[Bug 803531] Review Request: DMitry - network information gathering tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803531 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.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 730306] Review Request: jboss-interceptors-1.1-api - Interceptors 1.1 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=730306 --- Comment #14 from Vladimir Kostadinov vladimir.kostadi...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 04:08:57 EDT --- Please either remove the /src/main/resources/LICENSE.txt or add ASL 2.0 to the license tag so I can approve the package. The license tag and the source tarball content MUST be in sync. -- Configure 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 797706] Review Request: ghc-aeson - Fast JSON parsing and encoding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797706 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status Whiteboard|Ready | Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2012-03-15 04:09:40 EDT --- Thank you for reviewing. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-aeson Short Description: Fast JSON parsing and encoding Owners: petersen Branches: f17 f16 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- Configure 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 785416] Review Request: python-xappy - A Python module providing an easy-to-use layer on top of the Xapian search engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785416
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 04:11:23
EDT ---
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 %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if 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 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.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-xappy-0.6.0-0.2.svn624.fc18.src.rpm
python-xappy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Xapian - Caspian
python-xappy.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://xappy.googlecode.com/files/xappy-0.6.0dev-r624.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint python-xappy-0.6.0-0.2.svn624.fc18.noarch.rpm
python-xappy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Xapian - Caspian
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/builder/785416/xappy-0.6.0dev-r624.tar.bz2 :
MD5SUM this package : 436e2a48b19c13cc797a64331353ef08
MD5SUM upstream package : d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
[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]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 Latest version is packaged.
[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
[Bug 803601] New: Review Request: python-http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803601 Summary: Review Request: python-http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bkab...@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://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/http-parser/python-http-parser.spec SRPM URL: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/http-parser/python-http-parser-0.7.5-1.fc17.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3895969 Description: HTTP request/response parser for Python compatible with Python 2.x (=2.5.4), Python 3 and Pypy. If possible a C parser based on http-parser_ from Ryan Dahl will be used. -- Configure 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 803531] Review Request: DMitry - network information gathering tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803531 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ianrichardba...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 04:33:30 EDT --- *** Bug 606430 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 606430] Review Request: DMitry - Deepmagic Information Gathering Tool
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=606430 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mschwe...@gmail.com Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE --- Comment #9 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 04:33:30 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 803531 *** -- Configure 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 803601] Review Request: python-http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803601 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mru...@matthias-runge.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@matthias-runge.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-15 04:51:54 EDT --- Taking this one -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 799023] Review Request: eot-utils - Tools to convert OTF/TTF to EOT font format and show its metadata
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799023 Jan Pokorny jpoko...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-03-15 05:35:16 --- Comment #14 from Jan Pokorny jpoko...@redhat.com 2012-03-15 05:35:16 EDT --- Ok, thanks for help. -- Configure 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 803601] Review Request: python-http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803601
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-15
05:38:52 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[!]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
present.
Note: python-http-parser-0.7.5-1.fc18.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/http_parser/parser.so
false positive
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 %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[!]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/http_parser
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if 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 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.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-http-parser-0.7.5-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint python-http-parser-0.7.5-1.fc18.i686.rpm
python-http-parser.i686: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/http_parser/parser.so parser.so
python-http-parser.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/http_parser/parser.so 0775L
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint python-http-parser-debuginfo-0.7.5-1.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/mrunge/review/803601/http-parser-0.7.5.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 0a1092f4920f2e77d86aa3602281d4a0
MD5SUM upstream package : 0a1092f4920f2e77d86aa3602281d4a0
[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.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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
[Bug 786093] Review Request: python-windmill - A web application testing 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=786093 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 05:57:05 EDT --- python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.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 786093] Review Request: python-windmill - A web application testing 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=786093 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 05:57:12 EDT --- python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.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 786093] Review Request: python-windmill - A web application testing 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=786093 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 05:56:58 EDT --- python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-windmill-1.7-0.2.git4304ee7.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 786093] Review Request: python-windmill - A web application testing 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=786093 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 753676] Review Request: gnome-shell-extention-netspeed -an internet speed indicator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753676 --- Comment #14 from Amir Hedayaty heday...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 06:23:28 EDT --- Around a week ago I received an email that I have been sponsored! Meanwhile, I have uploaded this to gnome site, got some feedback and added minor changes! I will attach the latest version -- Configure 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 753676] Review Request: gnome-shell-extention-netspeed -an internet speed indicator
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753676 --- Comment #15 from Amir Hedayaty heday...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 06:38:59 EDT --- I guess it is much better to be on github https://github.com/downloads/hedayaty/NetSpeed/gnome-shell-extension-netspeed.spec https://github.com/downloads/hedayaty/NetSpeed/gnome-shell-extension-netspeed-3.2.9-1.noarch.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 803317] Review Request: trac-themeengine-plugin - Simple API and GUI for packaging and configuring Trac themes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803317 Andrea Veri andrea.v...@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 803317] Review Request: trac-themeengine-plugin - Simple API and GUI for packaging and configuring Trac themes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803317 --- Comment #3 from Andrea Veri andrea.v...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 07:20:28 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: trac-themeengine-plugin Short Description: Simple API and GUI for packaging and configuring Trac themes Owners: averi kevin Branches: f16 f17 el6 InitialCC: averi kevin -- Configure 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 480724] Review Request: ndjbdns - New djbdns, usable djbdns.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #68 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 07:45:56 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.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 480724] Review Request: ndjbdns - New djbdns, usable djbdns.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 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 480724] Review Request: ndjbdns - New djbdns, usable djbdns.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #67 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 07:45:24 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.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 480724] Review Request: ndjbdns - New djbdns, usable djbdns.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 --- Comment #66 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 07:45:07 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.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 730306] Review Request: jboss-interceptors-1.1-api - Interceptors 1.1 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=730306 --- Comment #15 from Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com 2012-03-15 08:34:27 EDT --- Marek, given those two options, I suggest removal of /src/main/resources/LICENSE.txt 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 802862] Review Request: drupal6-votingapi - Voting API module for Drupal6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802862 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 08:39:44 EDT --- 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 803317] Review Request: trac-themeengine-plugin - Simple API and GUI for packaging and configuring Trac themes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803317 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 08:40:25 EDT --- 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 797706] Review Request: ghc-aeson - Fast JSON parsing and encoding
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797706 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 08:39:18 EDT --- 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 693493] Review Request: thunderbird-lightning - The calendar extension to Thunderbird
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693493 --- Comment #23 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 08:38:42 EDT --- 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 803601] Review Request: python-http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803601
--- Comment #3 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com 2012-03-15
09:13:41 EDT ---
You should correct the error on non standard exec. perm.
Ah, this is actually a matter of filtering the provide [1] of the .so file.
Done.
If you're not
supporting EL5, you should remove rm -rf %{buildroot} from build section.
Yep, forgot about that. Done.
You should use something like the following at files-section:
%{python_sitelib}/http_parser
%{python_sitearch}/http_parser
%{python_sitearch}/http_parser-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
Actually, the problem here was, that the files in data_files in setup.py were
placed under sitelib, not under sitearch. Therefore, on 32 bit architecture,
where these two are the same, the files were listed twice. The data files
should usually be placed alongside the others, but the upstream does a lot of
tinkering with the setup, so I just specified the location explicitly. And
everything should be ok now.
Here is the updated stuff:
SPEC: http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/http-parser/python-http-parser.spec
SRPM:
http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/http-parser/python-http-parser-0.7.5-2.fc17.src.rpm
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3897103
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering
--
Configure 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 803601] Review Request: python-http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803601 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de 2012-03-15 09:23:16 EDT --- Yeah, I saw this interesting file placement earlier, too. It is now fixed. OK I don't see any further issues, so APPROVED! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 803317] Review Request: trac-themeengine-plugin - Simple API and GUI for packaging and configuring Trac themes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803317 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 803317] Review Request: trac-themeengine-plugin - Simple API and GUI for packaging and configuring Trac themes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803317 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 09:37:23 EDT --- trac-themeengine-plugin-2.0.1-20120314svn11382.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/trac-themeengine-plugin-2.0.1-20120314svn11382.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 803423] Review Request: perl-Net-IP-Minimal - Minimal functions from Net::IP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803423 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com QAContact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |ppi...@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 803601] Review Request: python-http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803601 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com 2012-03-15 09:43:07 EDT --- Thank you for your review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-http-parser Short Description: HTTP request/response parser for Python Owners: bkabrda 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 803601] Review Request: python-http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803601 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 10:03:13 EDT --- 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 803423] Review Request: perl-Net-IP-Minimal - Minimal functions from Net::IP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803423 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2012-03-15 10:06:41 EDT --- Source file is original. Ok. Summary verified from lib/Net/IP/Minimal.pm. Ok. License verified from lib/Net/IP/Minimal.pm and LICENSE. Ok. URL and Source are alive. Ok. Description verified from lib/Net/IP/Minimal.pm. Ok. No XS or native code. noarch BuilArch is Ok. Build-time dependencies are Ok. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-Net-IP-Minimal.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Net-IP-Minimal-0.02-1.fc18.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Net-IP-Minimal-0.02-1.fc18.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint is Ok. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Net-IP-Minimal-0.02-1.fc18.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Mar 15 15:00 /usr/share/doc/perl-Net-IP-Minimal-0.02 -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 111 Nov 17 16:37 /usr/share/doc/perl-Net-IP-Minimal-0.02/Changes -rw-r--r--1 rootroot18392 Nov 17 16:37 /usr/share/doc/perl-Net-IP-Minimal-0.02/LICENSE -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1720 Nov 17 16:37 /usr/share/doc/perl-Net-IP-Minimal-0.02/README -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2555 Mar 15 15:00 /usr/share/man/man3/Net::IP::Minimal.3pm.gz drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Mar 15 15:00 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Net drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Mar 15 15:00 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Net/IP -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3019 Nov 17 16:37 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Net/IP/Minimal.pm File layout and permissions are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Net-IP-Minimal-0.02-1.fc18.noarch.rpm |sort |uniq -c 1 perl(Exporter) 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(warnings) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1 Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Net-IP-Minimal-0.02-1.fc18.noarch.rpm |sort |uniq -c 1 perl(Net::IP::Minimal) = 0.02 1 perl-Net-IP-Minimal = 0.02-1.fc18 Binary provides are Ok. $ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Net-IP-Minimal-0.02-1.fc18.noarch.rpm |sort Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok. Package builds in F18 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3897386). ??? Package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Resolution: Package 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 803601] Review Request: python-http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803601 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 10:20:38 EDT --- python-http-parser-0.7.5-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-http-parser-0.7.5-2.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 803601] Review Request: python-http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803601 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 803423] Review Request: perl-Net-IP-Minimal - Minimal functions from Net::IP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803423 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com 2012-03-15 10:36:13 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Net-IP-Minimal Short Description: Minimal functions from Net::IP Owners: psabata mmaslano ppisar Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- Configure 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
--- Comment #3 from Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 10:46:37 EDT ---
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
jboss-remoting-jmx.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
jboss-remoting-jmx.noarch: W: no-documentation
jboss-remoting-jmx.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
jboss-remoting-jmx.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-remoting-jmx-1.0.2.Final.tar.xz
jboss-remoting-jmx-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -
Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
jboss-remoting-jmx-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/
HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
All normal
[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.
License type: LGPLv2+
[!] 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
[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.
Git source (unpacked tarball matches)
[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
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] 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 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.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3894745
=== Issues ===
1. The license file (COPYING.txt) must be included in both rpms.
Fix that issue and I will approve.
--
Configure 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 803423] Review Request: perl-Net-IP-Minimal - Minimal functions from Net::IP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803423 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 11:29:49 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Petr, 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 803423] Review Request: perl-Net-IP-Minimal - Minimal functions from Net::IP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803423 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com QAContact|ppi...@redhat.com |extras...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2012-03-15 11:33:24 EDT --- Damned QA contact. -- Configure 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 700959] Review Request: TOPCOM - Triangulations Of Point Configurations and Oriented Matroids
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700959 --- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at 2012-03-15 11:51:04 EDT --- The build fails: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3897841 I also tried it on F16 i386, where it fails as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 803423] Review Request: perl-Net-IP-Minimal - Minimal functions from Net::IP
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803423 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Net-IP-Minimal-0.02-1. ||fc18 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-03-15 11:51:04 --- Comment #5 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com 2012-03-15 11:51:04 EDT --- Thanks you, guys. -- Configure 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 427722] Review Request: xsettings-kde - XSettings Daemon for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427722 Irina Boverman ibove...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||803771 -- Configure 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 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987 --- Comment #54 from Albert Strasheim full...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 12:12:11 EDT --- A few ideas: Since godoc needs all the source, I was thinking of splitting off a go-doc package that has the godoc binary and the sources. As far as I understand, cross-compiling is easy these days, so we could build: default packages: go.i686 -- contains 386 packages and 8g, 8c, 8l go.x86_64 -- contains amd64 packages and 6g, 6c, 6l go.armv5tel -- contains arm packages and 5g, 5c, 5l, GOARM=5 go.armv7hl -- contains arm packages and 5g, 5c, 5l, GOARM=6 and then all the cross-compilers. maybe it's not necessary to build all combinations. go-amd64.i686 (useful for testing cross-compiler building infrastructure) go-386.x86_64 (useful for testing cross-compiler building infrastructure) go-armv5tel.i686 go-armv5tel.x86_64 go-armv7hl.i686 (or we could call this go-arm6?) go-armv7hl.x86_64 go-armv5tel could be called go-arm5. go-armv7hl could be called go-arm6. Feedback please? -- Configure 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 611372] Review Request: perl-Net-Twitter - Perl interface to Twitter
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611372
--- Comment #12 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com 2012-03-15 12:19:19 EDT
---
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.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[-]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[x]: 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.
[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.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if 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 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.
[!]: 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/611372/Net-Twitter-3.18001.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 88665d245f72b48ee87817edb5906d00
MD5SUM upstream package : 88665d245f72b48ee87817edb5906d00
[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.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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.
[!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[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.
[-]: 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:
TODO: There are several missing build dependencies. Although they're somehow
pulled in during the build now, it might not be the case in the future and they
should be added. Namely:
- perl(base), perl(lib), perl(Carp), perl(Encode), perl(HTTP::Response),
perl(Net::Netrc), and perl(Time::HiRes)
- perl(LWP::UserAgent) = 5.819 (actually required in the code)
TODO: BuildRoot tag
[Bug 427722] Review Request: xsettings-kde - XSettings Daemon for KDE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427722 Irina Boverman ibove...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibove...@redhat.com Blocks|803771 | -- Configure 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 803798] Review Request: perl-Term-ReadLine-Perl - Readline implementation in Perl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803798 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||802986 -- Configure 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 803798] New: Review Request: perl-Term-ReadLine-Perl - Readline implementation in Perl
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-Term-ReadLine-Perl - Readline implementation in Perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803798 Summary: Review Request: perl-Term-ReadLine-Perl - Readline implementation in Perl Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nob...@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ppi...@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://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Term-ReadLine-Perl/perl-Term-ReadLine-Perl.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Term-ReadLine-Perl/perl-Term-ReadLine-Perl-1.0303-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: This is a quick implementation of the minimal interface to Readline libraries. The implementation is made in Perl (mostly) by Jeffrey Friedl. The only thing this library does is to make it conformant (and add some minimal changes, like using Term::ReadKey if present, and correct work under xterm). -- Configure 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 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987 --- Comment #55 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2012-03-15 12:51:30 EDT --- Just a question - is there a need for another go compiler when one is already in gcc? -- Configure 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 761619] Review Request: cross-binutils - Multiple cross-build binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=761619 --- Comment #4 from David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com 2012-03-15 14:04:15 EDT --- I've updated to binutils-2.22.25.0.1-8. The revised SRPM and specfile are: http://people.redhat.com/~dhowells/cross/cross-binutils-2.22.52.0.1-8.1.fc16.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/~dhowells/cross/cross-binutils-2.22.52.0.1.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 766166] Review Request: cross-gcc - Multiple cross-build gcc
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=766166 --- Comment #2 from David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com 2012-03-15 14:06:33 EDT --- I've updated to gcc-4.7.0-RC-20120302 and made more arches available. Revised SRPM and specfile can be found here: http://people.redhat.com/~dhowells/cross/cross-gcc-4.7.0-0.11.1.fc16.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/~dhowells/cross/cross-gcc-470.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 652987] Review Request: go - The Go programming language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652987 --- Comment #56 from Albert Strasheim full...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 14:20:02 EDT --- The two compilers have different aims. I'm guessing here, but I think that after Go 1 we might see releases of the Google version every few weeks, mostly with bugfixes and backwards-compatible API enhancements. Many people will want to use these releases before the new API features make it in into the slower release cycle of GCC. Even more guessing: At some point in the distant future (a few years), there will be a pre-Go 2 version of the Google compiler where they will try out new language features before implementing it in the GCC version. http://blog.golang.org/2011/10/preview-of-go-version-1.html -- Configure 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 785416] Review Request: python-xappy - A Python module providing an easy-to-use layer on top of the Xapian search engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785416 Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com 2012-03-15 14:24:34 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-xappy Short Description: A Python module providing an easy-to-use layer on top of the Xapian search engine Owners: lmacken Branches: f15 f16 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 785416] Review Request: python-xappy - A Python module providing an easy-to-use layer on top of the Xapian search engine
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785416 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 14:32:23 EDT --- 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 801003] Review Request: slf4j-jboss-logmanager - SLF4J backend for JBoss LogManager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801003 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 801003] Review Request: slf4j-jboss-logmanager - SLF4J backend for JBoss LogManager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801003 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 14:39:57 EDT --- slf4j-jboss-logmanager-1.0.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/slf4j-jboss-logmanager-1.0.0-2.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 801003] Review Request: slf4j-jboss-logmanager - SLF4J backend for JBoss LogManager
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801003 Asaf Shakarchi a...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-03-15 14:44:05 -- Configure 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 803317] Review Request: trac-themeengine-plugin - Simple API and GUI for packaging and configuring Trac themes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803317 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 15:53:16 EDT --- trac-themeengine-plugin-2.0.1-20120314svn11382.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 796183] Review Request: python-nitrate - Python API for the Nitrate test case management system
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796183 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-nitrate-0.8-0.fc16 |python-nitrate-0.8-0.el6 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 15:53:55 EDT --- python-nitrate-0.8-0.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 772987] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-condor - Globus Toolkit - Condor 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=772987 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|globus-gram-job-manager-con |globus-gram-job-manager-con |dor-1.0-2.el6 |dor-1.0-2.el5 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 15:53:46 EDT --- globus-gram-job-manager-condor-1.0-2.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 772987] Review Request: globus-gram-job-manager-condor - Globus Toolkit - Condor 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=772987 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|globus-gram-job-manager-con |globus-gram-job-manager-con |dor-1.0-2.fc16 |dor-1.0-2.el6 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 15:52:39 EDT --- globus-gram-job-manager-condor-1.0-2.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 515898] Review Request: imapfilter - A flexible client side mail filtering utility for IMAP servers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515898 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|2.0.11-3.fc12 |imapfilter-2.5-1.el6 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 15:56:07 EDT --- imapfilter-2.5-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure 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 801092] Review Request: sumwars - a hack and slash role playing game
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801092 --- Comment #11 from Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to 2012-03-15 16:53:27 EDT --- What hardware is this game supposed to work with? I tried it with an rv530 card and it didn't work. I got a bunch of messages like the following: Compiler error: invalid parameters in monster.particle(146) -- Configure 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 799089] Review Request: dyninst - An API for Run-time Code Generation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799089
William Cohen wco...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(wco...@redhat.com |
|) |
--- Comment #4 from William Cohen wco...@redhat.com 2012-03-15 17:30:36 EDT
---
MUST: packaging guidelines:
- bundled librares, as below
- make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} should work
( DESTDIR=... isn't currently honored in the make)
- %configure should be used
(agreed, tried to use %configure, but because of the intermixed build/
install. the build would attempt to install in /usr/lib and /usr/include
because it ignored the staged installs, if is DESTDIR honored, might be
able to use %configure)
MUST: not bundle system libraries
- boost is bundled, and is even installed into dyninst-devel.
(it looks like one can just add a BuildReqs: boost-deve and nuke the
boost
subdirectory)
ReviewGuidelines SHOULD items failed:
/usr/bin/parseThat should have a man page
--
Configure 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 750902] Review Request: sleep - Multi-paradigm scripting language for Java
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750902 --- Comment #5 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2012-03-15 17:35:34 EDT --- Fair point. FWIW - mandriva and jpackage (admittedly biased) package it as sleep. Debian doesn't seem to have it. I've asked upstream for suggestions on alternatives. We have few java-* packages, this single j prefix being more common. Other possibility is sleepscript, sleep-script. -- Configure 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 524119] Review Request: nmon - Nigel's performance MONitor for Linux
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119 Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no changed: What|Removed |Added CC||terje...@phys.ntnu.no --- Comment #26 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2012-03-15 17:43:12 EDT --- Seems like a nice app, created an update spec: spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/nmon/nmon.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/nmon/nmon-14g-1.fc16.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3893484 -- Configure 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 799089] Review Request: dyninst - An API for Run-time Code Generation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799089 --- Comment #5 from Josh Stone jist...@redhat.com 2012-03-15 17:56:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) MUST: not bundle system libraries - boost is bundled, and is even installed into dyninst-devel. (it looks like one can just add a BuildReqs: boost-deve and nuke the boost subdirectory) Did you notice that boost actually exists twice? $ find -name boost ./dyninstAPI/src/dyninst/external/boost ./dyninstAPI/src/dyninst/dynutil/h/dyn_detail/boost The latter is just a subset, and a few files that I compared look identical, except namespaced everywhere as dyn_detail::. It appears to be included and used by that explicit path and namespace in quite a few places. It may still be possible to patch that out, but not as trivial as nuking a subdirectory... -- Configure 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 802161] Review Request: mingw-w64-tools - Supplementary tools which are part of the mingw-w64 toolchain
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802161 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2012-03-15 18:59:29 EDT --- Kai: please set the Assigned To field when you take a 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 761319] Review Request: gtkd - It is a D binding and OO wrapper of GTK+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=761319 --- Comment #32 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com 2012-03-15 19:48:24 EDT --- scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3899142 spec: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/gtkd.spec srpm: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/gtkd-1.5.1-24.20120227git0c468d2.fc16.src.rpm i have try both 32 and 64 it works -- Configure 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 787738] Review Request: wss4j - Apache WS-Security implementation
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787738 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 21:04:41 EDT --- wss4j-1.5.12-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wss4j-1.5.12-2.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 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770615 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 22:40:07 EDT --- baobab-3.3.3-1.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 794715] Review Request: apache-commons-ognl - Object Graph Navigation 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=794715 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 22:39:41 EDT --- apache-commons-ognl-3.0.2-1.20120313svn1102435.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 785727] Review Request: ocaml-camlimages - OCaml image processing 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=785727 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 22:45:32 EDT --- ocaml-camlimages-4.0.1-2.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 480724] Review Request: ndjbdns - New djbdns, usable djbdns.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #69 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 22:45:23 EDT --- ndjbdns-1.05.4-9.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 803601] Review Request: python-http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for Python
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=803601 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 22:44:16 EDT --- python-http-parser-0.7.5-2.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 801651] Review Request: jboss-jacc-1.4-api - JBoss Java Authorization Contract for Containers 1.4 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=801651 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 22:44:27 EDT --- jboss-jacc-1.4-api-1.0.2-0.1.20120310git7976d2.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 801439] Review Request: rubygem-netrc - Library to read and write netrc files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801439 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 22:44:45 EDT --- Package rubygem-netrc-0.7.1-1.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 rubygem-netrc-0.7.1-1.fc17' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-3884/rubygem-netrc-0.7.1-1.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 800720] Review Request: resteasy - Framework for RESTful Web services and Java applications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800720 Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rfont...@redhat.com --- Comment #6 from Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com 2012-03-15 23:08:21 EDT --- Upstream confirms the files with LGPL notices (apart from eagledns) are an oversight and are intended to be covered by the Apache License 2.0. Assuming no subpackaging is done, and if it is correct that the eagledns code is not being built/packaged, then the License tag should simply be ASL 2.0 and CDDL. -- Configure 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
