[Bug 504178] Review Request: gstreamer-plugins-fc - Future Composer input plugin for GStreamer
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=504178 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2010-01-09 10:13:13 EST --- Thanks for the review! Built for Rawhide and F-12, F-11: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gstreamer-plugins-fc -- 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 553908] Review Request: rubygem-shoulda - Making tests easy on the fingers and eyes
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=553908 Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ru...@rubenkerkhof.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ru...@rubenkerkhof.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com 2010-01-09 11:12:28 EST --- Hi Jeroen, - You're missing a BuildRequires on dos2unix - You're missing a BuildRequires on rubygem-rake, rubygem-sqlite3-ruby, rubygem-mocha and rubygem-rails (for the tests) Other than that, the tests fail for me as well, with the following output: 1) Error: test: Post should require body to be set. (PostTest): ArgumentError: interning empty string config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/active_record/matchers/allow_value_matcher.rb:62:in `errors_match?' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/active_record/matchers/allow_value_matcher.rb:43:in `matches?' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/active_record/matchers/validation_matcher.rb:44:in `disallows_value_of' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/active_record/matchers/validate_presence_of_matcher.rb:32:in `matches?' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/assertions.rb:49:in `assert_accepts' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/active_record/macros.rb:41:in `__bind_1263053408_210423' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/context.rb:351:in `call' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/context.rb:351:in `test: Post should require body to be set. ' 2) Failure: test: should fail when trying to run: should require unique value for title. (PostTest) [/test/fail_macros.rb:33:in `__bind_1263053408_330430' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/context.rb:351:in `call' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/context.rb:351:in `test: should fail when trying to run: should require unique value for title. ']: Test::Unit::AssertionFailedError exception expected but was Class: ArgumentError Message: interning empty string ---Backtrace--- config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/active_record/helpers.rb:5:in `map' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/active_record/helpers.rb:5:in `pretty_error_messages' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/active_record/matchers/allow_value_matcher.rb:95:in `error_description' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/active_record/matchers/allow_value_matcher.rb:51:in `negative_failure_message' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/active_record/matchers/validation_matcher.rb:45:in `disallows_value_of' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/active_record/matchers/validate_uniqueness_of_matcher.rb:103:in `validate_attribute' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/active_record/matchers/validate_uniqueness_of_matcher.rb:72:in `matches?' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/assertions.rb:49:in `assert_accepts' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/active_record/macros.rb:74:in `__bind_1263053408_330430' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/erb.rb:716:in `to_proc' /test/fail_macros.rb:33:in `__bind_1263053408_330430' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/context.rb:351:in `call' config/initializers/./../../../lib/shoulda/context.rb:351:in `test: should fail when trying to run: should require unique value for title. ' --- 463 tests, 578 assertions, 1 failures, 1 errors -- 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 553902] Review Request: rubygem-gemcutter - The gemcutter client gem
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=553902 --- Comment #2 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2010-01-09 11:50:30 EST --- New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-gemcutter.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f12/SRPMS/rubygem-gemcutter-0.3.0-2.fc12.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 551838] Review Request: opendchub - A hub software for Direct Connect
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=551838 --- Comment #15 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-09 12:14:10 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) %doc AUTHORS ChangeLog COPYING NEWS README TODO Samplescripts Is it okay ? - No problem. What is you nick on IRC ? - I have never used IRC... -- 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 225942] Merge Review: jdepend
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=225942 --- Comment #3 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2010-01-09 12:13:24 EST --- Looks good, just this left: - Guidelines use unversioned directory for javadoc now Also, does it make sense to add a pom.xml for maven dep handling? -- 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 225942] Merge Review: jdepend
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=225942 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2010-01-09 12:31:11 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) Looks good, just this left: - Guidelines use unversioned directory for javadoc now Fixed. Also, does it make sense to add a pom.xml for maven dep handling? I don't want to add pom.xml just for the sake of having it. If there is an actual request for it I'll add it immediately. -- 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 531379] Review Request: apache-commons-jexl - Java Expression Language (JEXL)
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=531379 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2010-01-09 12:29:08 EST --- Looks good. 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 225942] Merge Review: jdepend
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=225942
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2010-01-09
03:57:04 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
* rpmlint
jdepend.spec:38: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
- I don't think this matters
Fixed.
jdepend.spec:53: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation
- Think we'er using Documentation now.
Fixed.
jdepend.spec:63: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
Fixed.
jdepend.spec:70: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- not needed
Fixed.
jdepend.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
- but needed here
Fixed.
jdepend.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 35, tab: line 31)
Fixed.
* naming - check
* NamingGuidelines
* licensing BSD
* osi approved? yes
* included? yes
* correct mentioned in specfile? yes
specfile
* American English - yes
* legible - yes
* ExcludeArch, blocking - na
* BuildRequires - yes
* Locales - na
* shared libraries: ldconfig - na
* %clean section with rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} - yes
* macros -
* sources - check
* relocatable? Prefix: /usr? - na
* files and directories
- Guidelines use unversioned directory for javadoc now
* owns all created directories - yes
* all files listed in %files
* permissions?
* deffattr? - yes
* no .la files - yes
* .desktop for GUI applications - na
* no conflicts with other packets - yes
* permissable content - yes
* doc - yes
* large doc in -doc package - na
* must not affect runtime - yes
* sane scriptlets
- No longer need:
# for /bin/rm and /bin/ln
Requires(post): coreutils
Requires(postun): coreutils
Fixed.
* subpackages with fully versioned dependency -
- Guidelines specify that the javadoc package require the main package
Fixed.
Btw, I've also update to the latest 2.9.1 release.
--
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 520204] Review Request: aspell-ro - Romanian dictionary for Aspell
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=520204 manuel wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: aspell5-ro |Review Request: aspell-ro - |- Romanian dictionary for |Romanian dictionary for |Aspell |Aspell -- 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 553882] New: Review Request: maven-jflex-plugin - Maven JFlex Plugin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: maven-jflex-plugin - Maven JFlex Plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553882 Summary: Review Request: maven-jflex-plugin - Maven JFlex Plugin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: akurt...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/maven-jflex-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/maven-jflex-plugin-1.4.3-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: This is a Maven 2 plugin to generate a parser in Java code from a Lexer definition, using Jflex.de. Rpmlint problems: maven-jflex-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation maven-jflex-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/maven-jflex-plugin There is nothing suitable for documentation and the maven one should be ignored. -- 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 552580] Review Request: xml-stylebook - Apache XML Stylebook
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=552580 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com 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 549496] Review Request: bakefile - A cross-platform, cross-compiler native makefiles 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=549496 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@danny.cz AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@danny.cz 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 552580] Review Request: xml-stylebook - Apache XML Stylebook
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=552580 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2010-01-09 04:55:33 EST --- First thing: There is no javadoc package. For me this is a strict requirement for every java library -- 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 531379] Review Request: apache-commons-jexl - Java Expression Language (JEXL)
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=531379 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com 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 552580] Review Request: xml-stylebook - Apache XML Stylebook
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=552580 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 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 531379] Review Request: apache-commons-jexl - Java Expression Language (JEXL)
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=531379
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2010-01-09
05:46:42 EST ---
Rpmlint warnings:
* apache-commons-jexl.spec:59: W: non-standard-group Development Documentation
FIXIT Documentation only should be ok
* apache-commons-jexl.spec:141: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main
package) %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
FIXIT There is no usage of the gcj_support nowadays and most of the java
packagers are actively dropping it from their spec files. Please keep it if you
have some strong usage for it otherwise it's just cluttering the spec and
making the package needlessly arch specific. Also if you decide to keep it
please mark the javadoc subpackage as noarch.
* apache-commons-jexl.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/apache-commons-jexl
This is ok. Maven is working in a strange way so we have to live with it.
Review:
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption..
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: 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.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. Javadoc in this
case.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Package looks good. Please take care for the items marked with FIXIT
--
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 532306] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-debug - Faster implementation of the standard Debugging
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=532306 --- Comment #10 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2010-01-09 05:47:29 EST --- Would it be acceptable to ship these two packages from the same CVS module (and so with one .spec as well)? -- 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 530193] Review Request: rubygem-calendar_date_select - A popular date picker widget for ruby on rails and prototype.js
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=530193 Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2010-01-09 05:55:07 EST --- Thanks Mamoru! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: rubygem-calendar_date_select Short Description: A popular date picker widget for ruby on rails and prototype.js Owners: kanarip Branches: EL-5 F-11 F-12 devel 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 531379] Review Request: apache-commons-jexl - Java Expression Language (JEXL)
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=531379 --- Comment #6 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2010-01-09 06:01:00 EST --- One more thing you need to add the following lines in your %prep section: sed -i s|source1.2/source|source1.3/source|g pom.xml sed -i s|target1.2/target|target1.3/target |g pom.xml This is needed because maven in rawhide no longer accepts source 1.2. -- 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 551743] Review Request: cnucnu - Upstream release monitoring with bug reporting
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=551743 Felix Kaechele fe...@fetzig.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fe...@fetzig.org Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Felix Kaechele fe...@fetzig.org 2010-01-09 05:57:47 EST --- Could you please use the snapshots provided by gitweb or setup.py? That would make it easier for me to compare the upstream tarball to the tarball you provide in the snapshot. -- 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 537587] Review Request: dspam - bayesian filtering daemon, client, library and web ui
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=537587 Enrico Scholz enrico.sch...@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||enrico.sch...@informatik.tu ||-chemnitz.de --- Comment #45 from Enrico Scholz enrico.sch...@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de 2010-01-09 06:13:48 EST --- The user 'nobody' is not possible for a packaged daemon. Daemons should run unprivileged; using common accounts like 'nobody' or 'bin' or 'daemon' allows independent daemons (e.g. dspam and dnsmasq) to influence each other (e.g. by 'ptrace'). Please use a dedicated account. -- 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 537587] Review Request: dspam - bayesian filtering daemon, client, library and web ui
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=537587 --- Comment #46 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-09 06:26:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #45) The user 'nobody' is not possible for a packaged daemon. Daemons should run unprivileged; using common accounts like 'nobody' or 'bin' or 'daemon' allows independent daemons (e.g. dspam and dnsmasq) to influence each other (e.g. by 'ptrace'). Please use a dedicated account. If you think this is a MUST, would you post some proposal on fedora-packaging list? -- 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 553893] New: Review Request: rubygem-tiny_mce - TinyMCE in Ruby on Rails applications
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-tiny_mce - TinyMCE in Ruby on Rails applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553893 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-tiny_mce - TinyMCE in Ruby on Rails applications 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-tiny_mce.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f12/SRPMS/rubygem-tiny_mce-0.1.1-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: This plugin provides for the installation and utilization of TinyMCE in Ruby on Rails applications. TinyMCE is a WYSIWYG HTML editing component released under the GNU Public License 2.1 (GPL 2.1) by Moxiecode Systems (http://tinymce.moxiecode.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 214967] Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
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=214967 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||axel.th...@atrpms.net --- Comment #80 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2010-01-09 06:43:07 EST --- cc athimm Axel: can you build arpack for EPEL 5? -- 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 532306] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-debug - Faster implementation of the standard Debugging
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=532306 --- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-09 06:46:37 EST --- I think 2 gems (-ruby-debug -ruby-debug-base) should be packaged into seperated srpms (and so CVS request should be done seperately). Also I think seperating these 2 gems will make spec file more readable. -- 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 549496] Review Request: bakefile - A cross-platform, cross-compiler native makefiles 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=549496
Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2010-01-09 06:47:43 EST ---
formal review is here, see the notes below:
BAD source files match upstream:
bf8394d944fb34fdce8d5b82c891c180dc7af05e bakefile-0.2.8.tar.gz
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible (MIT). License text included in package.
OK latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK compiler flags are appropriate.
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
OK debuginfo package looks complete.
OK rpmlint is silent.
BAD final provides and requires look sane.
BAD %check is present and all tests pass.
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK no scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK no headers.
OK no pkgconfig files.
BAD no libtool .la droppings.
OK not a GUI app.
- use http://download.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz as the
value of Source tag, the URL used doesn't lead to the source archive
- you must have automake as Requires for proper ownership of /usr/share/aclocal
directory where some files are placed
- a test-suite is included in the source archive, but it's not run
- _bkl_c.la file must not be included, use a rm command in %install or
%exclude in %files
- includes copies of uuid and subprocess python modules, system ones provided
by the python package or some add-on package must be used
- includes a copy of empy python module, this one must be packaged
independently
--
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 537587] Review Request: dspam - bayesian filtering daemon, client, library and web ui
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=537587 --- Comment #47 from Enrico Scholz enrico.sch...@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de 2010-01-09 07:00:12 EST --- no; too much politics and pragmatisms. -- 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 532306] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-debug - Faster implementation of the standard Debugging
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=532306 --- Comment #12 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2010-01-09 07:06:22 EST --- Fair enough, let's hold off on this one until we have rubygem-ruby-debug-base packaged/reviewed then -- 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 553893] Review Request: rubygem-tiny_mce - TinyMCE in Ruby on Rails applications
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=553893 Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||553898 -- 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 553898] Review Request: rubygem-jeweler - Craft the perfect RubyGem
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=553898 Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||553893 -- 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 553882] Review Request: maven-jflex-plugin - Maven JFlex Plugin
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=553882 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lkund...@v3.sk AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lkund...@v3.sk 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 553898] New: Review Request: rubygem-jeweler - Craft the perfect RubyGem
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-jeweler - Craft the perfect RubyGem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553898 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-jeweler - Craft the perfect RubyGem 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-jeweler.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f12/SRPMS/rubygem-jeweler-1.4.0-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: \ Jeweler provides two things: * Rake tasks for managing gems and versioning of a GitHub project * A generator for creating kickstarting a new project * NOTE: %check has a lot of dependencies not yet in Fedora, so it's disabled for now -- 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 553902] New: Review Request: rubygem-gemcutter - The gemcutter client gem
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-gemcutter - The gemcutter client gem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553902 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-gemcutter - The gemcutter client gem 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-gemcutter.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f12/SRPMS/rubygem-gemcutter-0.3.0-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: The gemcutter client gem that interacts with the site http://gemcutter.org -- 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 553898] Review Request: rubygem-jeweler - Craft the perfect RubyGem
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=553898 Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||553902 -- 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 553902] Review Request: rubygem-gemcutter - The gemcutter client gem
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=553902 Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||553898 -- 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 537587] Review Request: dspam - bayesian filtering daemon, client, library and web ui
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=537587 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@city-fan.org --- Comment #48 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2010-01-09 08:12:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #45) The user 'nobody' is not possible for a packaged daemon. Daemons should run unprivileged; using common accounts like 'nobody' or 'bin' or 'daemon' allows independent daemons (e.g. dspam and dnsmasq) to influence each other (e.g. by 'ptrace'). Please use a dedicated account. And it's particularly important that files are not owned by the nobody account, as these could then be overwritten by any process running with that UID - such processes are intended to have minimal privileges and should certainly not be able to write to any system files. -- 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 553908] New: Review Request: rubygem-shoulda - Making tests easy on the fingers and eyes
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-shoulda - Making tests easy on the fingers and eyes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553908 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-shoulda - Making tests easy on the fingers and eyes 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-shoulda.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f12/SRPMS/rubygem-shoulda-2.10.2-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Shoulda makes it easy to write elegant, understandable, and maintainable tests. Shoulda consists of test macros, assertions, and helpers added on to the Test::Unit framework. It's fully compatible with your existing tests, and requires no retooling to use. * NOTE: rake test fails with one failure and one error, which I don't understand -- 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 502693] Review Request: Elgg 1.5 - An open source social networking 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=502693 --- Comment #9 from Louis Lagendijk lo...@lagendijk.xs4all.nl 2010-01-09 08:42:41 EST --- Ping? Still no reaction! I propose to close this 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 553908] Review Request: rubygem-shoulda - Making tests easy on the fingers and eyes
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=553908 Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||553902 -- 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 553902] Review Request: rubygem-gemcutter - The gemcutter client gem
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=553902 Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||553908 -- 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 551838] Review Request: opendchub - A hub software for Direct Connect
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=551838
--- Comment #10 from Roshan Singh singh.rosha...@gmail.com 2010-01-09
09:17:46 EST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
For -4:
* BR
- Now this srpm calls autotools, BR: automake is needed
What about aclocal and autoconf, should they be also added to BR ?
After adding BR: automake, build.log shows:
145 + make -j4
146 (CDPATH=${ZSH_VERSION+.}: cd . /bin/sh
/builddir/build/BUILD/opendchub-0.8.1/missing --run autoheader)
147 autoheader: WARNING: Using auxiliary files such as `acconfig.h',
`config.h.bot'
It is not preferable that autotools are automatically called
after configure. So $ autoheader should also be called
before configure.
I added autoheader to %build before configure, even then autoheader is being
called again.
--
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 551838] Review Request: opendchub - A hub software for Direct Connect
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=551838 --- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-09 09:24:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) (In reply to comment #9) For -4: * BR - Now this srpm calls autotools, BR: automake is needed What about aclocal and autoconf, should they be also added to BR ? - /usr/bin/aclocal is in automake rpm, and automake has Requires: autoconf I added autoheader to %build before configure, even then autoheader is being called again. - Would you try aclocal - autoheader - autoconf - automake ? -- 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 552331] Review Request: piranha - Tools for administration of Linux Virtual Server
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=552331
--- Comment #4 from Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz 2010-01-09 09:28:34 EST
---
- Please don't forget to bump the release number, otherwise it's just
confusing!
- Remove shadow-utils from Requires(postun) as well (as I wrote before).
- Use %{_initddir} instead of %{_initrddir}, read:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#Initscripts_on_the_filesystem
- Fix %config(noreplace)
/etc/logrotate.d/piranha
= %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/piranha
- patches documentation still missing
- /etc/sysconfig misuse still unhandled
- Remove the unnecessary Requires: popt (this will be added automatically by
rpm)
- Looking forward to see the new sources solving the licensing issues...
--
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 553917] New: Review Request: ruby-1.9.1 - An interpreter of object-oriented scripting language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ruby-1.9.1 - An interpreter of object-oriented scripting language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553917 Summary: Review Request: ruby-1.9.1 - An interpreter of object-oriented scripting language 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://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=kanarip/public_git/ruby-specs.git;a=blob;f=ruby-1.9.1.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f13-ruby/SRPMS/ruby-1.9.1-376-11.fc13.src.rpm Description: Ruby is the interpreted scripting language for quick and easy object-oriented programming. It has many features to process text files and to do system management tasks (as in Perl). It is simple, straight-forward, and extensible. See also: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Ruby_1.9.1 -- 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 553918] New: Review Request: ruby-1.8.6 - An interpreter of object-oriented scripting language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ruby-1.8.6 - An interpreter of object-oriented scripting language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553918 Summary: Review Request: ruby-1.8.6 - An interpreter of object-oriented scripting language 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://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=kanarip/public_git/ruby-specs.git;a=blob;f=ruby-1.8.6.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f13-ruby/SRPMS/ruby-1.8.6-383-12.fc13.src.rpm Description: Ruby is the interpreted scripting language for quick and easy object-oriented programming. It has many features to process text files and to do system management tasks (as in Perl). It is simple, straight-forward, and extensible. -- 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 551838] Review Request: opendchub - A hub software for Direct Connect
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=551838 --- Comment #12 from Roshan Singh singh.rosha...@gmail.com 2010-01-09 09:31:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) - Now this srpm calls autotools, BR: automake is needed What about aclocal and autoconf, should they be also added to BR ? - /usr/bin/aclocal is in automake rpm, and automake has Requires: autoconf ok. I added autoheader to %build before configure, even then autoheader is being called again. - Would you try aclocal - autoheader - autoconf - automake ? still the same. BTW how do you save the build.log. I use rpmbuild -ba to create 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 502693] Review Request: Elgg 1.5 - An open source social networking 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=502693 --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-09 09:35:36 EST --- Let's wait for another one week. If no response is received from the reporter within one week, you or I will close this bug as NOTABUG. -- 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 553902] Review Request: rubygem-gemcutter - The gemcutter client gem
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=553902 Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ru...@rubenkerkhof.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ru...@rubenkerkhof.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com 2010-01-09 10:59:52 EST --- Hi Jeroen, Please have a look at the rpmlint output: [ru...@slice SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/rubygem-gemcutter-0.3.0-1.fc13.noarch.rpm rubygem-gemcutter.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.7-1 ['0.3.0-1.fc13', '0.3.0-1'] rubygem-gemcutter.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/gemcutter-0.3.0/MIT-LICENSE rubygem-gemcutter.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/gemcutter-0.3.0/ri/Gem/AbstractCommand/api_key%3d-i.yaml %3d rubygem-gemcutter.noarch: W: misspelled-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/gemcutter-0.3.0/ri/Gem/AbstractCommand/use_proxy%21-i.yaml %21 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. [ru...@slice SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/rubygem-gemcutter-0.3.0-1.fc13.src.rpm rubygem-gemcutter.src: W: strange-permission rubygem-gemcutter.spec 0640L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- 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 478806] Review Request: simh - A highly portable, multi-system emulator
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=478806 Lucian Langa co...@gnome.eu.org 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 553898] Review Request: rubygem-jeweler - Craft the perfect RubyGem
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=553898 Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ru...@rubenkerkhof.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ru...@rubenkerkhof.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ruben Kerkhof ru...@rubenkerkhof.com 2010-01-09 11:24:05 EST --- Hi Jeroen, There's a missing BuildRequires on rubygem-rcov. After disabling %check, the package builds fine, but please have a look at the rpmlint output, and your umask :-) -- 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 529374] Review Request: ethos - Plugin framework for GLib
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=529374
--- Comment #26 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2010-01-09 11:31:13
EST ---
Thanks for these updates Christoph, I was quite clearly not with it when doing
this package to have missed those. October was somewhat of a blur :-(
Sorry, but there are definitely blockers left:
- the unversioned libs in /usr/lib64/ethos/plugin-loaders/ belong into the
devel package
Fixed.
- using %{_libdir}/python2.6/ in the files section is a no-go. Please see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#System_Architecture
for how to do this properly.
- vala package should be noarch as it contains no arch dependent files
Fixed.
It should be this package that owns it.
gobject-introspection-devel-0:0.6.7-1.fc13.i686
Fixed.
Then you need the devel package require gobject-introspection-devel for
directory ownership. Currently the requirements autogenerated from the
pkconfig
files only include
pkgconfig(gobject-2.0)
pkgconfig(gtk+-2.0)
This means that only glib2-devel and gtk2-devel are pulled in. And even if we
had pkgconfig(introspection-1.0.pc) I'd still prefer requiring
gobject-introspection-devel because all this stuff only works with newer
versions of rpm.
For some reason I thought this was done automatically now. Don't see RPM
version really as an issue as I don't plan to push it to anythin earlier than
F-12. Fixed anyway.
There are more potentially unowned dirs:
- doc package puts files into %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html, so it needs to require
gtk-doc
- python package puts files into %{python_sitearch}/gtk-2.0 (sic!) and needs
to
require pygtk2
- python package puts files into %{_datadir}/pygtk/2.0/defs and needs to
require gnome-python2
- vala package puts files into %{_datadir}/vala/vapi and needs to require vala
Fixed.
Other questions:
- Why is there a doc package anway? Usually gtk-doc is part of the devel
package. People who don't want the docs can still install it with
--excludedocs.
Because there was a push a while ago to move all docs into noarch packages to
reduce the size of the overall mirror.
- Should %{_libdir}/ethos/plugin-loaders/libpythonloader.so be part of the
python package?
Done.
SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/ethos-0.2.2-4.fc12.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 551838] Review Request: opendchub - A hub software for Direct Connect
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=551838 --- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-09 11:48:50 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) (In reply to comment #11) I added autoheader to %build before configure, even then autoheader is being called again. - Would you try aclocal - autoheader - autoconf - automake ? still the same. - Then forcely modify the timestamps of autotools related files to prevent autotools from being called after configure like: %prep %setup -q %patch0 -p0 -b .configure aclocal autoconf automake autoheader touch -r configure \ config.h.in \ Makefile.in \ aclocal.m4 BTW how do you save the build.log. I use rpmbuild -ba to create rpm. - You can use tee command like $ rpmbuild -ba foo.spec 21 | tee build.log -- 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 553898] Review Request: rubygem-jeweler - Craft the perfect RubyGem
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=553898 --- Comment #2 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2010-01-09 11:55:21 EST --- The rcov buildrequires is in there, it's just commented out as it's only need in %check which we can't execute now anyways, because of the buildrequires for %check that are not in Fedora yet. -- 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 553908] Review Request: rubygem-shoulda - Making tests easy on the fingers and eyes
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=553908 --- Comment #2 from Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com 2010-01-09 11:52:56 EST --- Buildrequirements have been fixed: New SPEC: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/rubygem-shoulda.spec New SRPM: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f12/SRPMS/rubygem-shoulda-2.10.2-2.fc12.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 531379] Review Request: apache-commons-jexl - Java Expression Language (JEXL)
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=531379 --- Comment #7 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2010-01-09 12:10:24 EST --- * Sat Jan 9 2010 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com - 1.1-3 - Drop gcj support - Fix javadoc group - Bump java levels in pom.xml http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/apache-commons-jexl-1.1-3.fc12.src.rpm http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/apache-commons-jexl.spec http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1911407 -- 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 551838] Review Request: opendchub - A hub software for Direct Connect
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=551838 --- Comment #14 from Roshan Singh singh.rosha...@gmail.com 2010-01-09 12:07:14 EST --- Okay it is working fine now. In the %doc section i think it will be better to copy the entire Samplescript directory instead of copying the files inside it, %doc AUTHORS ChangeLog COPYING NEWS README TODO Samplescripts Is it okay ? What is you nick on IRC ? -- 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 529375] Review Request: emerillon - A map viewer for GNOME
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=529375 --- Comment #18 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com 2010-01-09 12:18:07 EST --- Some minor updates. Nobody had caught the libtool archives that were still hanging around either :-) SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/emerillon-0.1.0-6.fc12.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 553055] Review Request: gpxe - Open Source network bootloader
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=553055 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi --- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2010-01-09 12:23:41 EST --- What's the idea for shipping the source in -devel...? -- 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 526126] Review Request: python3 - Python 3.x (backwards incompatible version)
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=526126 --- Comment #58 from Dave Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com 2010-01-09 12:29:51 EST --- how to bake in the result at build time in a way that works in a cross-arch cross-arch should read multilib-safe here -- 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 526126] Review Request: python3 - Python 3.x (backwards incompatible version)
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=526126 --- Comment #57 from Dave Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com 2010-01-09 12:28:03 EST --- The remaining issues from comment #56: - a reviewer needs to go through the full review guidelines on this Looking for a volunteer here. - perhaps fixup rpm-build to avoid needing find-provides-without-python-sonames.sh Deferred: I don't think this is needed before package import. - fixup macros.python3 to bake in the definitions, avoid invoking python3 each time Deferred: currently the script is arch-independent and goes in sysconfdir; it will lead to different results on 32-bit vs 64-bit archs. It's not clear to me how to bake in the result at build time in a way that works in a cross-arch way. Suggestions welcome. So I plan to punt this for now: I don't think it's necessary to fix this to pass package review, something to be fixed after package import. - verify the script in comment #17 still works and that it verifies the 2 and 3 packages are independent I'm working on this - what files are affected when modifying shebangs, and how (see commment #39) I'm working on this - anything else I've missed Does anyone have other concerns? -- 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 518473] Review Request: odf-converter-integrator - Convert Office 2007 (OOXML) files for OpenOffice.or
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=518473 Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(asto...@redhat.co ||m) --- Comment #6 from Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 03:02:22 EDT --- Hi Adam, There has been no response for long. May you answer comment #4 and comment #5 soon ? Thanks, -- 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 488962] Review Request: app-install - Tools for managing application install data
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=488962 Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|DUPLICATE | --- Comment #3 from Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 03:15:16 EDT --- ugg sorry for messing it up. I need some sleep. :/ -- 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 488962] Review Request: app-install - Tools for managing application install data
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=488962 Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW -- 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 544531] Review Request: xvkbd - Virtual Keyboard for X Window System
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=544531
Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-08
03:14:59 EDT ---
Hello. Here are some notes:
* Build / Mock
- Your srpm does not build.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1908068
You can use mock to check if your srpm actually builds
within a clean buildroot:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/MockTricks
Some notes:
- source code actually requires libXaw-devel header files,
not Xaw3d-devel, based on the current location of the header
files
- Also BR (BuildRequires): libXtst-devel is missing
- By default this installs some file under /usr/lib/X11/app-defaults,
even on 64 bit architecture.
This causes build failure on x86_64 (for example) because even with
the following line
--
%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/X11/app-defaults
--
this cannot be deleted because on x86_64 %_libdir is expanded
as /usr/lib64.
I had to add LIBDIR=%{_libdir}/X11 option to make install
- Installed normal files should have 0644 permission,
not 0444 permission. Modifying Makefile directly like
-
%{__sed} -i.mode -e 's|-m 0444|-m 0644|' Makefile
-
after xmkmf is simpler.
- Please keep timestamps on installed files as much as possible:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps
- When using cp or install commands add -p option
- Also please consider to add 'INSTALLFLAGS=-c -p' to
make install
* Source2
- Would you write how you obtained Source2?
* Macros
- Why do you also use %_datarootdir as well as %_datadir ?
* Desktop file
- fedora- prefix on the name is no longer needed.
- Application in Categories is deprecated and should be removed.
* %changelog
- It is preferable (especially when using Fedora CVS system) to
insert one line between each %changelog entry like:
--
%changelog
* Sat Dec 5 2009 Akio Idehara zbe64533 at gmail.com 3.0-2
- Add Desktop files
* Sat Dec 5 2009 Akio Idehara zbe64533 at gmail.com 3.0-1
- Initial RPM 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 488968] Review Request: fedora-app-install - Fedora application data
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=488968 --- Comment #28 from Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 03:12:14 EDT --- *** Bug 488962 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 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 488962] Review Request: app-install - Tools for managing application install data
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=488962 Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #2 from Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 03:12:14 EDT --- Marking it as a duplicate of fedora data review bug. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 488968 *** -- 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 518892] Review Request: gedit-valencia - A gedit plugin providing lightweight Vala IDE
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=518892 --- Comment #1 from Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 03:24:50 EDT --- [x] - Ok, [-] Needs input, [na] - Not Applicable [x] Fails to build. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1908750 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1908752name=build.log has more info May you fix the build and then I can start review in more detail. Thanks, -- 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 548324] Review Request: gitolite - Highly flexible server for git directory version tracker
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=548324
--- Comment #9 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2010-01-08 03:38:20 EDT ---
Hi Gerd,
(In reply to comment #7)
The name of the patch is changed, but not the name of the source-file.
I suggest to extend the two lines in the spec-file from
# $ make ed2bf5.tar
Source0:ed2bf5.tar
to
# $ make ed2bf5.tar
# $ mv ed2bf5.tar gitolite-%{version}.tar
# $ gzip -9 gitolite-%{version}.tar
Source0:%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Umm, that was an upstream decision (the file name), we don't usually rename
upstream tarballs and I'm reluctant to do so.
(In reply to comment #8)
I tried gitolite from the git. The command to clone the testing repository
works
with:
$ git clone gitolite:testing.git
but using the username and hostname
$ git clone user@host.domain:testing.git again2
gives out the following error:
Initialized empty Git repository in /home/gz016/gitolite/testing/again2/.git/
fatal: 'testing.git': unable to chdir or not a git archive
fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
[gz...@hilton testing]$
The user above is always gitolite. Gitolite doesn't use UNIX
users/permissions to implement access control, it implements its own and
determines the user name from the key used.
Therefore, after initial checkout of gitolite-admin, add your key there, push
back and you should be able to access the repositories.
--
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 524257] Review Request: Sympa - An electronic mailing list manager
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=524257 Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rpan...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 03:36:43 EDT --- May you move to 6.0.1 and address issues mentioned in comment #6. As soon as you do that I will do a detailed review. Thanks, -- 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 538820] Review Request: roboptim-core - Numerical optimization for robotics
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=538820
Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
--- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-08
04:09:38 EDT ---
Some notes:
* SourceURL
- For sourceforge hosted tarball, please use:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
By the way while I could download a tarball from
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/roboptim/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz ,
^^^
the one I could download differs from the tarball in your srpm:
-
498194 2009-11-17 21:53 original/roboptim-core-0.4.tar.gz
498224 2009-11-17 02:21 roboptim-core-0.4-1.fc11.src/roboptim-core-0.4.tar.gz
-
* Requires
- Requires: pkgconfig on -devel package is no longer needed (on Fedora,
not on EPEL) because Fedora rpmbuild automatically detects this
dependency.
- Requires: roboptim-core = %{version}-%{release}
can be replaced with
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- As -devel subpackage contains the following files (for example)
/usr/include/roboptim/core/function.hh:
28 # include boost/numeric/ublas/matrix.hpp
29 # include boost/numeric/ublas/vector.hpp
30 # include boost/tuple/tuple.hpp
/usr/include/roboptim/core/solver-factory.hh
26 # include ltdl.h
-devel subpackage should have Requires: boost-devel
and Requires: libtool-ltdl-devel (here I am not saying about
BuildRequires).
? pkgconfig file
- By the way you specify configure option:
--docdir=%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}
Does this mean that you have to modify docdir doxygendocdir
in build-aux/pkg-config.pc.in (and the installed roboptim-core.pc) ?
* Non-library in %_libdir
- What is the file roboptim-core-dummy-plugin.so.1 in %_libdir?
This file does not have the name lib.so.Y, so this
does not seem to be a system-wide library, and this should
be moved to some subdirectory under %_libdir (like %_libdir/%name).
! Note
the reason rpmlint warns about dangling-relative-symlink on
-devel package is because roboptim-core-dummy-plugin.so.1 is
not regarded as a library (because this file does not have
the name lib.so.Y)
( you can see that actually rpmlint does not show this waring
on libroboptim-core.so )
* Timestamps
- Please consider to use
-
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL=install -p
-
to keep timestamps on installed files as much as possible.
This method usually works for Makefiles generated by recent
autotools.
* About -doc subpackage
- Currently only 5 files (AUTHORS COPYING THANKS README NEWS) are
included in the -doc subpackage and I guess this is not
what you expect.
! Note
With the following lines
64 %files
65 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
66 %doc AUTHORS COPYING THANKS README NEWS
rpmbuild
- Firstly clean up the directory %buildroot%_docdir/%name-%version
- Then again create the directory %buildroot%_docdir/%name-%version
- and installs the files specified in %doc to this directory
(please check build.log what is actually done by rpmbuild)
Also please check if needed BuildRequies are correctly written.
build.log says:
-
336 make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'.
337 ../config.status --file=Doxyfile.extra:Doxyfile.extra.in
338 config.status: creating Doxyfile.extra
339 config.status: creating Doxyfile
340 sh: latex: command not found
341 sh: dvips: command not found
342 make[3]: Leaving directory
`/builddir/build/BUILD/roboptim-core-0.4/doc'
-
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You
[Bug 548324] Review Request: gitolite - Highly flexible server for git directory version tracker
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=548324
--- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-08
04:20:50 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #7)
I suggest to extend the two lines in the spec-file from
# $ make ed2bf5.tar
Source0:ed2bf5.tar
to
# $ make ed2bf5.tar
# $ mv ed2bf5.tar gitolite-%{version}.tar
# $ gzip -9 gitolite-%{version}.tar
Source0:%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Umm, that was an upstream decision (the file name), we don't usually rename
upstream tarballs and I'm reluctant to do so.
Fedora already has guidelines for creating source tarball
based on the upstream VCS:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control
i.e. tarball name must begin with %{name}- in this case, and the tarball
should contain the information about version, revision, etc in
its name.
--
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 445068] Review Request: ocaml-bin-prot - Read and write OCaml values in a type-safe binary protocol
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=445068 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 04:40:31 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ocaml-bin-prot Short Description: Read and write OCaml values in a type-safe binary protocol Owners: rjones Branches: F-12 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 445068] Review Request: ocaml-bin-prot - Read and write OCaml values in a type-safe binary protocol
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=445068 --- Comment #14 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 04:39:24 EDT --- No problem, thanks for looking at 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 548324] Review Request: gitolite - Highly flexible server for git directory version tracker
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=548324 --- Comment #11 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2010-01-08 05:02:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) Fedora already has guidelines for creating source tarball based on the upstream VCS: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control Thank you, I did not know. I will fix this up upon next package spin (when the full review is done). -- 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 542210] Review Request: python-execnet - Elastic Python Deployment
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=542210 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de 2010-01-08 05:25:31 EDT --- Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/python-execnet/python-execnet.spec SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/python-execnet/python-execnet-1.0.2-2.fc12.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Jan 7 2010 Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de - 1.0.2-2 - Skip tests that need network access. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1908811 (In reply to comment #4) [-] Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1907032 raise child_exception E OSError: [Errno 13] Permission denied /usr/lib/python2.6/subprocess.py:1126: OSError [...] May you have a look why it failed ? That was a test failing while trying to connect to localhost via ssh, which can't work on koji. It is skipped now. [-] Log file had lot of warnings, which may be of some interest: Log warnings:warning: Could not canonicalize hostname: x86-01.phx2.fedoraproject.org That's quite normal, all builds show this for srpm generation. Log warnings:/builddir/build/BUILD/execnet-1.0.2/doc/implnotes.txt:4: (WARNING/2) Literal block expected; none found. Log warnings:preparing documents... /builddir/build/BUILD/execnet-1.0.2/doc/example/test_ssh_fileserver.txt:: WARNING: document isn't included in any toctree Log warnings:build succeeded, 3 warnings. These warnings are emitted while building the documentation. Will ask upstream about them. Log warnings:warning: no previously-included files found matching '*.orig' Log warnings:warning: no previously-included files found matching '*.rej' Log warnings:warning: no previously-included files matching '*.pyc' found under directory 'execnet' Log warnings:warning: no previously-included files matching '*$py.class' found under directory 'execnet' Log warnings:warning: no previously-included files matching '*.pyc' found under directory 'testing' Log warnings:warning: no previously-included files matching '*$py.class' found under directory 'testing' Completely harmless. The manifest file excludes some files that are not present in the tarball, but might be in a developer's home. May you check what they mean and can they be ignored. Looks like. Once this is done I will do a detailed 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 553281] Review Request: netsniff-ng - high performance linux network sniffer for packet inspection
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=553281 --- Comment #9 from James Findley s...@gmx.com 2010-01-08 05:44:32 EDT --- I noticed that gcc was throwing warnings on AMD64 builds, due to print %llu with a uint64_t var, and so added a -Wno-format to supress these, as they should be completely harmless. koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1908813 spec: http://sixy.myzen.co.uk/netsniff-ng.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 532276] Review Request: python-googlevoice - Python language bindings for the Google Voice API
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=532276 Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rpan...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 05:42:55 EDT --- [x] - Ok, [-] Needs input, [na] - Not Applicable [-] Update to latest That will include rename docs to doc and including: /usr/bin/asterisk-gvoice-setup /usr/bin/gvi in %files section [x] name fine [x] spec file name fine [x] egg files are getting generated [x] python-setuptools-devel included [x] rpmlint is happy [x] docs and examples are included [-] license fine, but neither source nor license copy present. May you tell upstream to mention about it some place in source tarball also and if possible in source files. BSD is okay. [x] byte compiled files included [x] source ok 835f3631192fa586341ac3da8b847812d5fd4cf1 pygooglevoice-0.4.tar.gz 4a1f19313812d4cc078e39ac9f40e9b4ab8ed432 pygooglevoice-0.4-extras.zip sha1sum matches [x] spec fields fine [x] %files section and permissions fine [x] American english and spec legible [x] File names in package valid UTF-8 [x] permissions file Summary: May you inform upstream about license bits and update the package to latest. Everything else seems to be fine. Thanks, -- 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 530374] Review Request: nitrogen - A background browser and setter for X windows
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=530374 --- Comment #4 from Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 05:55:16 EDT --- ping, It has been month today. Is there any update on this Sandro? Thanks, -- 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 527402] Review Request: gmock - Google C++ Mocking 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=527402 --- Comment #4 from Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 05:56:52 EDT --- ping Tejas, Any updates on this one ? It has been 2-3 months with no update. Thanks, -- 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 543480] Review Request: javamail - Java Mail API
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=543480 --- Comment #3 from Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com 2010-01-08 06:10:15 EDT --- The problem with the sub-packages is: the parent pom.xml does some sort of maven magic with the bundle plugin that's beyond me, and that seems to make use of the maven osgiversion plugin which isn't yet available on Fedora. The intended build sequence appears to be: compile everything and bundle it into mail.jar, and then also extract classes from that into sub-packages (e.g., com.sun.mail.imap.* into imap.jar). I asked about this on the upstream forum and that's what the developer said: http://kenai.com/projects/javamail/forums/forum/topics/2084-Where-is-the-source-for-imap-pop3-smtp-mailapi- However, when I remove all of the unavailable plugins and try to build the sub-packages, every sub-jar just ends up containing all of the classes from mail.jar all over again. The dsn sub-package is fine because its source files are actually included separately, unlike the other ones. I could just manually build the other jar files by running jar myself, I guess ... -- 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 532534] Review request: xml-im-exporter - XML Im-/Exporter
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=532534
--- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 06:44:02 EDT
---
==
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 including the Java specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: devel/x86
[x] Rpmlint output: empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
although FG prefer:
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
[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.
see comment [1]
[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 matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
md5sum xml-im-exporter1.1.tgz xml-im-exporter1.1.tgz.orig
d39a2857420754bb71cbec0e737c8a72 xml-im-exporter1.1.tgz
d39a2857420754bb71cbec0e737c8a72 xml-im-exporter1.1.tgz.orig
[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 -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] 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.
=== 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: koji scratch build
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:koji scratch build
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[!] %check is present and the tests pass
Need to be fixed:
In spec is:
License:LGPLv2+
but according to Copying.txt and web site only version 1.0 is licensed under
LGPL2.
Version 1.1 is licensed as BSD.
Optionaly (not needed for review)
- change buildroot
- fix tests
--
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 553606] New: Review Request: kde-plasma-birthday-reminder - Birthday Reminder Plasmoid
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: kde-plasma-birthday-reminder - Birthday Reminder Plasmoid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553606 Summary: Review Request: kde-plasma-birthday-reminder - Birthday Reminder Plasmoid Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: apor...@univ-montp2.fr QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://dionysos.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/kde-plasma-birthday-reminder.spec SRPM URL: http://dionysos.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/kde-plasma-birthday-reminder-0.9.72-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Plasmoid reminding you at birthdays and anniversaries of contacts in the (standard) KDE address book. Inspired by the KDE3 kicker applet KBirthday from Jan Hambrecht. -- 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 553615] New: Review Request: Ailurus - Install software + Configure Linux + Study Linux skills
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: Ailurus - Install software + Configure Linux + Study Linux skills https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553615 Summary: Review Request: Ailurus - Install software + Configure Linux + Study Linux skills Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: homer.x...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora SPEC URL: http://ailurus.googlecode.com/files/ailurus.spec SRPM URL: http://ailurus.googlecode.com/files/ailurus-10.01.1-1.src.rpm Description: Ailurus provides following functionality. * Display information about BIOS, motherboard, CPU and battery. * Change some GNOME settings. * Install/remove some nice applications which are not provided in the official repository. * Tell you some Linux skills. * Enable/disable some third party repositories. * From package maintainers wishlist - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainers_wishlist#A-D * rpmlint - clean on spec and rpms * Koji build successfully - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1908922 -- 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 531252] Review Request: lfc - LCG File Catalog (LFC)
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=531252 --- Comment #10 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se 2010-01-08 08:30:14 EDT --- Updated to new upstream version: Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/lcgdm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/lcgdm-1.7.4.1-1.fc12.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 542210] Review Request: python-execnet - Elastic Python Deployment
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=542210 Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Rakesh Pandit rpan...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 08:46:28 EDT --- [x] - Ok, [-] Needs input, [na] - Not Applicable [-]/usr/share/doc/python-execnet-1.0.2/html/.buildinfo remove this file. [x] Builds fine [x] name seems fine [x] spec name fine [x] rpmlint fine, few messages can be safly ignored [x] version, release, summary, License, BRs seem to be fine [x] source ok md5 b3a42aec448ede3ba573cb6c6d00a20b [x] test check ok [x] egg generated [x] py(oc) files [x] successfully builds [x] uft-8 file names [x] american english and legible [x] description and summary ok [x] no gui, no libs, [x] works fine Just remove the file .buildinfo . APPROVED Thanks, -- 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 542210] Review Request: python-execnet - Elastic Python Deployment
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=542210 Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Thomas Moschny thomas.mosc...@gmx.de 2010-01-08 09:19:51 EDT --- Thanks for the review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: python-execnet Short Description: Elastic Python Deployment Owners: thm Branches: F-12 InitialCC: none -- 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 553649] New: Review Request: rhn-custom-info - Set and list custom values for RHN-enabled machines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rhn-custom-info - Set and list custom values for RHN-enabled machines Alias: rhn-custom-info https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553649 Summary: Review Request: rhn-custom-info - Set and list custom values for RHN-enabled machines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: msu...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Blocks: 452450 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rhn-custom-info/rhn-custom-info-5.4.1-1.src.rpm SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rhn-custom-info/rhn-custom-info.spec Description: Allows for the setting and listing of custom key/value pairs for an RHN-enabled system. rpmlint /tmp/spacewalk-build/rpmbuild-rhn-custom-info-5.4.1-1/noarch/rhn-custom-info-5.4.1-1.noarch.rpm rhn-custom-info.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency rhnlib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Which should be safe since rhnlib is not classic lib. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1909325 -- 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 553402] Review Request: remmina - A GTK+ Remote Desktop 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=553402 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lkund...@v3.sk AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lkund...@v3.sk Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2010-01-08 09:50:12 EDT --- * Named correctly * Version correct * Source matches upstream * Spec file clean, legible, American english * RPMlint silent * Builds in mock * Filelist sane * Requires/provides sane * Scritplets fine * Uses compiler flags correctly Needs work: 1.) License 3des.* files lack licensing information (you may want to find other software that includes this to clarify licensing, or use an existing library for tripple DES encryption) zywrletemplate.c This looks like a BSD license, not GPL keysym.h MIT license? 2.) Embedded copies of libraries Please look into possibility of using existing vnc library present in Fedora instead of libvncserver. -- 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 543480] Review Request: javamail - Java Mail API
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=543480 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2010-01-08 10:22:18 EDT --- Thanks for the explanation, no need to go through heroics. 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 504477] Review Request: rubygem-launchy - Helper class for cross-platform launching of applications
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=504477
--- Comment #6 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 10:26:41 EDT
---
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
http://gems.rubyforge.org/gems
# MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
OK
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
There is no headers.
# MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
--
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 523715] Review Request: logiweb - a system for electronic distribution of mathematics
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=523715 --- Comment #8 from Klaus Grue g...@diku.dk 2010-01-08 10:28:27 EDT --- Version 0.2.6 is out. The new version is here: Spec URL: http://logiweb.eu/1.0/doc/download/logiweb.spec SRPM URL: http://logiweb.eu/1.0/doc/download/logiweb-0.2.6-1.fc11.src.rpm HTML URL: http://logiweb.eu/1.0/doc/download/rpm.html Mirror: http://logiweb.imm.dtu.dk/1.0/doc/download/rpm.html Mirror: http://topps.diku.dk/logiweb/1.0/doc/download/rpm.html Furthermore, Version 0.1.10 is out. Version 0.1.10 is here: HTML URL: http://logiweb.eu/0.1/index.html Tar ball: http://logiweb.eu/0.1/logiweb-0.1.10.tar.gz Version 0.2.6 contains the lgc compiler expressed in the compilers own language. Version 0.1.10 contains the lgc compiler expressed in CLISP. Thus, Version 0.1.10 can be used for bootstrapping. Version 0.1.10 addresses the issue in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines Section 1.4: No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries Section 1.4.1: Exceptions -- 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 553402] Review Request: remmina - A GTK+ Remote Desktop 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=553402 --- Comment #4 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2010-01-08 10:30:23 EDT --- Should Xephyr be added as req? In testing I did not find any SSH options, bug or feature? -- 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 504472] Review Request: rubygem-shotgun - Automatic reloading version of the rackup command
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=504472
--- Comment #5 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 10:33:27 EDT
---
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i rubygem-shotgun-0.4-1.fc12.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
MIT
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
http://gems.rubyforge.org/gems
# MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
OK
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
No headers.
# MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
OK
--
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 504472] Review Request: rubygem-shotgun - Automatic reloading version of the rackup command
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=504472 --- Comment #6 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 10:35:53 EDT --- Fixed revision number in SRPM: SPEC: http://mifo.sk/rubygem-shotgun.spec SRPM: http://mifo.sk/rubygem-shotgun-0.4-1.fc12.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 504477] Review Request: rubygem-launchy - Helper class for cross-platform launching of applications
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=504477 --- Comment #7 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 10:36:32 EDT --- Fixed revision number: SPEC: http://mifo.sk/rubygem-launchy.spec SRPM: http://mifo.sk/rubygem-launchy-0.3.5-1.fc12.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 504471] Review Request: rubygem-sinatra - Ruby-based web 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=504471
--- Comment #8 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2010-01-08 10:38:40 EDT
---
Fixed rev number in SRPM:
SPEC: http://mifo.sk/rubygem-sinatra.spec
SRPM: http://mifo.sk/rubygem-sinatra-0.10.1-1.fc12.src.rpm
Review:
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
MIT
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
http://gems.rubyforge.org/gems
# MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
OK
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
No headers.
# MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
OK
--
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 553402] Review Request: remmina - A GTK+ Remote Desktop 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=553402 --- Comment #6 from ELMORABITY Mohamed melmorab...@fedoraproject.org 2010-01-08 10:40:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) Should Xephyr be added as req? In testing I did not find any SSH options, bug or feature? It seems that to enable it, remmina needs to be compiled with libssh = 0.4, whereas Fedora = 12 only provides 0.2 (but rawhide has 0.4) -- 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 553402] Review Request: remmina - A GTK+ Remote Desktop 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=553402 ELMORABITY Mohamed melmorab...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||melmorab...@fedoraproject.o ||rg --- Comment #5 from ELMORABITY Mohamed melmorab...@fedoraproject.org 2010-01-08 10:38:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) 2.) Embedded copies of libraries Please look into possibility of using existing vnc library present in Fedora instead of libvncserver. According to the file configure.ac provided with the source, this will enable the use of external vnc: %configure --enable-vnc=dl -- 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 207532] Review Request: kbackup - Back up your data in a simple, user friendly way
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=207532 Alain PORTAL apor...@univ-montp2.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #27 from Alain PORTAL apor...@univ-montp2.fr 2010-01-08 10:46:40 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: kbackup New Branches: F-11 F-12 Owners: dionysos -- 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 543480] Review Request: javamail - Java Mail API
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=543480 Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com 2010-01-08 10:56:28 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: javamail Short Description: Java Mail API Owners: mef Branches: F-11 F-12 -- 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
