[Bug 476599] Review Request: python-transaction - Transaction Management for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476599 --- Comment #2 from Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 02:57:34 EDT --- I take that back about building. It builds if you add python-setuptools to your BuildRequires. rpmlint is clean. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474818] Review Request: perl-Class-XSAccessor - Generate fast XS accessors without runtime compilation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474818 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476599] Review Request: python-transaction - Transaction Management for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476599 --- Comment #3 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2008-12-16 03:16:41 EDT --- Oh, oops. I think python-setuptools should be part of the spec template (/etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-python.spec) since it's used for all distutils/setuputils python scripts in Fedora. It would certainly help me remember it. I'm pretty sure tests/test_savepoint.py is supposed to be ZPLv2.1 like everything else, but I will fire off an email to upstream. New URLs: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-transaction.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-transaction-1.0-0.2.a1.fc9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458231] Review Request: aircrack-ptw - A tool for cracking WEP keys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458231 Till Maas opensou...@till.name changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||201449 Flag||fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475141] Review Request: python-imdb - Retrieve and manage the data of the IMDb movie database
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475141 Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kon...@tylerc.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kon...@tylerc.org Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473476] Review Request: trytond - Server for the Tryton application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473476
--- Comment #5 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2008-12-16 07:09:08 EDT ---
My comments to the BADs and ???s are prefixed with DH:
- [ BAD ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should
be posted in the review.
trytond.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /etc/trytond.conf tryton
trytond.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /etc/trytond.conf tryton
trytond.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/trytond.conf 0640
DH: trytond.conf contains login information for the DB server including a
password, so the file shouldn't be world-readable
trytond.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/trytond tryton
trytond.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/trytond tryton
trytond.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/trytond 0750
trytond.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/trytond tryton
trytond.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/trytond tryton
trytond.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/trytond 0750
I think the above are ignorable.
DH: yes, these are normal when using an own user
trytond.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/trytond
DH: it is OK, because the deamon includes its own log rotation mechanism
trytond.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/trytond ${prog}
DH: it is OK, because the default Fedora initscript template is used and the
subsys is set via the $prog variable
- [ BAD ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
I think the name should have a python- prefix. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29
DH: I must disagree, trytond is a standalone application, it only uses python
module in its implementation and the module cannot be used by external
applications
- [ ??? ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If
it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a
package which does create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for
examples.
I think you should Requires: chkconfig which owns /etc/init.d. (But I
guess this package isn't really removable on Fedora anyways so I'm
not considering this a blocker.
DH: /etc/rc.d/init.d (what is the primary location) is owned by initscripts
and you can't install a system without them and AFAICT it is fully compliant
with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript
- [ ??? ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
Can I have an example of how to test this, please?
DH: you need a running PostgreSQL server somewhere, a DB user with the
permission to create databases and set the values in /etc/trytond.conf
appropriately, you really need to configure it manually
- [ ??? ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc,
/bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which
provides the file instead of the file itself. Please see File Dependencies
in the Guidelines for further information.
DH: there are no file dependencies in the package
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454664] Review Request: gupnp-ui - UPnP-UI is a collection of helpers for building user interfaces for gupnp apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454664 --- Comment #3 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2008-12-16 08:05:06 EDT --- Fixed license and tabs vs space issues. SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/gupnp-ui-0.1.1-2.fc10.src.rpm SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/gupnp-ui.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469527] Review Request: tcping - Check of TCP connection to a given IP/Port
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469527
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-12-16
08:05:22 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[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.
License type per spec: LGPLv3+
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: ecc5fe7fb2f8e86a1fc2d09651310b26fa922c7b
tcping-1.3.5.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the test passes.
*** APPROVED ***
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476374] Review Request: OASA - python library for manipulation of chemical formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476374
--- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-16
10:11:58 EDT ---
It seems that only fixing %files will be okay.
To Henrique:
Just replacing egg-info entry with
%{python_sitelib}/oasa-%{version}-py*.egg-info
or so will make build succeed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474843] Review Request: pdfbook - Rearrange pages in a PDF file into signatures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474843 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-16 10:14:31 EDT --- pdfbook-20070930-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfbook-20070930-3.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474843] Review Request: pdfbook - Rearrange pages in a PDF file into signatures
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474843 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-16 10:13:52 EDT --- pdfbook-20070930-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfbook-20070930-3.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 451582] Review Request: kvirc - themeable qt based irc client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451582 Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kon...@tylerc.org Flag||needinfo?(smparr...@shallow ||creek.net) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476374] Review Request: python-oasa - python library for manipulation of chemical formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476374 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: OASA - |Review Request: python-oasa |python library for |- python library for |manipulation of chemical|manipulation of chemical |formats |formats -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469471] Review Request: skinlf - Java look and feel for swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469471 --- Comment #23 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-16 10:28:36 EDT --- No. devel branch is already created on Fedora CVS and you can already rebuild this package for dist-f11. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475082] Review Request: guiloader - GuiXml Loader Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475082 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|UPSTREAM|NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-16 10:31:28 EDT --- Resetting CVS request as there is already guiloader module on Fedora CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476374] Review Request: python-oasa - python library for manipulation of chemical formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476374 --- Comment #9 from Henrique LonelySpooky Junior henrique...@gmail.com 2008-12-16 10:29:25 EDT --- Done, Mamoru. SPEC: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/oasa/0.12.5/python-oasa.spec SRPM: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/oasa/0.12.5/python-oasa-0.12.5-1.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460779] Review Request: nekovm - Neko embedded scripting language and virtual machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460779
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(rjo...@redhat.com |
|) |
--- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 10:28:43
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
BAD no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
BAD no scriptlets present.
This is fixed now so that the shared library has
an SONAME, and we run ldconfig in the %post/%postun
scriptlets.
- use --keepdate when running dos2unix to preserve the timestamps for the
files
Done.
- shared library is added, but ldconfig scriptlets are missing
Done.
- rpmlint complains
rpmlint now says:
nekovm.src:114: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
nekovm.src:121: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
nekovm.src:122: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/*
nekovm.src:123: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings.
But in this case it's just complaining about my
install script which is moving the files FROM
%{_prefix}/lib to %{_libdir}. I think this is
rpmlint getting it wrong.
- I think these will create a multilib issue together with shared libneko.so
in the main package
Fixed so now it uses %{_libdir} always.
- what is the purpose of the *.ndll? runtime libs for nekovm based apps?
These are some type of runtime shared library
containing neko VM code.
nekovm.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libneko.so
- result of not-so-right linking command
This is now fixed.
I think you need to split the package to
main - %{_bindir} + /usr/lib/neko
libs - %{_libdir}
devel - %{_includedir}
I don't think this split will work. The reason is
that the main package will always require the -libs
package, because it always needs (at least) std.ndll.
This is the updated package:
Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/nekovm.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/nekovm-1.8.0-2.fc10.src.rpm
* Tue Dec 16 2008 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com - 1.8.0-2
- New upstream release 1.8.0.
- Use dos2unix --keepdate.
- Use scriptlets to run ldconfig.
- Use _libdir instead of _prefix/lib, and modify so it searches
/usr/lib64 as well as /usr/lib.
- Set the soname correctly and include libneko.so.1.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474982] Review Request: nachocalendar - Provides a flexible Calendar component to the Java Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474982 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-16 10:35:19 EDT --- This package can be approved now. This package (nachocalendar) is APPROVED by mtasaka -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 242651] Review Request: perl-Mail-Audit - something flexible to filter mail using Perl tests.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242651 Jorge Bras jo...@konnekt.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(jo...@konnekt.org | |) | --- Comment #15 from Jorge Bras jo...@konnekt.org 2008-12-16 10:39:42 EDT --- I posted the url with the new packages, for re-review, since I had fixed what you have pointed. I had a problem with the server that was hosting the packages, I will post a new url with the packages for review, give me a day. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475107] Review Request: guiloader-c++ - C++ Binding to GuiLoader Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475107
--- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-16
10:42:40 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
There is no need for a CVS request because the directory already exists. I
guess that this was done with #206134.
Ah, sorry. Then would you rebuild this package?
For branches less than F-11 (i.e. F-10 or F-9), if you want to
rebuild guiloader-c++ before guiloader is pushed into stable
repositories (even if guiloader are in testing repositories
you cannot rebuild -c++ aganist guiloader), please
- visit https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng
- login there
- create a new ticket with informing
* that to rebuild guiloader-c++ guiloader packages must be
tagged as dist-f{10,9}-override
* the EVRs (epoch-version-release) of guiloader packages
which you have to have tagged as override.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226568] Merge Review: xmlto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226568 --- Comment #9 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name 2008-12-16 10:44:51 EDT --- If you want to rely only on the COPYING file, then xmlif is licensed under the terms of any GPL license, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ Or read the COPYING file: | If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may | choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. This may not be intended by upstream, therefore it is better to ask. The correct license tag for xmlif is then GPL+. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226568] Merge Review: xmlto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226568 Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(twa...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #10 from Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 10:52:45 EDT --- So do you suggest to have License: GPLv2+ and GPL+ ? I'm ok with it, although I guess it is quite obscure ... Tim - as you probably have direct contact to xmlif author - what do you think? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 469471] Review Request: skinlf - Java look and feel for swing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469471 --- Comment #22 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2008-12-16 06:56:17 EDT --- Do I need to repeat my CVS req? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 452354] Review Request: entertrack - Web-based artifact tracking/management system written in PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452354 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2008-12-16 08:26:05 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: entertrack Short Description: Artifact tracking/management system Owners: sharkcz Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476660] New: Review Request: rubygem-restr - Simple client for RESTful web services
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rubygem-restr - Simple client for RESTful web services https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476660 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-restr - Simple client for RESTful web services Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kana...@kanarip.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-restr.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f10/SRPMS/rubygem-restr-0.4.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Restr is a simple client for RESTful web services, designed as a lightweight alternative to ActiveResource rpmlint clean koji scratch builds: - f9: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1001390 - f10: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1001392 - f11: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1001396 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473476] Review Request: trytond - Server for the Tryton application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473476 --- Comment #3 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2008-12-16 05:44:56 EDT --- Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/tryton/trytond-1.0.1-2.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 467407] Review Request: mingw32-sqlite - MinGW Windows port of sqlite embeddable SQL database engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467407 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(rjo...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 11:03:54 EDT --- rpmlint isn't hugely useful for mingw packages at the moment. Upstream rpmlint refused to make changes to accomodate the packaging guidelines, but hopefully we can add some custom rules at some point in the future. The updated package here now has the following rpmlint warnings: mingw32-sqlite.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/sqlite3.pc mingw32-sqlite.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/sqlite3.h mingw32-sqlite.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/sqlite3ext.h mingw32-sqlite.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libsqlite3.dll.a These are fine. All mingw packages are development packages, so there is no -devel subpackage. mingw32-sqlite.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libsqlite3.la Note that we currently include *.la files in mingw packages, because libtool (probably) requires them for linking. mingw32-sqlite.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libsqlite3.dll.a This is OK because the file in question contains Windows binary stubs - ie. arch-independent from the p.o.v. of Fedora. mingw32-sqlite.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-pc-mingw32 And again, this is OK, mandated by GCC and the packaging guidelines. I've fixed the spurious executable permission, and added 'Requires: pkgconfig' which is needed. Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/mingw32-sqlite.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/mingw32-sqlite-3.6.6.2-1.fc10.src.rpm * Tue Dec 16 2008 Richard Jones rjo...@redhat.com - 3.6.6.2-1 - New upstream release (to match Fedora native), 3.6.6.2. - Replace patches with ones from native. - Rebase -no-undefined patch. - Remove spurious +x permissions on libsqlite3.dll.a. - Requires pkgconfig. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475860] Review Request: libmsn - Library for connecting to the MSN Messenger service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475860 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-16 11:04:33 EDT --- libmsn-4.0-0.3.beta1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libmsn-4.0-0.3.beta1.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476474] Review Request: ebook-tools - Tools for accessing and converting various ebook file formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476474 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-16 11:10:38 EDT --- ebook-tools-0.1.1-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ebook-tools-0.1.1-2.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476474] Review Request: ebook-tools - Tools for accessing and converting various ebook file formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476474 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-16 11:10:59 EDT --- ebook-tools-0.1.1-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ebook-tools-0.1.1-2.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 463767] Review Request: cloog - The Chunky Loop Generator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463767 --- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-16 11:13:28 EDT --- Well, would you change the release number every time you modify your spec file? (In reply to comment #12) cloog.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcloog.so.0.0.0 e...@glibc_2.2.5 - This library actually calls exit() in the library (e.g. source/names.c). This is unusual situation. Usually when some unexpected behavior happens in a function in a library, the function should return a value which tells the error or so and should call exit() ($ rpmlint -I shared-lib-calls-exit shows the explanation). Would you contact upstream? cloog-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation - This warning can be ignored. I'd appreciate any help there. ? Some header files design flaw - Well, for example the head of %_includedir/cloog/cloog.h says: -- 40 #ifndef CLOOG_H 41 #define CLOOG_H 42 43 #ifdef CLOOG_PPL_BACKEND 44 # define GNUMP 45 # includecloog/ppl_backend.h 46 #else 47 # include polylib/missing.h 48 # includecloog/polylib_backend.h 49 #endif -- However, where can we tell if CLOOG_PPL_BACKEND is defined or not (when this package was built) (i.e whether this header file includes ppl_backend.h or polylib_backend.h)? build.log shows that when rebuilding this package -DCLOOG_PPL_BACKEND is used, however installed header files does not save such information How can I fix this ? I mean this is an upstream problem. Do you mean I should append a patch to the package ? I could as well ship the package as is, and submit a patch upstream to fix it ? - For this issue, I don't think this issue can be unresolved (I won't approve this package unless this is fixed). At least a patch should be appended or so and also this must be fixed upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476374] Review Request: python-oasa - python library for manipulation of chemical formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476374 --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-16 11:17:18 EDT --- Looks good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226568] Merge Review: xmlto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226568 Tim Waugh twa...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(twa...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #11 from Tim Waugh twa...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 11:19:09 EDT --- I haven't really had any contact with Eric since xmlif was included. I'm sure it's fine for you to just add that RPM tag, and send him an email asking what he intended in the mean time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #27 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 11:25:57 EDT --- Update. Disabled the winbind subpackage so there shouldn't be any more file conflicts. http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/samba4.spec http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/samba4-4.0.0-0.7.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 459948] Review Request: libhildon - Hildon Application Framework - shared libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459948 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||pbrobin...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pbrobin...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2008-12-16 11:26:53 EDT --- It unfortunately doesn't compiling using in rawhide using mock. It needs a BuildRequires: libtool and there's a gconf/dbus issue below. Not sure if the issue is fixed in 2.0.6 which has been released. checking for GCONF... configure: error: Package requirements (gconf-2.0 = 2.6) were not met: Package dbus-1 was not found in the pkg-config search path. Perhaps you should add the directory containing `dbus-1.pc' to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable Package 'dbus-1', required by 'gconf', not found Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you installed software in a non-standard prefix. Alternatively, you may set the environment variables GCONF_CFLAGS and GCONF_LIBS to avoid the need to call pkg-config. See the pkg-config man page for more details. RPM build errors: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6XE1ki (%build) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6XE1ki (%build) Child returncode was: 1 EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/libhildon.spec'] Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/mock/trace_decorator.py, line 70, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) File /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/mock/util.py, line 317, in do raise mock.exception.Error, (Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s % (command,), child.returncode) Error: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/libhildon.spec'] LEAVE do -- EXCEPTION RAISED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476374] Review Request: python-oasa - python library for manipulation of chemical formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476374 --- Comment #11 from Henrique LonelySpooky Junior henrique...@gmail.com 2008-12-16 11:30:26 EDT --- Thank you. Could you sponsor the package, Mamoru? I signed up in the group of packagers, but it counts as Unapproved rather than pending. Did I something wrong or is this normal? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464013] Review Request: findbugs-bcel - Byte Code Engineering Library with findbugs extensions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464013 --- Comment #9 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2008-12-16 11:28:31 EDT --- In reply to comment #7 (and carefully not exposing my own assumptions), it does provide packages and classes with the same names as those in the BCEL jar. If some script adds every single JAR in /usr/share/java to CLASSPATH (and I have seen scripts that do that), then there very well could be a conflict. Do you know of some way to avoid that? Should I put this JAR in some nonstandard place to avoid that eventuality? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476633] Review Request: perl-Devel-CheckOS - Check what OS we're running on
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476633 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||476632 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474982] Review Request: nachocalendar - Provides a flexible Calendar component to the Java Platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474982 Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch 2008-12-16 11:35:27 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: nachocalendar Short Description: Provides a flexible Calendar component to the Java Platform Owners: red Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473476] Review Request: trytond - Server for the Tryton application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473476 Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473476] Review Request: trytond - Server for the Tryton application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473476
--- Comment #7 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2008-12-16 07:43:10 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
- [ BAD ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
I think the name should have a python- prefix. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29
DH: I must disagree, trytond is a standalone application, it only uses
python
module in its implementation and the module cannot be used by external
applications
I agree that it as a standalone application -- maybe the python module can be
installed in a subpackage python-%{name}? If you are absolutely sure it cannot
be used by external applications I am ok with the current name.
Yes, I am sure :-)
Thanks for the review.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454664] Review Request: gupnp-ui - UPnP-UI is a collection of helpers for building user interfaces for gupnp apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454664
--- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 07:35:38
EDT ---
rpmlint report:
gupnp-ui.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 10)
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Please fix the minor problem reported by rpmlint above.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
- license matches the actual package license
License is actually LGPLv2+
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
5ca6b3f6740d0295066b0b533289aa4c
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
x86-64
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
? BuildRequires list all build dependencies
Was not able to test this yet, as Koji is down.
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
+ binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
+ header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
+ packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
+ libfoo.so must go in -devel
+ -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
? reviewer should build the package in mock
? the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
- review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
+ pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
===
A few things to fix there.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454668] Review Request: gupnp-vala - vala bindings for gupnp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454668 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226568] Merge Review: xmlto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226568 --- Comment #8 from Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 09:57:01 EDT --- On the page of xmlif http://www.catb.org/~esr/xmlif/ is mentioned, that the xmlif is shipped as part of Tim Waugh's xmlto as well - and in the tarball is GPLv2 COPYING file. So I guess GPLv2+ should be ok... %doc and attrs will be fixed - of course - just accident ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444792] Review Request: augeas - library for changing configuration files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444792 David Lutterkort lut...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #22 from David Lutterkort lut...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 05:21:59 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: augeas New Branches: EL-4 Updated Fedora Owners: lutter, apevec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476387] Review Request: vhd2vl - VHDL to Verilog translator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476387
manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-12-16
07:44:59 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[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.
License type per spec: GPLv2
License type per source: GPLv2+
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 4df3a2cc531d9fcd4a51d7f8e14aec41d8db0d69
vhd2vl-2.0.tar.gz [x] Package
is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own
all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for
directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]
Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean
section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains
code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc
subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files
in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage,
if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development
.so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if availabl
e.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: koji scratch build
[x] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of
[Bug 476623] New: Review Request: perl-Test-NeedsDisplay - Ensure that tests needing a display have one
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-NeedsDisplay - Ensure that tests needing a display have one https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476623 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-NeedsDisplay - Ensure that tests needing a display have one Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mmasl...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test-NeedsDisplay/perl-Test-NeedsDisplay.spec SRPM URL: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test-NeedsDisplay/perl-Test-NeedsDisplay-1.05-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: When testing GUI applications, sometimes applications or modules absolutely insist on a display, even just to load a module without actually showing any objects. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454664] Review Request: gupnp-ui - UPnP-UI is a collection of helpers for building user interfaces for gupnp apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454664 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476374] Review Request: python-oasa - python library for manipulation of chemical formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476374 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-16 11:59:26 EDT --- Okay, now I am sponsoring you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475860] Review Request: libmsn - Library for connecting to the MSN Messenger service
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475860 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-16 11:05:06 EDT --- libmsn-4.0-0.3.beta1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libmsn-4.0-0.3.beta1.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476404] Review Request: bullet - 3D Collision Detection and Rigid Body Dynamics Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476404
Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kon...@tylerc.org
Summary|Review Request: 3D |Review Request: bullet - 3D
|Collision Detection and |Collision Detection and
|Rigid Body Dynamics Library |Rigid Body Dynamics Library
--- Comment #1 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2008-12-16 04:48:52 EDT
---
Some thoughts:
- Summary would be nice if it could be a bit shorter (I'm not sure if there's
policy about this, but it makes it nicer on e.g. PackageKit).
- Group: I would say Development/Libraries (I think System
Environment/Libraries is reserved for pretty core parts of Fedora)
- License: Zlib is acceptable in Fedora; I think we like it lowercase, though
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing).
- %description: policy is to keep it below 80 characters wide, IIRC.
- In general I think it improves legibility to align the sections with spaces
but it's certainly not a requirement.
- If it builds on koji (could you add a link to that build in a comment,
please?) then you probably have the BuildRequires. 'make' is unnecessary as it
is part of the default build root.
- Same notes as above about Group for -devel subpackage.
- Generally for Summary/%description for -devel subpackages we put something
like Development files for %{name} and Development headers and libraries for
%{name}.
- %prep: move cmake to %build
- %build: As we talked about on IRC, use %cmake.
- %install: NEED 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' as the first thing.
- I believe you need ldconfig in %post as well as %postun. rpmlint should warn
about not having one of those.
- Same doc files between main package and -devel subpackage is redundant.
- /usr/lib/*.so should be in -devel, not main package.
- Replace literal /usr/lib with %{_libdir}.
- /usr/include/ with %{_includedir}
- %changelog needs a version per entry.
ex:
%changelog
* Mon Dec 15 2008 Bruno Mahe bruno[AT]gnoll.org - 2.73-2
- Some changes.
* Sat Dec 13 2008 Bruno Mahe bruno[AT]gnoll.org - 2.73-1
- Initial build.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474999] Review Request: gdata-java - Client libraries to write Google Data API client applications in Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474999
--- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-16
12:04:24 EDT ---
To use classpath, an example can be:
--
%prep
%setup -q -n gdata
pushd java
rm -rf lib/* classes doc
pro=build-src/build.properties
for jars in \
servlet servletapi5 \
mail javamail \
activation activation
do
f=$(echo $jars | gawk '{print $1;}')
g=$(echo $jars | gawk '{print $2;}')
%{__sed} -i -e /^${f}/s|=.*$|=$(build-classpath ${g})| $pro
done
..
%build
..
..
javadoc -classpath $(build-classpath
javamail):/etc/alternatives/java_sdk_openjdk/lib/tools.jar -d doc `find src
-name '*.java'`
-
(I have not yet found how to find tools.jar using build-classpath, maybe
it is impossible for current Fedora java structure?)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460779] Review Request: nekovm - Neko embedded scripting language and virtual machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460779 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2008-12-16 12:06:47 EDT --- So all issues should be fixed, but there will be multilib/multiarch problems due the existence of the devel subpackage. I tend to agree with you that there is no simple solution, so you should ask rel-eng to add nekovm to the list of multilib incompatible packages. And/or try to discuss the issue on the fedora-devel mailing list. But anyway, this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460779] Review Request: nekovm - Neko embedded scripting language and virtual machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460779
--- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 12:10:19
EDT ---
Thanks for approving this.
Are you sure there are still multilib issues remaining?
The new package (1.8.0-2) should only install packages
in %{_libdir}. Can this still cause a conflict?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 452413] Review Request: BkChem - Chemical drawing program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452413 --- Comment #22 from Henrique LonelySpooky Junior henrique...@gmail.com 2008-12-16 09:12:14 EDT --- Untill now, Beda was creating a tarball especially for Fedora, but it could be a substantially large working for him in the future. Following the advice of Terje, I created a patch that works directly on the upstream's original. I hope I have done it correctly and that it is the best solution. SPEC: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/2/bkchem.spec SRPM: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/bkchem/0.12.5/2/bkchem-0.12.5-2.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474985] Review Request: jakarta-commons-compress - API for working with tar, zip and bzip2 files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474985 --- Comment #5 from Sandro Mathys s...@sandro-mathys.ch 2008-12-16 12:12:25 EDT --- Thanks for the review. Actually, maven needs artifacts that are not provided in Fedora. And packaging other java software that could be built using maven also shows that maven is Fedora lacks lots of important artifacts and that maven is really outdated. And I really don't understand maven enough to change any of this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460779] Review Request: nekovm - Neko embedded scripting language and virtual machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460779 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 12:11:28 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: nekovm Short Description: Neko embedded scripting language and virtual machine Owners: rjones Branches: F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454664] Review Request: gupnp-ui - UPnP-UI is a collection of helpers for building user interfaces for gupnp apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454664 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rjo...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 460779] Review Request: nekovm - Neko embedded scripting language and virtual machine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460779
--- Comment #11 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2008-12-16 12:20:52 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Thanks for approving this.
Are you sure there are still multilib issues remaining?
The new package (1.8.0-2) should only install packages
in %{_libdir}. Can this still cause a conflict?
The binaries from %{_bindir} will differ and thus will block parallel
installation of the nekovm packages.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 445601] Review Request: ruby-augeas - Ruby bindings for Augeas
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445601 David Lutterkort lut...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from David Lutterkort lut...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 05:24:46 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: ruby-augeas New Branches: EL-4, EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474985] Review Request: jakarta-commons-compress - API for working with tar, zip and bzip2 files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474985 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 458231] Review Request: aircrack-ptw - A tool for cracking WEP keys
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458231 Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||kon...@tylerc.org Resolution||WONTFIX Flag|needinfo?(adr...@linux.org. | |ar) | --- Comment #5 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2008-12-16 06:57:51 EDT --- Closing unless the submitter wants to re-open and continue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454416] Review Request: mingw32-zlib - MinGW Windows zlib compression library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454416 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pbrobin...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2008-12-16 10:01:37 EDT --- Adam are you still reviewing this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476712] Package Review: lua-rex - Regular expression handling library for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476712 --- Comment #1 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2008-12-16 12:30:59 EDT --- Builds in fedora-10-i386 mock, rpmlint silent and happy. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 452354] Review Request: entertrack - Web-based artifact tracking/management system written in PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452354 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476599] Review Request: python-transaction - Transaction Management for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476599 Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 12:29:59 EDT --- python-setuptools isn't needed for distutils. Distutils is part of the python package itself: $ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/python2.5/distutils/core.pyc python-2.5.2-1.fc10.x86_64 Might be worth porting stuff still using setuputils over to distutils. http://docs.python.org/distutils/index.html#distutils-index It seems to actually be in the documentation at python.org unlike setuptools/setuputils Everything looks good now, approving. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476712] New: Package Review: lua-rex - Regular expression handling library for Lua
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Package Review: lua-rex - Regular expression handling library for Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476712 Summary: Package Review: lua-rex - Regular expression handling library for Lua Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lkund...@v3.sk QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/lua-rex.spec SRPM: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/lua-rex-2.4.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Lrexlib are bindings of three regular expression library APIs (POSIX, PCRE and Oniguruma) to Lua. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454668] Review Request: gupnp-vala - vala bindings for gupnp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454668 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rjo...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473476] Review Request: trytond - Server for the Tryton application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473476 Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kon...@tylerc.org --- Comment #4 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2008-12-16 06:29:39 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=327089) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=327089) Review. See attached for my initial review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454668] Review Request: gupnp-vala - vala bindings for gupnp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454668
--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 07:45:54
EDT ---
Missing BuildRequires on vala-tools (for vapigen).
After that it fails to build:
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/rjones/rpmbuild/BUILD/gupnp-vala-0.2/tests'
VALAC test-publisher
VALAC server-test
VALAC proxy-test
VALAC browsing-test
VALAC test-browser
server-test.vala:80.9-80.41: error: use of possibly unassigned local variable
`filter'
make[2]: *** [server-test] Error 1
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
/tmp/ccmQDEmL.o: In function `test_browsing_test_main':
browsing-test.c:(.text+0xb1): undefined reference to `g_thread_init'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
error: cc exited with status 256
make[2]: *** [browsing-test] Error 1
/tmp/ccA2KrmW.o: In function `test_proxy_test_main':
proxy-test.c:(.text+0x6b): undefined reference to `g_thread_init'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
error: cc exited with status 256
make[2]: *** [proxy-test] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/rjones/rpmbuild/BUILD/gupnp-vala-0.2/tests'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/rjones/rpmbuild/BUILD/gupnp-vala-0.2'
make: *** [all] Error 2
? rpmlint output
? package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
? specfile name matches the package base name
? package should satisfy packaging guidelines
? license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
? license matches the actual package license
? %doc includes license file
? spec file written in American English
? spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
a7b78c99346ac4dd79847a060ac3cfd8
? package successfully builds on at least one architecture
? ExcludeArch bugs filed
? BuildRequires list all build dependencies
? %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
? binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
? does not use Prefix: /usr
? package owns all directories it creates
? no duplicate files in %files
? %defattr line
? %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
? consistent use of macros
? package must contain code or permissible content
? large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
? files marked %doc should not affect package
? header files should be in -devel
? static libraries should be in -static
? packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
? libfoo.so must go in -devel
? -devel must require the fully versioned base
? packages should not contain libtool .la files
? packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
? packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
? %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
? filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
? if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
? translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
? reviewer should build the package in mock
? the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
? review should test the package functions as described
? scriptlets should be sane
? pkgconfig files should go in -devel
? shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474985] Review Request: jakarta-commons-compress - API for working with tar, zip and bzip2 files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474985 Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kon...@tylerc.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kon...@tylerc.org Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474985] Review Request: jakarta-commons-compress - API for working with tar, zip and bzip2 files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474985 --- Comment #4 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2008-12-16 08:03:08 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=327099) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=327099) [Review] See attached for my initial review of the package. I need a reason for building the jar manually instead of using maven before approving this (or alternatively, you can switch the spec over to build using maven (pom.xml) as documented at [0] and [1]). [0]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#maven [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#maven_2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454668] Review Request: gupnp-vala - vala bindings for gupnp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454668 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476374] Review Request: OASA - python library for manipulation of chemical formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476374 --- Comment #7 from Henrique LonelySpooky Junior henrique...@gmail.com 2008-12-16 06:23:17 EDT --- No, Mamoru, I haven't applied yet. I'm doing it right now. Coult you explain, me the problem with %files and how I fix it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226210] Merge Review: opal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226210 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil orcanba...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||orcanba...@yahoo.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|orcanba...@yahoo.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil orcanba...@yahoo.com 2008-12-16 12:51:58 EDT --- I'm doing the review of this package. Could you review my hydrogen-drumkits? (Bug 468765) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473476] Review Request: trytond - Server for the Tryton application framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473476 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2008-12-16 07:44:25 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: trytond Short Description: Server for the Tryton application framework Owners: sharkcz Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226568] Merge Review: xmlto
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226568 --- Comment #7 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name 2008-12-16 09:38:17 EDT --- rpmlint output: xmlto.spec:61: E: files-attr-not-set - The %doc has to be below the %defattr xmlto.i686: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxslt - OK xmlto-tex.i686: W: no-documentation - OK 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. License is still not ok: xmlto.in contains a GPLv2+ header, butxmlif.l and xmlif.c do not contain any license information Are they really GPLv2+, too? They seem to be individual programs to me. Can you get the original author to verify the license and add license headers then? Here is a howto for GPL licensing: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474412] Review Request: giver - A simple file sharing desktop application
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474412 G Rajesh ganesanraj...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ganesanraj...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from G Rajesh ganesanraj...@gmail.com 2008-12-16 08:32:37 EDT --- Yes. This is an excellent utility. Saves much of time, from configuring nfs for simple file sharing. Needs no much complex knowledge. Somebody take this project, please. If possible, port it to Fedora 10 also -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 465897] Review Request: Judy - General purpose dynamic array library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465897 Charles R. Anderson c...@wpi.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Charles R. Anderson c...@wpi.edu 2008-12-16 07:56:16 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: Judy Short Description: General purpose dynamic array Owners: cra Branches: F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 452354] Review Request: entertrack - Web-based artifact tracking/management system written in PHP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452354 --- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 08:01:13 EDT --- That corrects all the problems found in the original review, so: APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473591] Review Request: iFuse - Mount Apple iPhone and iPod touch devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473591 David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dw...@infradead.org --- Comment #4 from David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org 2008-12-16 13:02:23 EDT --- ifuse.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 18) ifuse.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.0-4 ['0.1.0-4.20081214gitb0412bf.fc11', '0.1.0-4.20081214gitb0412bf'] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 242651] Review Request: perl-Mail-Audit - something flexible to filter mail using Perl tests.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242651 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(jo...@konnekt.org ||) --- Comment #14 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 07:51:59 EDT --- Setting to Needinfo of reporter, to answer comment 13. Otherwise I'll close this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 472793] Review Request: jgraph - Java graph visualization and layout
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472793 --- Comment #2 from Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com 2008-12-16 08:21:43 EDT --- Oops, I hadn't noticed that this was already in jpackage -- mea culpa. :( I've taken the jpackage spec and modified it slightly and here's the result: http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/java-libraries/jgraph.spec http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/java-libraries/jgraph-5.12.2.1-1.fc10.src.rpm Here are the differences from the jpackage spec: - Updated to latest upstream 5.1.2.1 - Added maven fragments and additional documentation - Used dos2unix to convert file endings - Removed Epoch -- not sure if that's kosher or not ... - Added gcj stuff -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476632] New: Review Request: perl-Test-Compile - Check whether Perl module files compile correctly
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Compile - Check whether Perl module files compile correctly https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476632 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Compile - Check whether Perl module files compile correctly Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mmasl...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test-Compile/perl-Test-Compile.spec SRPM URL: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test-Compile/perl-Test-Compile-0.08-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Check Perl module files for errors or warnings in a test file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462982] Review Request: buffer - General purpose buffer program
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462982 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review?, fedora-cvs- |fedora-review+, fedora-cvs? --- Comment #23 from manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro 2008-12-16 05:40:39 EDT --- I am sorry, I thought I have set it to + back in october. New Package CVS Request === Package Name:buffer Short Description: General purpose buffer program Owners: bcornec Branches: F9 F10 InitialCC: wolfy -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473591] Review Request: iFuse - Mount Apple iPhone and iPod touch devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473591
--- Comment #5 from David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org 2008-12-16 13:16:33
EDT ---
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
You should add 'Requires: hal' because you place a file in
%{_datadir}/hal/fdi/information/20thirdparty
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 466717] Review Request: python-cvxopt - A Python Package for Convex Optimization
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466717 Bug 466717 depends on bug 475411, which changed state. Bug 475411 Summary: suitesparse needs updated https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475411 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473591] Review Request: iFuse - Mount Apple iPhone and iPod touch devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473591 David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dw...@infradead.org Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org 2008-12-16 13:20:01 EDT --- Looks good to me other than the above. When those are fixed, approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226210] Merge Review: opal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226210
--- Comment #6 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil orcanba...@yahoo.com 2008-12-16
13:18:51 EDT ---
Here's the full review:
* rpmlint complains:
opal.src:27: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes openh323-devel
Will this cause any problem in the future? I would say, let's put a version
number just to be safe
opal-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
At least the license file can get into this.
opal-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided openh323-devel
Is openh323 compatible with opal? If yes, you should provide it.
* Remove the precompiled binaries during prep. So far I found:
./configure.exe
./samples/opalgw/messages.bin
./plugins/LID/TigerJet/TjIpSys.dll
./plugins/LID/CM_HID/CM_HID.dll
./plugins/LID/VPB/libvpb.lib
./plugins/video/H.263-ffmpeg/ffmpeg/libavcodec.dll
./plugins/video/H.263-ffmpeg/ffmpeg/libavcodec.so
./src/win32/vpbapi.lib: current ar archive
Actually the ffmpeg stuff is patent encumbered. You should take that stuff off
and provide a clean tarball for the SRPM.
* Please package the docs directory. I think it makes more sense to put it in
the -devel package.
* Shall we package samples and plugins (possibly in different subpackages)?
Note that some plugins have different licenses.
* We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-)
* Please make use of the %{name} macro.
* The devel package must require openssl-devel (see iax2/remote.h)
* Weird provides:
$ rpm -qv --provides opal
()(64bit) --- This one
g726()(64bit
...
* Most libraries install into the directory %{_libdir}/%{name} , but not
%{_libdir}/%{name}-%{version}. Any reason you picked the latter way?
* Latest version is not packaged. opal-3.4.3 is available
* Fedora specific flag -O2 is overriden at certain instances by -Os. That needs
fixed.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464013] Review Request: findbugs-bcel - Byte Code Engineering Library with findbugs extensions
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464013 --- Comment #7 from Permaine Cheung pche...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 07:54:34 EDT --- I'm okay with this package as long as it doesn't conflict with the original bcel one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476622] New: Review Request: ocaml-pa-do - OCaml syntax extension for delimited overloading
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ocaml-pa-do - OCaml syntax extension for delimited overloading https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476622 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-pa-do - OCaml syntax extension for delimited overloading Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rjo...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-pa-do.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-pa-do-0.8-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: OCaml syntax extension for delimited overloading -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226210] Merge Review: opal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226210 --- Comment #7 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil orcanba...@yahoo.com 2008-12-16 13:22:09 EDT --- I'm confused about this whole obsoletes/provides issue opal-devel obsoletes openh323-devel but opal does not obsolete openh323 I don't get it. An explanation in the SPEC file as a comment would be useful if you believe this is the right way. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476632] Review Request: perl-Test-Compile - Check whether Perl module files compile correctly
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476632 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||476633 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476474] Review Request: ebook-tools - Tools for accessing and converting various ebook file formats
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476474 --- Comment #7 from John5342 john5...@googlemail.com 2008-12-16 09:20:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #3) I get a cmake related error: -- Found LibXml2: /usr/lib64/libxml2.so CMake Error at cmake/FindPackageHandleStandardArgs.cmake:51 (MESSAGE): Could not find REQUIRED package LibZip Call Stack (most recent call first): cmake/FindLibZip.cmake:28 (FIND_PACKAGE_HANDLE_STANDARD_ARGS) CMakeLists.txt:10 (find_package) What arch/release are you building for? Version of cmake and libzip? If build was on koji have you got a link to the build? I have since imported into cvs and built for F-9, F-10 and devel andall builds went fine. Hopefully this is a one off or a config problem during a local build. CMake Warning (dev) in CMakeLists.txt: No cmake_minimum_required command is present. A line of code such as cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 2.6) Warning is known about and will be reported upstream shortly (doesnt stop build) Fix for this already in upstream svn. Should be included in next upstream release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476633] New: Review Request: perl-Devel-CheckOS - Check what OS we're running on
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-Devel-CheckOS - Check what OS we're running on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476633 Summary: Review Request: perl-Devel-CheckOS - Check what OS we're running on Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mmasl...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/perl-Devel-CheckOS/perl-Devel-CheckOS.spec SRPM URL: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/perl-Devel-CheckOS/perl-Devel-CheckOS-1.50-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Devel::CheckOS provides a more friendly interface to $^O, and also lets you check for various OS families such as Unix, which includes things like Linux, Solaris, AIX etc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 476623] Review Request: perl-Test-NeedsDisplay - Ensure that tests needing a display have one
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476623 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2008-12-16 06:07:46 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji Build = koji is down currently. + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 63967780b12820a668fed932812f9327 Test-NeedsDisplay-1.05.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test gave All tests successful. Files=4, Tests=2, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.01 sys + 0.13 cusr 0.02 csys = 0.18 CPU) + Package perl-Test-NeedsDisplay-1.05-1.fc11 Provides: perl(Test::NeedsDisplay) = 1.05 Requires: perl = 0:5.006 perl(Config) perl(File::Spec) perl(strict) perl(vars) Suggestions: Drop unnecessary BR:perl = 1:5.6.0 APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225897] Merge Review: ImageMagick
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225897 Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wtog...@redhat.com --- Comment #17 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 13:27:24 EDT --- *** Bug 476453 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 475141] Review Request: python-imdb - Retrieve and manage the data of the IMDb movie database
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475141 --- Comment #2 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2008-12-16 07:39:54 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=327093) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=327093) [Review] See attached for my initial review. Thank you for submitting this package to Fedora, I was considering submitting it myself if no one else did. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 473591] Review Request: iFuse - Mount Apple iPhone and iPod touch devices
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473591 --- Comment #7 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2008-12-16 13:33:20 EDT --- Are we suppose to put the full build string in the changelog. I've only put the initial rev number, I've seen both done. There's a new version with the rest fixed here http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/ifuse-0.1.0-5.20081214gitb0412bf.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 454664] Review Request: gupnp-ui - UPnP-UI is a collection of helpers for building user interfaces for gupnp apps
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454664 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2008-12-16 10:01:04 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gupnp-ui Short Description: a collection of helpers for building user interfaces for gupnp apps Owners: pbrobinson Branches: F-9 F-10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
