/usr/include/flatbuffers/idl.h
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 8096 Oct 22 20:58
/usr/include/flatbuffers/util.h
FIX: Remove the executable bits from LICENSE.txt and readme.md.
$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/flatbuffers-1.0.3-1.x86_64.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
[test@fedora-23 SPECS]$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/x86_64/flatbuffers-devel-1.0.3-1.x86_64.rpm
flatbuffers = 1.0.3-1
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.20)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.21)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
FIX: The devel sub-package's dependency on main package must require
architecture too (%{?_isa}).
$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/flatbuffers-1.0.3-1.x86_64.rpm
flatbuffers = 1.0.3-1
flatbuffers(x86-64) = 1.0.3-1
$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/flatbuffers-devel-1.0.3-1.x86_64.rpm
flatbuffers-devel = 1.0.3-1
flatbuffers-devel(x86-64) = 1.0.3-1
flatbuffers-static = 1.0.3-1
FIX: Append %{?dist} to release string.
$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/x86_64/flatbuffers-*
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.
Package builds in F23
[Bug 1064564] Review Request: ahven – a unit testing framework for Ada 95
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064564 Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208217] Review Request: swig2 - Connects C/C++/Objective C to some high-level programming languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208217 --- Comment #2 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Updated Koji Builds: el5: no build --- autotools are too old el6: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9393903 F20: no build --- SWIG (v2.0.11) works fine here F21: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9393913 F22: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9393917 Frh: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9393923 * * * Additional Information: The current version of SWIG (3.0.X) in Fedora 21+ generates valid but run-time segfaulting code for Python-bindings, when using `-builtin -modernargs`-flags during wrapper-generation. Thus I need this compat-pkg for SHOGUN and possibly other packages. Testsuite works fine on Koji, but fails for whatever reason in local mock-builds. Running fedora-review with flag: `-o --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --without=testsuite` should do the trick. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080411] Review Request: trojita - IMAP e-mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080411 --- Comment #37 from Jan Kundrát j...@flaska.net --- I got curious what's in the generated manpage. It says QXcbConnection: Could not connect to display. Does it try to e.g. parse output of `trojita --help`? That requires X11. With my upstream hat on, I strongly prefer to always run the whole test suite when doing builds. If a test fails, that's a bug which should be fixed and not papered over. That's what I am not thrilled by disabling the test_Html_formatting test, but maybe it's just a temporary thing. I believe that the bug is in the interaction of Fedora's Qt packaging and Fedora's Xvfb, because the tests work on CentOS 7 (Trojita's CI) and some ancient Ubuntu (KDE's CI). My suggestion here is to ask Fedora Qt5 packagers for help. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080411] Review Request: trojita - IMAP e-mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080411 --- Comment #39 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- It is really strange with the html test case. I tried now to only execute this one but it works as alone!?? http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/watchlogs?taskID=9394112 Maybe it happens only cause of running out of memory, e.g. when doxygen is enabled what we do not need. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1126990] Review Request: kimchi - SImple KVM virtualization management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126990
--- Comment #15 from Jaromír Cápík jca...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated, MIT/X11 (BSD like), LGPL (v3
or later), BSD (3 clause), LGPL (v2.1 or later), MIT/X11 (BSD like)
LGPL (v3 or later). 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/jcapik/1126990-kimchi/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/firewalld,
/usr/lib/firewalld/services
[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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[-]: 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
[-]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not
[Bug 1064564] Review Request: ahven – a unit testing framework for Ada 95
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064564 --- Comment #5 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- (In reply to Jeff Layton from comment #3) ahven.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found sv That one only says that you don't have a Swedish dictionary installed. ahven.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libahven.so.24 ...the above is probably worth fixing: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Executable_stack As documented in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ada, an executable stack is normal in Ada because GNAT uses trampolines for pointers to nested functions. ahven-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ...this appears to be complaining about the GNAT libs. I'll assume they're ok, and ignore this. Please do correct this if it's wrong however. Like in most -devel packages there is a symbolic link in _libdir. Like in all Ada libraries there are also a number of ALI files. ALI files are architecture-specific so they can't be moved to /usr/share. I have no idea what other binary files RPMlint expects to find in a -devel package that would silence that warning. ahven-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/ahven/html/.buildinfo ...I'd also fix this. Probably simplest to just remove that file after the %install stage. It doesn't appear to be necessary in the package. Well, Sphinx generates that and it didn't seem worth caring about, but OK, I'll remove it. ahven-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/ahven/html/_static/jquery.js ahven-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/ahven/html/objects.inv ahven-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ahven/html/objects.inv 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. I guess this is the Sphinx problem you referred to? I'll plan to just waive the check on this one since it's just the docs. For jquery.js the argument is the same: If there's a problem with that file, the place to fix it is in Sphinx. objects.inv isn't even a text file. If I'm removing .buildinfo I'll simply remove that one too. (In reply to Jeff Layton from comment #4) Also, Adam's comments in this bug may be a better approach than undefining _hardened_build: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197501#c5 ...but I'll leave that for you to decide if it's appropriate. The general case is more complex than simply using -fPIC everywhere. In this specific case the testsuite isn't being packaged and doesn't need hardening. The library itself is hardened. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #4 from Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com --- [Human review below, for the items that were not part of auto-check.] Short - Just a few small items. (1) As Haïkel noted, please drop the 'Group' tags, they're not needed any more. (2) Trivial: Please fix these specific warnings (and obviously, ignore the ones flagged as 'spelling-error'): - 'wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding' warning by stripping the carriage returns by using the `sed` one-liners here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding - 'incorrect-fsf-address' -- It is indeed out of date, it's trivial, but it'd be nice to keep things updated. (3) %check: Upstream has 'tests' directory, Ihar, did you try to enable it? And, strictly speaking, we don't have to block the review on not having %check enabled -- we've done that in the past for many of the %OpenStack dependencies. (4) Can you please ensure the Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable aspect at the bottom of the review is taken care? More on it here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package (5) Timestamps: You might want to update the SPEC file to ensure timestamps are preserved? When adding file copying commands in the spec file, consider using a command that preserves the files' timestamps, eg. cp -p or install -p. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps And, I think we can safely ignore the last generic EXTRA item? Long Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: *No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated, GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), *No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), *No copyright* GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address). 463 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyapc/work/package- review/dibbler/licensecheck.txt - NOTE: You might want to notify upstream about the incorrect FSF address, we don't hold up the package for this, though. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/dibbler, /usr/share/doc/dibbler/scripts, /usr/share/doc/dibbler, /usr/share/doc/dibbler/examples - NOTE: The above looks like false positive -- all the above directories are part of 'rpms-unpacked' [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/dibbler/examples, /usr/share/doc/dibbler/scripts, /etc/dibbler, /usr/share/doc/dibbler - NOTE (kashyap): The above looks like false positive -- all the above directories are part of 'rpms-unpacked' [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [x]: Package complies to the
[Bug 1126990] Review Request: kimchi - SImple KVM virtualization management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126990 Brent Baude bba...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Brent Baude bba...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: kimchi Short Description: An HTML5-based KVM graphical interface Upstream URL: http://kimchi-project.github.io/kimchi/ Owners: baude jcapik Branches: 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 1080411] Review Request: trojita - IMAP e-mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080411 --- Comment #43 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- The relevant source snippet seems to be that: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AY5C2IQNJYQJ:https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtbase/source/d52b00e1d3cc60c81b54a89d6da488dc4bbce384:src/plugins/platforms/xcb/qxcbconnection.cpp+cd=4hl=dect=clnkgl=de (using google's webcache cause gitorious is not really usable) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1064564] Review Request: ahven – a unit testing framework for Ada 95
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064564 Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net --- Fair enough then. Those explanations all look reasonable to me, and you're definitely more knowledgeable about Ada packages than I am. I'll go ahead and consider the review passed. You can fix up .buildinfo and objects.inv at your leisure. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1064564] Review Request: ahven – a unit testing framework for Ada 95
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064564 Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net --- I'll take a look (though be forewarned that I know _nothing_ about Ada ;). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208222] Review Request: okteta4 - Binary/hex editor for KDE4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208222 --- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9393988 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080411] Review Request: trojita - IMAP e-mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080411 --- Comment #38 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Re: test suite We can/will certainly investigate further, but it's not worth blocking the pkg review for. Once imported, testing will be much easier (and collaborative). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1064564] Review Request: ahven – a unit testing framework for Ada 95
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064564 --- Comment #4 from Jeff Layton jlay...@poochiereds.net --- Also, Adam's comments in this bug may be a better approach than undefining _hardened_build: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197501#c5 ...but I'll leave that for you to decide if it's appropriate. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208217] Review Request: swig2 - Connects C/C++/Objective C to some high-level programming languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208217 --- Comment #3 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Updated and fixed Koji Builds: el5: no build --- autotools are too old el6: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9394095 F20: no build --- SWIG (v2.0.11) works fine here F21: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9394101 F22: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9394105 Frh: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9394114 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1205376] Review Request: spooky-c - C port of Bob Jenkins' spooky hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205376
Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jlay...@poochiereds.net
Flags||needinfo?(jlayton@poochiere
||ds.net)
--- Comment #13 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Unknown
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 9 files have unknown license.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and
[Bug 1208217] Review Request: swig2 - Connects C/C++/Objective C to some high-level programming languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208217 --- Comment #1 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Koji Builds: el5: no build --- autotools are too old el6: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9393797 F20: no build --- SWIG (v2.0.11) works fine here F21: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9393801 F22: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9393807 Frh: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9393812 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080411] Review Request: trojita - IMAP e-mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080411 --- Comment #42 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Created attachment 1009812 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1009812action=edit build log from koji with failed test of html formatting -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080411] Review Request: trojita - IMAP e-mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080411 --- Comment #41 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- Many Fedora packages don't run any test suite at all, or ignore failures. It's quite common that tests don't pass in Koji for whatever reason. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208217] Review Request: swig2 - Connects C/C++/Objective C to some high-level programming languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208217 Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org --- Approved! Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Note: Explicit dependency on perl-devel is not allowed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl === Is ok in this case, testsuie requirement - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/android/class/jni/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/android/extend/jni/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/chicken/class/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/chicken/overload/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/contract/simple_cxx/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/csharp/arrays/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/csharp/callback/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/csharp/class/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/csharp/enum/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/csharp/extend/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/csharp/funcptr/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/csharp/reference/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/csharp/template/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/csharp/variables/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/d/callback/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/d/class/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/d/enum/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/d/extend/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/d/funcptr/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/d/variables/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/go/callback/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/go/class/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/go/enum/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/go/extend/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/go/funcptr/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/go/reference/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/go/template/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/go/variables/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/guile/class/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/guile/matrix/vector.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/guile/std_vector/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/java/callback/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/java/class/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/java/enum/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/java/extend/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/java/funcptr/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/java/reference/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/java/template/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/java/variables/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/lua/class/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/lua/embed3/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/lua/exception/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/lua/funcptr3/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/lua/import/bar.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/lua/import/base.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/lua/import/foo.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/lua/import/spam.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/lua/owner/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/lua/variables/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/modula3/class/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/modula3/enum/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/modula3/exception/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/modula3/reference/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/mzscheme/std_vector/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/ocaml/scoped_enum/foo.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/ocaml/shapes/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/ocaml/std_string/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/ocaml/std_vector/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/ocaml/stl/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/ocaml/strings_test/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/octave/callback/example.h swig2-doc : /usr/share/doc/swig2/Examples/octave/class/example.h swig2-doc :
[Bug 1064564] Review Request: ahven – a unit testing framework for Ada 95
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064564 Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- Thanks Jeff for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ahven Short Description: A unit testing framework for Ada 95 Upstream URL: http://ahven.stronglytyped.org/ Owners: rombobeorn Branches: 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
