[Bug 785785] Review Request: pkgdiff - A tool for analyzing changes in Linux software packages
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=785785 --- Comment #13 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-02-16 03:45:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) Ok, bundled rfcdiff tool will be renamed to rfcdiff-1.41-ROSA.sh or so in the 1.2 version of PkgDiff. It's scheduled on Fri, 17 Feb. Andrey, are you going to maintain rfcdiff included in pkgdiff? If yes, I'd tend to view rfcdiff as fundamental part of pkgdiff; it may be allowed to leave it in pkgdiff. Then I'd view pkgdiff as total package and would drop rfcdiff as package. (so suggesting to package only pkgdiff, including a modified version of rfcdiff.) -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772504] Review Request: btkbdd - Software bluetooth keyboard
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=772504 Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mfoj...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Michal Fojtik mfoj...@redhat.com 2012-02-16 03:46:43 EST --- This package looks safe and match with latest guidelines. It has proper licence, spec file looks safe enough. Also please don't forget to remove BuildRoot if you are willing to build this package for Fedora. Also works nicely with my iPad (/me hides). Good job Lubomir! 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771252] Review Request: cinnamon - Window management and application launching 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=771252 --- Comment #11 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com 2012-02-16 04:04:11 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) I think the upstream version is 1.2 not 1.2.0. [leigh@main_pc ~]$ cinnamon --version Cinnamon 1.2.0 [leigh@main_pc ~]$ -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788592] Review Request: rubygem-rbovirt - A Ruby client for oVirt REST 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=788592 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-16 04:15:54 EST --- rubygem-rbovirt-0.0.6-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rbovirt-0.0.6-1.el6 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788592] Review Request: rubygem-rbovirt - A Ruby client for oVirt REST 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=788592 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-16 04:15:00 EST --- rubygem-rbovirt-0.0.6-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-rbovirt-0.0.6-1.fc16 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790525] Review Request: rubygem-dynect_rest - Dynect REST API library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790525 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vondr...@redhat.com --- Comment #12 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com 2012-02-16 04:14:10 EST --- Could you please execute the test suite for the package? Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 684006] Review Request: perl-XML-Rules - API layer for XML::Parser
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=684006
--- Comment #3 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2012-02-16 04:17:00 EST ---
Hi Bill,
I'd like to get this moving again; a couple of days ago I used this module in
anger and I think it's great! I'd forgotten all about this review request so I
cobbled together a package myself.
Anyway, a few more comments:
* I'd suggest using a patch to add perl shellbangs to the dtd2XMLRules.pl and
xml2XMLRules.pl scripts in %prep and then just ship them in %{_bindir} as
upstream intended.
* Consider packaging XML::DTDParser, which is needed by inferRulesFromDTD; if
you do so, add it as an explicit dependency of this package.
* You can drop the redundant buildreq perl(version).
* Consider dropping the explicit versioned Requires: for perl(XML::Parser) and
perl(XML::Parser::Expat); even RHEL-3 had sufficiently recent versions of
these.
* Consider adding BuildRequires: for perl(Carp), perl(constant),
perl(Exporter)
and perl(Scalar::Util), all of which live on CPAN and might be dual-lived as
separate packages in Fedora.
Cheers, Paul.
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772504] Review Request: btkbdd - Software bluetooth keyboard
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=772504 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2012-02-16 04:25:30 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: btkbdd Short Description: Software bluetooth keyboard Owners: lkundrak Branches: f15 f16 el6 f17 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790519] Review Request: aspectjweaver - Java byte-code weaving library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790519 Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-02-16 04:40:29 EST --- I understand your points. Thanks for the comments. *** 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790551] hessian - Java implementation of a binary protocol for web services
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=790551 Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||juan.hernan...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-02-16 04:52:10 EST --- Andy, please address the issue in comment #1 and I will take this for 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788718] Review Request: clalsadrv - An ALSA driver C++ library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788718 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 05:29:25 EST --- I'll review 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788718] Review Request: clalsadrv - An ALSA driver C++ library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788718 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 05:32:44 EST --- Koji scratch build for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3795140 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788718] Review Request: clalsadrv - An ALSA driver C++ library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788718
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 05:44:13 EST
---
One issue I found so far - you should use ln -s instead of simple ln which
creates hardlinks instead of softlinks. See the latest line in the %install
section.
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+/- rpmlint is not silent. However I think in this case his messages can be
omitted safely:
work ~/Desktop: rpmlint clalsadrv-*
clalsadrv.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
clalsadrv.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/clalsadrv-2.0.0/COPYING
clalsadrv-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/clalsadrv-2.0.0/libs/clalsadrv.h
clalsadrv-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/clalsadrv-2.0.0/libs/clalsadrv.cc
clalsadrv-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
clalsadrv-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/clalsadrv.h
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings.
work ~/Desktop:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines (GPLv2 or later as it stated in the source files).
- The License field in the package spec file must matche the actual license.
Correct field value is GPLv2+ (see licensing headers in the source files)/
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum clalsadrv-2.0.0.tar.bz2*
7886b60ea79ad16f2353bb5165404ffac8287ec56704f2d07cc5804447674a2f
clalsadrv-2.0.0.tar.bz2
7886b60ea79ad16f2353bb5165404ffac8287ec56704f2d07cc5804447674a2f
clalsadrv-2.0.0.tar.bz2.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on
systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
So, please, adjust License field and fix linking issue in the %install
section before uploading. 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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705773] Review Request: erlang-meck - A mocking library for Erlang
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=705773 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 05:57:09 EST --- Ok, 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751114] Review Request: sgabios - bios option rom for serial port display
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=751114 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Flag|needinfo?(jfor...@redhat.co | |m) | Last Closed||2012-02-16 05:58:35 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785785] Review Request: pkgdiff - A tool for analyzing changes in Linux software packages
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=785785 --- Comment #14 from Andrey Ponomarenko andrei.mos...@mail.ru 2012-02-16 07:13:04 EST --- Yes, I am going to maintain it because I am an upstream developer of pkgdiff. Please consider rfcdiff included in pkgdiff as a fork of rfcdiff. But I also recommend you to leave a separate package for rfcdiff in Fedora because it's a very useful tool. I think it's a best visual HTML diff tool for text files among existing alternatives. 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790551] hessian - Java implementation of a binary protocol for web services
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=790551 --- Comment #3 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 07:44:38 EST --- Updated to tomcat 7: SPEC: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/SPECS/hessian.spec SRPM: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/sources/hessian-4.0.7-3.fc17.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785785] Review Request: pkgdiff - A tool for analyzing changes in Linux software packages
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=785785 --- Comment #15 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-02-16 07:41:23 EST --- Andrey, thanks, this is great to hear. We need to take care, both (rfcdiff) and rfcdiff-1.41-ROSA.sh don't mix with each other. If we separate both rfcdiffs, it fine with me, and I will approve this package. Richard, are you going to wait until tomorrow and updating your package to version 1.2? I'll then take another look and like to finish 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790551] hessian - Java implementation of a binary protocol for web services
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=790551 Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juan.hernan...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-02-16 07:49:42 EST --- I am taking this for 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784603] Review Request: python-messaging - abstraction of a message
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=784603 --- Comment #7 from massimo.pala...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 07:53:45 EST --- Steve, here is another informal review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790215 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790215] Review Request: perl-Net-IP-Match-Regexp - Efficiently match IP addresses against ranges
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=790215
massimo.pala...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||massimo.pala...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from massimo.pala...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 07:52:52 EST ---
Hi,
I am not an official package maintainer so I can make only an informal review.
Your package passed the fedora-review checks.
Only some notes:
- do you need BuildRequires: perl = 1:5.6.0 ?
- instead of ./Build whatever wouldn'it be nicer to put %{__perl} Build
whatever
- I believe you can remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install and %clean
sections unless you want the package in EPEL 5 too
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag)
- %defattr(-,root,root,-) this can be removed for this reason
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_Permissions)
fedora-review report:
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ ]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint perl-Net-IP-Match-Regexp-1.01-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
perl-Net-IP-Match-Regexp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
boolean - Boolean, boo lean, boo-lean
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint perl-Net-IP-Match-Regexp-1.01-1.fc18.src.rpm
perl-Net-IP-Match-Regexp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US boolean
- Boolean, boo lean, boo-lean
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/mpaladin/rpmbuild/REVIEWS/790215/Net-IP-Match-Regexp-1.01.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 5558a916d5d15884be949c9f7fc71a49
MD5SUM upstream package : 5558a916d5d15884be949c9f7fc71a49
[ ]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[ ]: SHOULD No file requires
[Bug 789360] Review Request: rfcdiff - Compares two internet draft files and outputs the difference
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=789360
Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-02-16
08:02:54 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint rfcdiff-1.41-2.fc18.noarch.rpm
rfcdiff.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html - HTML, ht ml,
ht-ml
rfcdiff.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wdiff - diff, whiff, w
diff
rfcdiff.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US changebars - change
bars, change-bars, changers
rfcdiff.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/rfcdiff-1.41/copyright
rfcdiff.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/rfcdiff-1.41/todo
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint rfcdiff-1.41-2.fc18.src.rpm
rfcdiff.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html - HTML, ht ml, ht-ml
rfcdiff.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wdiff - diff, whiff, w
diff
rfcdiff.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US changebars - change bars,
change-bars, changers
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/mrunge/789360/rfcdiff-1.41.tgz :
MD5SUM this package : f480e4a571aa39f8e3e788f771568ca8
MD5SUM upstream package : f480e4a571aa39f8e3e788f771568ca8
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files
[Bug 790525] Review Request: rubygem-dynect_rest - Dynect REST API library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790525 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 08:25:02 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Added f17. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772504] Review Request: btkbdd - Software bluetooth keyboard
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=772504 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 08:22:49 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Michal, please take ownership of review BZs, 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634760] Review Request: amavisd-milter - Sendmail milter for amavisd-new with support for the AM.PDP 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=634760 --- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com 2012-02-16 09:10:45 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Thanks for the comments. RHEL uses /var/amavis, so I've put in a test for rhel vs fedora for that. Can you post a link to your updated .spec and .srpm? Regarding builroot and the clean section, what's the recommended way to handle that when building for RHEL? Are those two going away entirely, or just superfluous in fedora? You can just leave these in; they don't hurt anything on Fedora. Once RHEL 5 goes EOL you can remove them. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772986] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-fork - Globus Toolkit - Fork Job Manager Support
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=772986
massimo.pala...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||massimo.pala...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from massimo.pala...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 09:10:44 EST ---
Hi Mattias,
as I am not an official package maintainer I can only make informal reviews.
fedora-review does not work on this package because of some source issue.
The package looks fine to me and mock can rebuild it.
rpmlint output (nothing worrying):
globus-gram-job-manager-fork.src:47: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
%{name}-setup
globus-gram-job-manager-fork.src:55: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
%{name}-setup
globus-gram-job-manager-fork.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided
globus-gram-job-manager-setup-fork-doc
globus-gram-job-manager-fork.x86_64: E: no-binary
globus-gram-job-manager-fork-debuginfo.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C
This package provides debug information for package
globus-gram-job-manager-fork.
globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-poll.noarch: W: no-documentation
globus-gram-job-manager-fork-setup-seg.x86_64: E: zero-length
/etc/globus/scheduler-event-generator/available/fork
globus-gram-job-manager-fork.spec:47: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
%{name}-setup
globus-gram-job-manager-fork.spec:55: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
%{name}-setup
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788718] Review Request: clalsadrv - An ALSA driver C++ library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788718 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 09:12:11 EST --- Thanks for the review Peter, I will commit your suggestions. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: clalsadrv Short Description: An ALSA driver C++ library Owners: bsjones Branches: f15 f16 f17 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788718] Review Request: clalsadrv - An ALSA driver C++ library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788718 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 09:14:43 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784603] Review Request: python-messaging - abstraction of a message
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=784603 --- Comment #8 from massimo.pala...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 09:12:32 EST --- Steve, another globus package informal review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772986 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784603] Review Request: python-messaging - abstraction of a message
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=784603 --- Comment #9 from Steve Traylen steve.tray...@cern.ch 2012-02-16 09:20:04 EST --- Thanks, I'll go through all this in the next few days. Steve. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785785] Review Request: pkgdiff - A tool for analyzing changes in Linux software packages
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=785785 --- Comment #16 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 09:22:37 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) Andrey, thanks, this is great to hear. We need to take care, both (rfcdiff) and rfcdiff-1.41-ROSA.sh don't mix with each other. That shouldn't be a problem since now they're named differently, although it wouldn't have mattered anyway since it was being installed in /usr/share/pkgdiff/... not in /usr/bin. If we separate both rfcdiffs, it fine with me, and I will approve this package. Richard, are you going to wait until tomorrow and updating your package to version 1.2? I'll then take another look and like to finish this review. That's the plan! Thanks, Richard -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791222] New: Review Request: jamonapi - A Java monitoring API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jamonapi - A Java monitoring API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=791222 Summary: Review Request: jamonapi - A Java monitoring API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: agr...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Name: jamonapi Version : 2.73 Release : 1.fc18 Group : Development/Libraries License : BSD URL : jamon.sourceforge.net Summary : A Java monitoring API Description : A Java monitoring API SPEC: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/SPECS/jamonapi.spec SRPM: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/sources/jamonapi-2.73-3.fc18.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790258] Review Request: hamcrest1.2 - Library of matchers for building test expressions
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=790258
David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2012-02-16 09:40:41 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[X] Rpmlint output:
[ke4qqq@nalleyx200 SPECS]$ rpmlint hamcrest1.2.spec
../SRPMS/hamcrest1.2-1.2-2.fc16.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/hamcrest1.2-*
hamcrest1.2.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://hamcrest.googlecode.com/files/hamcrest-1.2.tgz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
hamcrest1.2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) matchers - marchers,
matches, catchers
hamcrest1.2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matcher - marcher,
matches, catcher
hamcrest1.2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US declaratively -
declarative, decoratively, attractively
hamcrest1.2.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://hamcrest.googlecode.com/files/hamcrest-1.2.tgz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
hamcrest1.2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) matchers - marchers,
matches, catchers
hamcrest1.2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matcher - marcher,
matches, catcher
hamcrest1.2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US declaratively -
declarative, decoratively, attractively
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Spelling warnings are drivel
No idea why rpmlint is complaining about 404, dl worksforme
[!] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
Somewhat concerned about the delimiter here. (though I have seen us use
delimiters in practice , see openjdk for a an example of this.)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name
-- says we don't use delimiters.
[X] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[X] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[X] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[X] Buildroot definition is not present
[X] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[X] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:
[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.
[!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
Since -javadoc doesn't require parent package, you need to include LICENSE.txt
in -javadoc as well.
[X] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
ad1403dfabe21c88a4007c074e958c3a ../SOURCES/hamcrest-1.2.tgz
b4bd43f44d082d77daf7ec564d304cdf ../SOURCES/hamcrest-1.2.tgz.1
b4bd43f44d082d77daf7ec564d304cdf ../SOURCES/hamcrest-1.2.tgz.2
I downloaded twice, so I don't think it's dynamically generating the tarball.
[X] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[X] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[X] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[X] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[X] Permissions on files are set properly.
[X] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[X] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[X] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] 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.
[-] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[X] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[X] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[!] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[!] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[X] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[X] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[X] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building
[Bug 684006] Review Request: perl-XML-Rules - API layer for XML::Parser
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=684006 --- Comment #4 from Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu 2012-02-16 09:53:57 EST --- Here's an update that addresses the comments, minus packaging XML::DTDParser -- I'll package that up shortly. Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-XML-Rules.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-XML-Rules-1.10-3.fc16.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782250] Review Request: xml-maven-plugin - Maven XML 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=782250 --- Comment #3 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2012-02-16 09:55:31 EST --- SRPM: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/xml-maven-plugin-1.0-2.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/xml-maven-plugin.spec Alexander: Thanks for the review! I think I've addressed the issues you found. 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782250] Review Request: xml-maven-plugin - Maven XML 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=782250 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2012-02-16 10:00:52 EST --- Looks good. 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791229] New: Review Request: authhub - OTP support for MIT Kerberos
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: authhub - OTP support for MIT Kerberos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=791229 Summary: Review Request: authhub - OTP support for MIT Kerberos Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nathan...@natemccallum.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://npmccallum.fedorapeople.org/authhub/authhub.spec SRPM URL: http://npmccallum.fedorapeople.org/authhub/authhub-0.1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Provides one-time password (OTP) support for MIT Kerberos (krb5) -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791233] New: Review Request: ovirt-engine-cli - Command line interface for oVirt platform
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ovirt-engine-cli - Command line interface for oVirt platform https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=791233 Summary: Review Request: ovirt-engine-cli - Command line interface for oVirt platform Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: oschr...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://oschreib.fedorapeople.org/ovirt-engine-cli/ovirt-engine-cli.spec SRPM URL: http://oschreib.fedorapeople.org/ovirt-engine-cli/ovirt-engine-cli-2.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Command line interface for oVirt engine. based on the ovirt-engine-sdk python bindings. -- small note: * Upstream doesn't have any man pages 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 684006] Review Request: perl-XML-Rules - API layer for XML::Parser
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=684006 --- Comment #5 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2012-02-16 10:14:26 EST --- You should add the shellbangs (and make any other changes to the sources) in %prep rather than %install unless there's a good reason not to. I think it would be more readable if you had each of the new buildreqs on a separate line, like the existing ones. You can drop the Requires: lines for perl(XML::Parser) and perl(XML::Parser::Expat) altogether since rpm finds the dependencies itself and the versions don't matter as discussed previously. Let me know when you have an XML::DTDParser package to review; we should be able to move forward with the sponsorship process then and get these things into Fedora. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788718] Review Request: clalsadrv - An ALSA driver C++ library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788718 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-16 10:24:50 EST --- clalsadrv-2.0.0-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clalsadrv-2.0.0-3.fc17 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790258] Review Request: hamcrest1.2 - Library of matchers for building test expressions
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=790258 --- Comment #2 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 10:21:07 EST --- I'm wondering if maybe I used an SVN export instead of a release download the first time around, but then referenced the release URL in the spec. Anyway, I've replaced the tarball with the correct one. All issues mentioned above should be fixed: SPEC: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/SPECS/hamcrest12.spec SRPM: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/sources/hamcrest12-1.2-3.fc18.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788718] Review Request: clalsadrv - An ALSA driver C++ library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788718 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-16 10:24:29 EST --- clalsadrv-2.0.0-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clalsadrv-2.0.0-3.fc16 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788718] Review Request: clalsadrv - An ALSA driver C++ library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788718 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-16 10:24:39 EST --- clalsadrv-2.0.0-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clalsadrv-2.0.0-3.fc15 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788718] Review Request: clalsadrv - An ALSA driver C++ library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788718 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790551] Review Request: hessian - Java implementation of a binary protocol for web services
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=790551 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|hessian - Java |Review Request: hessian - |implementation of a binary |Java implementation of a |protocol for web services |binary protocol for web ||services -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791247] New: Review Request: jboss-remote-naming - JBoss Remote Naming
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jboss-remote-naming - JBoss Remote Naming https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=791247 Summary: Review Request: jboss-remote-naming - JBoss Remote Naming Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mgold...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-remote-naming/1/jboss-remote-naming.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-remote-naming/1/jboss-remote-naming-1.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Library for remote naming (JNDI) with JBoss AS -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||randyn3...@gmail.com --- Comment #49 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2012-02-16 10:27:01 EST --- *** Bug 789192 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789192] Package Change Request - orc 'The Oil Run-Time Compiler' - SCM Request For EL6
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=789192 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi Resolution||DUPLICATE Last Closed||2012-02-16 10:27:01 --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2012-02-16 10:27:01 EST --- You're supposed to request new branches in the original review bug. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 526916 *** -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782250] Review Request: xml-maven-plugin - Maven XML 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=782250 David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2012-02-16 10:47:20 EST --- Thanks Alexander! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: xml-maven-plugin Short Description: Maven XML plugin Owners: ke4qqq arg Branches: F17 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791229] Review Request: authhub - OTP support for MIT Kerberos
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=791229 --- Comment #1 from Nathaniel McCallum nathan...@natemccallum.com 2012-02-16 10:53:35 EST --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3796161 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791263] Review Request: mockito - A Java 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=791263 Roman Kennke rken...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791263] New: Review Request: mockito - A Java mocking framework
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: mockito - A Java mocking framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=791263 Summary: Review Request: mockito - A Java mocking framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rken...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://icedrobot.de/~roman/mockito.spec SRPM URL: http://icedrobot.de/~roman/mockito-1.9.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Mockito is a mocking framework that tastes really good. It lets you write beautiful tests with clean simple API. Mockito doesn't give you hangover because the tests are very readable and they produce clean verification errors. More information can be found: http://code.google.com/p/mockito/wiki/FeaturesAndMotivations -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782250] Review Request: xml-maven-plugin - Maven XML 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=782250 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 10:56:52 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790628] Review Request: Adobe Source Libraries - General Purpose Addon for Boost and STL
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=790628 --- Comment #9 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 10:59:19 EST --- I was wrong, again. It builds OK without defining any architecture at all. 'instruction-set' and 'architecture' removed from jamroot.jam. New URLs: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17870887/adobe-3/adobe-source-libraries.spec http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17870887/adobe-3/adobe-source-libraries-1.0.43-3.fc15.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791263] Review Request: mockito - A Java 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=791263
Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||socho...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2012-02-16
11:08:09 EST ---
Not a sponsor so just a few quick things:
* Instead of having a patch adding the pom, add it as additional Source1
(direct link to maven repo or wherever) - you can refer to it later as
%{SOURCE1}
* You are not installing license. Both main package and javadoc has to have
%doc LICENSE (and in this case also NOTICE)
* Instead of:
cp -p target/mockito-core-1.9.0.jar $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}.jar
do:
cp -p target/mockito-core-%{version}.jar $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}.jar
It will simplify updates
* Some upstreams have complicated build systems that add certain files in
special places and then generate something else out of them. It means that if
you build your way you can inadvertently introduce changes into final binary
jars. That's why we usually (not always!) prefer to build from SCM over using
source jars. Best way to solve this long term: ask upstream to generate
-project.zip files with complete contents of SCM needed to build. I wouldn't
block a review on this, but I would urge you to be careful. Ugly things have
happened when building like this :-)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790369] Review Request: perl-Digest-SHA - Perl extension for SHA-1/224/256/384/512
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=790369 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785923] Review Request: xgap - GUI for GAP
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=785923 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 11:15:18 EST --- I've added a desktop file. Same URLs as before: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/xgap/xgap.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/xgap/xgap-4.21-1.fc16.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782560] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-shadow - *nix Shadow Password Module
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=782560
--- Comment #12 from Todd Zullinger t...@pobox.com 2012-02-16 11:13:06 EST ---
Hey guys,
I made a few changes to the spec file to reflect manyof the changes already
suggested. It also makes the spec file work for older Fedora and EPEL.
One difference from the provides is that I used:
Provides: ruby(shadow) = %{version}
instead of %{version}-%{release}. The draft guidelines¹ say to use:
Provides: ruby(RUBYLIBRARY) = VERSION
Provides: rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version}
I don't know if the guidelines are just incorrect or not there. It's an easy
change if either of you know what it should properly be. The current
ruby-shadow rpm provides ruby(shadow) = %{version}-%{release}.
I made scratch builds for f1{6..8} and el{5,6}, but haven't done more than
poke at the file lists and provides/requires/obsoletes (i.e. I haven't
installed and used them at all yet).
f18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3796055
f17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3796089
f16: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3796039
el6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3796083
el5: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3796071
Spec file: http://tmz.fedorapeople.org/specs/rubygem-ruby-shadow.spec
I did make these changes to the spec *after* I did the scratch builds:
%{gem_dir}/specifications/%{gem_name}-%{version}.gemspec - %{gem_spec}
%{gem_dir}/doc/%{gem_name}-%{version} - %{gem_docdir}
%{gem_instdir}/lib - %{gem_libdir}
I also left the BR: ruby(rubygems) because rubygems-devel is only available on
f17 and above.
This still leaves the question of the license open.
Hopefully this helps a little. I'll try to find time to install and test this
later today, but no promises there.
¹ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Ruby#RubyGems
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790258] Review Request: hamcrest12 - Library of matchers for building test expressions
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=790258 David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: hamcrest1.2 |Review Request: hamcrest12 |- Library of matchers for |- Library of matchers for |building test expressions |building test expressions -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790258] Review Request: hamcrest12 - Library of matchers for building test expressions
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=790258 David Nalley da...@gnsa.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from David Nalley da...@gnsa.us 2012-02-16 11:31:41 EST --- Looks good 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790512] Review Request: jboss-ejb-client - JBoss EJB 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=790512 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||791247 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791247] Review Request: jboss-remote-naming - JBoss Remote Naming
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=791247 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||790512 Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790369] Review Request: perl-Digest-SHA - Perl extension for SHA-1/224/256/384/512
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=790369
Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com 2012-02-16 11:38:31 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST Package contains no unknown licenses
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/contyk/src/review/790369/Digest-SHA-5.70.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : cefc01a498e6f39eb2e066a238401c19
MD5SUM upstream package : cefc01a498e6f39eb2e066a238401c19
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[-]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
TIP: Add perl(Test::More) as a BR to your 'Optional tests'.
Approving.
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.1
External plugins:
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
[Bug 791263] Review Request: mockito - A Java 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=791263
--- Comment #2 from Roman Kennke rken...@redhat.com 2012-02-16 11:40:28 EST
---
* Instead of having a patch adding the pom, add it as additional Source1
(direct link to maven repo or wherever) - you can refer to it later as
%{SOURCE1}
The problem is that the pom that they upload into the Maven repo lacks 2
dependencies: to ant and to junit (which in this case is not only needed for
test scope). That's why I made my own quick pom out of the Maven repository
one. Mockito upstream doesn't seem to use Maven themselves. They use ant, and I
suppose this would have complicated the build process even more.
* You are not installing license. Both main package and javadoc has to have
%doc LICENSE (and in this case also NOTICE)
Fixed.
* Instead of:
cp -p target/mockito-core-1.9.0.jar $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}.jar
do:
cp -p target/mockito-core-%{version}.jar
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}.jar
It will simplify updates
Fixed this and a couple of other places where the version is hardcoded.
* Some upstreams have complicated build systems that add certain files in
special places and then generate something else out of them. It means that if
you build your way you can inadvertently introduce changes into final binary
jars. That's why we usually (not always!) prefer to build from SCM over using
source jars. Best way to solve this long term: ask upstream to generate
-project.zip files with complete contents of SCM needed to build. I wouldn't
block a review on this, but I would urge you to be careful. Ugly things have
happened when building like this :-)
Yeah true. Maybe I should look into building with upstream's ant instead. Or
get them to provide a correct pom somewhere.
I updated the above linked files to reflect the changes I made.
Thanks, Roman
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789113] Review Request: libg15 - A Library to handle the LCD and extra keys on the Logitech G15
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=789113 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 11:46:40 EST --- I'm no reviewer, just a quick remark: You cannot patch the COPYING file for legal reasons. I don't find the reference right know, it's out there though. What you should do is to post the patch upstream and bring the link from that request in here. This is all Fedora requires from you, the rest is up to upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 772504] Review Request: btkbdd - Software bluetooth keyboard
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=772504 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-02-16 12:04:24 --- Comment #10 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2012-02-16 12:04:24 EST --- Imported and build. Thank you! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705773] Review Request: erlang-meck - A mocking library for Erlang
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=705773 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2012-02-16 12:06:17 EST --- Thank you. Peter, I see that you maintain a lot of erlang stuff, I hope you won't mind being added as comaintainer. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: erlang-meck Short Description: A mocking library for Erlang Owners: lkundrak peter Branches: f15 f16 el6 f17 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 705773] Review Request: erlang-meck - A mocking library for Erlang
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=705773 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 12:18:43 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791312] New: Review Request: jexcelapi - A Java API to read, write and modify Excel spreadsheets
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jexcelapi - A Java API to read, write and modify Excel spreadsheets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=791312 Summary: Review Request: jexcelapi - A Java API to read, write and modify Excel spreadsheets Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: agr...@gmail.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Name: jexcelapi Version : 2.6.12 Group : Development/Libraries License : LGPLv3 URL : http://www.andykhan.com/jexcelapi Summary : A Java API to read, write and modify Excel spreadsheets Description : Jexcelapi allows Java developers to read Excel spreadsheets and generate Excel spreadsheets dynamically. In addition, it contains a mechanism which allows Java applications to read a spreadsheet, modify some cells and write the modified spreadsheet. SPEC: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/SPECS/jexcelapi.spec SRPM: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/sources/jexcelapi-2.6.12-2.fc18.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791312] Review Request: jexcelapi - A Java API to read, write and modify Excel spreadsheets
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=791312 Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791263] Review Request: mockito - A Java 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=791263
--- Comment #3 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2012-02-16
12:40:39 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
* Instead of having a patch adding the pom, add it as additional Source1
(direct link to maven repo or wherever) - you can refer to it later as
%{SOURCE1}
The problem is that the pom that they upload into the Maven repo lacks 2
dependencies: to ant and to junit (which in this case is not only needed for
test scope). That's why I made my own quick pom out of the Maven repository
one. Mockito upstream doesn't seem to use Maven themselves. They use ant, and
I
suppose this would have complicated the build process even more.
Funny, most people still prefer ant over maven and think the process is more
complicated with mvn :-)
Anyway, as far as pom is concerned. You should have Source1 as original pom
from maven central and then patch on top of this pom that would only introduce
changes needed in fedora and why they are needed.
* You are not installing license. Both main package and javadoc has to have
%doc LICENSE (and in this case also NOTICE)
Fixed.
Good, note that you can include both on the same line (i.e. %doc LICENSE
NOTICE). Nothing wrong with separate lines, just making sure you are aware of
both options
* Instead of:
cp -p target/mockito-core-1.9.0.jar $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}.jar
do:
cp -p target/mockito-core-%{version}.jar
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}.jar
It will simplify updates
Fixed this and a couple of other places where the version is hardcoded.
OK
* Some upstreams have complicated build systems that add certain files in
special places and then generate something else out of them. It means that
if
you build your way you can inadvertently introduce changes into final
binary
jars. That's why we usually (not always!) prefer to build from SCM over
using
source jars. Best way to solve this long term: ask upstream to generate
-project.zip files with complete contents of SCM needed to build. I wouldn't
block a review on this, but I would urge you to be careful. Ugly things have
happened when building like this :-)
Yeah true. Maybe I should look into building with upstream's ant instead. Or
get them to provide a correct pom somewhere.
It is not a *hard* requirement, but we usually suggest using upstream's build
method with exception of gradle or similar ugly things :-) If you have a good
reason not to use upstream build method just state it in the comment somewhere
in the spec. As far as I am concerned: you are maintainer and it's up to you to
decide best way to handle your package. You just have to be aware of ups/downs
of different decisions.
I updated the above linked files to reflect the changes I made.
Normally during review you should raise release number and add changelog just
as you would during normal package maintenance. It shows additional skills +
it's much easier to track changes through the review process. I.e. the spec url
can stay the same, but at least srpms should be always different.
However from your comment on IRC I looked at the sources and as far as I see
they bundle asm and cglib in org.mockito.[asm|cglib] tree. This means you have
to remove those subtrees, change classes that use shaded classpaths to use
original asm classpaths and finally add proper dependencies in pom.xml. Might
get complicated if APIs are different (to the point where you'd have to package
different version of cglib asm as additional rpms)
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 787564] Review Request: fonts-tweak-tool - a GUI tool for customizing fonts per language on desktops using fontconfig.
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=787564
--- Comment #11 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2012-02-16
13:09:39 EST ---
Sorry for this late answer, I got quite busy this week. Here is the review:
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-
file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint fonts-tweak-tool-0.0.2-2.fc18.src.rpm
fonts-tweak-tool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fontconfig -
configuration
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint fonts-tweak-tool-0.0.2-2.fc18.noarch.rpm
fonts-tweak-tool.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libeasyfc-gobject
fonts-tweak-tool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fontconfig -
configuration
fonts-tweak-tool.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fonts-tweak-tool
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[ ]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output
[Bug 791323] New: Review Request: jboss-remoting-jmx - JMX via JBoss Remoting
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: jboss-remoting-jmx - JMX via JBoss Remoting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=791323 Summary: Review Request: jboss-remoting-jmx - JMX via JBoss Remoting Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mgold...@redhat.com QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-remoting-jmx/1/jboss-remoting-jmx.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jboss-remoting-jmx/1/jboss-remoting-jmx-1.0.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Library for making JMX accessible using Remoting 3 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791323] Review Request: jboss-remoting-jmx - JMX via JBoss Remoting
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=791323 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG) -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790551] Review Request: hessian - Java implementation of a binary protocol for web services
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=790551
Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-02-16
13:46:03 EST ---
The link to the SRPM appears to be wrong. However I got it from here (fc18
instead of fc17):
http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/sources/hessian-4.0.7-3.fc18.src.rpm
Output of rpmlit of the SRPM:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Output of rpmlit of the binary RPMs:
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Koji build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3796792
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[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.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses -Dmaven.test.skip=true explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap -Dmaven.local.depmap.file=* explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
=== Issues ===
No issues.
=== Final Notes ===
You may want to remove macros from the source URL before before committing.
*** 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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788718] Review Request: clalsadrv - An ALSA driver C++ library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788718 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-16 14:25:49 EST --- clalsadrv-2.0.0-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 788815] Review Request: python-ZSI - python Zolera Soap Infrastructure
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=788815 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-16 14:25:31 EST --- Package python-ZSI-2.0-12.fc17: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing python-ZSI-2.0-12.fc17' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1806/python-ZSI-2.0-12.fc17 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790551] Review Request: hessian - Java implementation of a binary protocol for web services
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=790551 --- Comment #6 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 14:33:40 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: hessian Short Description: Java implementation of a binary protocol for web services Owners:arg New Branches: f17 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790258] Review Request: hamcrest12 - Library of matchers for building test expressions
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=790258 Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 14:32:55 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: hamcrest12 Short Description: Library of matchers for building test expressions Owners:arg New Branches: f17 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790519] Review Request: aspectjweaver - Java byte-code weaving library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790519 --- Comment #6 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 14:31:22 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: aspectjweaver Short Description: Java byte-code weaving library Owners:arg New Branches: f17 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790519] Review Request: aspectjweaver - Java byte-code weaving library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790519 Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789611] Review Request: jackson - Jackson Java JSON-processor
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=789611 Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com 2012-02-16 14:39:53 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jackson Short Description: Jackson Java JSON-processor Owners: jhernand Branches: f17 InitialCC: goldmann -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790519] Review Request: aspectjweaver - Java byte-code weaving library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790519 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 14:58:39 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790258] Review Request: hamcrest12 - Library of matchers for building test expressions
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=790258 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 14:58:14 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789611] Review Request: jackson - Jackson Java JSON-processor
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=789611 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 14:57:48 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771111] Review Request: ovirt-engine-sdk - SDK for oVirt-Engine 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=77 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-16 15:07:00 EST --- ovirt-engine-sdk-1.3-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 781775] Review Request: sevmgr - C++ Simulation-Oriented Discrete Event Management Library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781775 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-16 15:06:48 EST --- sevmgr-0.2.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 744339] Review Request: dieharder - Random number generator tester and timer
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=744339 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||dieharder-3.31.1-4.el6 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-16 15:05:59 --- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-16 15:05:59 EST --- dieharder-3.31.1-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 744339] Review Request: dieharder - Random number generator tester and timer
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=744339 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|dieharder-3.31.1-4.el6 |dieharder-3.31.1-4.el5 --- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-16 15:07:20 EST --- dieharder-3.31.1-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785424] Review Request: php-channel-horde - Adds pear.horde.org channel to PEAR
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=785424 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|php-channel-horde-1.0-1.fc1 |php-channel-horde-1.0-1.el6 |6 | --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-16 15:08:22 EST --- php-channel-horde-1.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 789611] Review Request: jackson - Jackson Java JSON-processor
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=789611 Juan Hernández juan.hernan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-02-16 15:19:22 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 684006] Review Request: perl-XML-Rules - API layer for XML::Parser
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=684006 --- Comment #6 from Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu 2012-02-16 15:24:06 EST --- Another update to address previous comment. Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-XML-Rules.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-XML-Rules-1.10-4.fc16.src.rpm I'll make a separate review request for XML::DTDParser -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 790628] Review Request: Adobe Source Libraries - General Purpose Addon for Boost and STL
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=790628 --- Comment #10 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 15:25:04 EST --- Not only bombono-DVD seems to need this. Got this message: On 02/16/2012 05:36 PM, Karel Volný wrote: Hi, just FYI, ASL is needed also for libgigi. Which is needed for Freeorion. [cut] -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791363] New: Review Request: perl-XML-DTDParser - Quick and dirty DTD parser
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: perl-XML-DTDParser - Quick and dirty DTD parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=791363 Summary: Review Request: perl-XML-DTDParser - Quick and dirty DTD parser Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: wf...@virginia.edu QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: --- Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-XML-DTDParser.spec SRPM URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-XML-DTDParser-2.01-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: A simple DTD parser that may be useful in conjunction with XML::Rules. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 684006] Review Request: perl-XML-Rules - API layer for XML::Parser
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=684006 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=791363 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791363] Review Request: perl-XML-DTDParser - Quick and dirty DTD parser
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=791363 Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=684006 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 782560] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-shadow - *nix Shadow Password Module
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=782560 --- Comment #13 from Todd Zullinger t...@pobox.com 2012-02-16 15:45:24 EST --- Something else I just noticed is that the build is being done in %prep. Can that be changed now or does that require something from ruby-1.9 or newer rubygems? The ruby draft guidelines seem to suggest that if can be done via the normal %prep, %build, and %install sections. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 791263] Review Request: mockito - A Java 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=791263 --- Comment #4 from Roman Kennke rken...@redhat.com 2012-02-16 17:17:11 EST --- Ok, I now did the additional changes: - Use the upstream build system, with some changes to skip tests which would pull in additional dependencies that can currently not be fullfilled, and modification of build classpath to use the libraries under /usr/share/java instead of bundled ones. - Created source tarball myself by checking out the upstream sourcecode, updating to release tag 1.9.0, stripping out bundled dependency JARs and a bunch of questionable fluff, converting line endings to Unix - Fixed spec to work with the above changes Files in same location as above. /Roman -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 769794] Review Request: rpm2targz - Convert a .rpm file to a .tar.gz archive
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=769794 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|new package: rpm2targz |Review Request: rpm2targz - ||Convert a .rpm file to a ||.tar.gz archive -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736861] Review Request: hgview - A fast Mercurial log navigator written in pyqt4
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=736861 --- Comment #8 from Mads Kiilerich m...@kiilerich.com 2012-02-16 17:57:36 EST --- Spec URL: http://kiilerix.fedorapeople.org/hgview.spec SRPM URL: http://kiilerix.fedorapeople.org/hgview-1.5.0-1.fc16.src.rpm * Thu Feb 16 2012 Mads Kiilerich m...@kiilerich.com - 1.5.0-1 - hgview-1.5.0 - make qt and curses support optional -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
