[Bug 879881] Review Request: gst-openmax - OpenMAX plugin for gstreamer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879881 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- 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 879903] New: Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-armsoc - Xorg X11 armsocdrm driver
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879903 Bug ID: 879903 Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-armsoc - Xorg X11 armsocdrm driver Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Reporter: pbrobin...@gmail.com SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/xorg-x11-drv-armsoc.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/xorg-x11-drv-armsoc-0.5.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: X.Org X11 armsocdrm driver for ARM MALI GPUs such as the Samsung Exynos 4/5 series ARM devices. koji: http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1265514 Note: this is an ARM only package so won't build on mainline x86 koji -- 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 879877] Review Request: xs-rsync - OLPC XS Rsync publishing
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879877 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- 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 879879] Review Request: moodle-xs - A Course Management System
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879879 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- 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 879752] Review Request: xs-tools - OLPC XS Tools
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879752 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kparm...@myseneca.ca --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- *** Bug 879878 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 879878] Review Request: xs-tools - OLPC XS Tools
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879878 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||m...@zarb.org Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2012-11-25 05:18:57 --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Hi, this package have already been proposed on 879752 , so i think you should sync with the others students to know who exactly do what :) I am marking this bug as duplicate ( and so close it ) *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 879752 *** -- 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 879397] Review Request: php-Slim - PHP micro framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879397 --- Comment #2 from Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be --- Thank you for taking this one :) I'll fix the issues very soon. You're right about the paths, I'll change them, no need for an additional sub directory :) -- 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 772362] Review Request: sigil - Free, Open Source WYSIWYG ebook editor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772362 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #29 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz --- formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: OK source files match upstream: 541bc65c86158433adb2c5926e3ae43e46ed4fb6 Sigil-0.6.0-Code.zip OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (GPLv3+). License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK* rpmlint is silent. BAD final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK GUI app with desktop file - the spell checker doesn't like ebook and ePub, can be ignored - Provides: bundled(libtidy) needed for bundled stuff is missing APPROVED, please fix the missing Provides before import And one more note - I would like to keep the condition for using the bundled PCRE as I will build the latest sigil packages for older Fedoras in my repo. For Fedora 16 and 17 we can provide sigil 0.5.3 as it doesn't depend on UTF-16 support in pcre. -- 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 858998] wxsqlite3 - C++ wrapper around the SQLite 3.x database
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858998 --- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- wxsqlite3-3.0.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wxsqlite3-3.0.1-1.fc17 -- 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 772362] Review Request: sigil - Free, Open Source WYSIWYG ebook editor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772362 --- Comment #30 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #29) - Provides: bundled(libtidy) needed for bundled stuff is missing APPROVED, please fix the missing Provides before import Will do. And one more note - I would like to keep the condition for using the bundled PCRE as I will build the latest sigil packages for older Fedoras in my repo. For Fedora 16 and 17 we can provide sigil 0.5.3 as it doesn't depend on UTF-16 support in pcre. I was actually planning on keeping the condition for the bundled PCRE, and simply building with a bundled PCRE for F-16 and F-17, given that we've a fix for this bundling in the latest release I don't see this as an issue. I'll hold of with building for F-16 and F-17 till we've an agreement on how to deal with this. -- 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 872320] Review Request: maven-patch-plugin - Maven Patch Plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872320 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||879885 -- 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 872320] Review Request: maven-patch-plugin - Maven Patch Plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872320 Bug 872320 depends on bug 879885, which changed state. Bug 879885 Summary: antlr-tool: POM and depmap installed in wrong subpackage https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879885 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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 879397] Review Request: php-Slim - PHP micro framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879397 --- Comment #3 from Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be --- Here the new version: Spec URL: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/php-Slim/php-Slim.spec RPSM URL: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/php-Slim/php-Slim-2.1.0-3.fc17.src.rpm And the specfile's diff: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/php-Slim/2.1.0-2_2.1.0-3.diff -- 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 772362] Review Request: sigil - Free, Open Source WYSIWYG ebook editor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772362 Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #31 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sigil Short Description: Free, Open Source WYSIWYG ebook editor Owners: jwrdegoede sharkcz Branches: f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: -- 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 872320] Review Request: maven-patch-plugin - Maven Patch Plugin
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872320
--- Comment #4 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
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 Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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.
[x]: 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.
[!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[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 If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[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 Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[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 systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[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 Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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.
Java
[x]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no
[Bug 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763
--- Comment #4 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org ---
(In reply to comment #2)
* rpmlint complains about no-manual-page-for-binary, install-file-in-docs,
invalid-desktopfile, incorrect-fsf-address and macro-in-comment.
- macro-in-comment is because I commented the line where I validate the desktop
file. So when I update to 3.7.3 which has a valid desktop file, I'll uncomment
the line and rpmlint's warning will disappear.
- install-file-in-docs and invalid-desktopfile (Thanks Mathieu) have been
fixed upstream
Not doing anything for these then, I'll pick them up when updating once you
release 3.7.3 :)
X It should have a BR on gdk-pixbuf2-devel, not gdk-pixbuf2.
Fixed.
X Pedantically speaking it should have Provides: bundled(libgd). See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
- It must be noted that libgd is not meant to be installed as a system
wide shared library. It is just a way for GNOME applications to share
widgets and other common code on an ad-hoc basis.
Fixed.
X Files marked as %doc do not affect the runtime behaviour.
- You could consider marking %{_docdir}/%{name} as %doc
rpmbuild does that automatically :)
$ rpm -qp --docfiles gnome-photos-3.7.2-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/ARTISTS
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/AUTHORS
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/ChangeLog
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/INSTALL
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/NEWS
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/README
--
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 877763] Review Request: gnome-photos - Access, organize and share your photos on GNOME
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877763
--- Comment #5 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org ---
Sorry, I sent my previous comment too early (there seems to be a keyboard
shortcut which validates forms in Epiphany :-/ )
(In reply to comment #2)
* rpmlint complains about no-manual-page-for-binary, install-file-in-docs,
invalid-desktopfile, incorrect-fsf-address and macro-in-comment.
- macro-in-comment is because I commented the line where I validate the desktop
file. So when I update to 3.7.3 which has a valid desktop file, I'll uncomment
the line and rpmlint's warning will disappear.
- about incorrect-fsf-address, I'll send you a patch which fixes all the
addresses, so I'll pick that up in 3.7.3 too.
- install-file-in-docs and invalid-desktopfile (Thanks Mathieu) have been
fixed upstream
Not doing anything for these then, I'll pick them up when updating once you
release 3.7.3 :)
X It should have a BR on gdk-pixbuf2-devel, not gdk-pixbuf2.
Fixed.
X Pedantically speaking it should have Provides: bundled(libgd). See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
- It must be noted that libgd is not meant to be installed as a system
wide shared library. It is just a way for GNOME applications to share
widgets and other common code on an ad-hoc basis.
Fixed.
X Files marked as %doc do not affect the runtime behaviour.
- You could consider marking %{_docdir}/%{name} as %doc
rpmbuild does that automatically :)
$ rpm -qp --docfiles gnome-photos-3.7.2-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/ARTISTS
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/AUTHORS
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/ChangeLog
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/INSTALL
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/NEWS
/usr/share/doc/gnome-photos/README
Spec URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnome-photos.spec
SRPM URL:
http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnome-photos-3.7.2-2.fc18.src.rpm
--
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 879397] Review Request: php-Slim - PHP micro framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879397 --- Comment #4 from Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be --- Hum... I forget to remove phpunit.xml.dist from %doc... The new version: Spec URL: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/php-Slim/php-Slim.spec RPMS URL: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/php-Slim/php-Slim-2.1.0-4.fc17.src.rpm And the specfile's diff: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/php-Slim/2.1.0-3_2.1.0-4.diff -- 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 872320] Review Request: maven-patch-plugin - Maven Patch Plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872320 --- Comment #5 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se --- Thanks for fixing antlr, Running the tests on rawhide work now: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4725218 New version: Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/maven-patch-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/maven-patch-plugin-1.1.1-3.fc17.src.rpm Regarding the LICENSE file in the javadoc package - that was already there: $ rpm -qlp maven-patch-plugin-javadoc-1.1.1-2.fc17.noarch.rpm | grep LIC /usr/share/doc/maven-patch-plugin-javadoc-1.1.1/LICENSE -- 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 879903] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-armsoc - Xorg X11 armsocdrm driver
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879903 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||d...@danny.cz Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@danny.cz Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 872320] Review Request: maven-patch-plugin - Maven Patch Plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872320 --- Comment #6 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- The NOTICE file is still not installed with javadoc package. Once you do that I can approve the package. Installing this file is required to satisfy requirements of the Apache License [1]. Point 4(d) of the license says If the Work includes a NOTICE text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file. [1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt -- 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 879397] Review Request: php-Slim - PHP micro framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879397 --- Comment #5 from Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be --- I did not pay attention to a rpmlint issue on phpunit.xml.dist permissions. I've also removed the %if in %check that is not needeed. Here the new version: Spec URL: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/php-Slim/php-Slim.spec SRPM URL: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/php-Slim/php-Slim-2.1.0-5.fc17.src.rpm And the specfile's diff: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/php-Slim/2.1.0-4_2.1.0-5.diff -- 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 879397] Review Request: php-Slim - PHP micro framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879397 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- All blockers taken off, looks good. APPROVED -- 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 878653] Review Request: NetworkManager-l2tp - NetworkManager VPN plugin for l2tp
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653
--- Comment #3 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org ---
Hi Ivan.
There's still a bit of work needed for this package, so I'm not approving it at
the moment.
I summed up all the issues below, so you wouldn't have to hunt them down one by
one in the (long) output of fedora-review.
Most of the problems should be pretty quick to fix though, and after that the
package should be good to go. :)
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Summary of issues (details below) :
===
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
- The package drops a files in the following directory:
/usr/share/gnome-vpn-properties/
= Add a requirement on nm-connection-editor
[!]: If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the
packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this
mistake.
= Please notify upstream of the problem.
= You might want to consider adding the file yourself if upstream doesn't
add it:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- The following files are licensed under the LGPLv2+
auth-dialog/vpn-password-dialog.c
auth-dialog/vpn-password-dialog.h
= License tag should read: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
[!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
- Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
= See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
= See above for the /usr/share/gnome-vpn-properties/ folder
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
- I'm not sure about this one, but the package provides the following:
libnm-l2tp-properties.so()(64bit)
nm-l2tp-pppd-plugin.so()(64bit)
= These seem to be plugins for NetworkManager, shouldn't the Provides be
filtered out?
[!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
- There are scriptlets to update the desktop-database and the icon-cache, but
no corresponding files are installed. (in fact, they are commented out of
the %files section)
= If these files really shouldn't be installed, then remove the scriptlets.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
= You can fix that by running install as follows:
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL=/usr/bin/install -p
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
- Note:
%define nm_version 1:0.9.2
%define dbus_version 1.1
%define gtk3_version 3.0
%define ppp_version 2.4.5
%define shared_mime_version 0.16-3
= Replace all %define by %global
[!] Rpmlint is silent (or as silent as reasonable)
- NetworkManager-l2tp.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/doc/NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.6/ChangeLog
= You could remove this file, to please rpmlint.
- NetworkManager-l2tp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/dbus-1/system.d/nm-l2tp-service.conf
= This should be marked as %config, probably even %config(noreplace)
- NetworkManager-l2tp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/NetworkManager/VPN/nm-l2tp-service.name
= Ignore, this file is in /etc but IMHO they is not a config file.
- NetworkManager-l2tp.src:94: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
- NetworkManager-l2tp.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
= Instead of commenting them, maybe remove these two files?
- NetworkManager-l2tp.src:51: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1,
tab: line 51)
= Not extremely important, but would be nice to fix. :)
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each
[Bug 879397] Review Request: php-Slim - PHP micro framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879397 Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Johan Cwiklinski jo...@x-tnd.be --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-Slim Short Description: PHP micro framework Owners: trasher Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC: -- 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 872320] Review Request: maven-patch-plugin - Maven Patch Plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872320 --- Comment #7 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se --- New version: Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/maven-patch-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/maven-patch-plugin-1.1.1-4.fc17.src.rpm -- 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 879903] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-armsoc - Xorg X11 armsocdrm driver
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879903 --- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com --- Corrected git url SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/xorg-x11-drv-armsoc-0.5.1-2.fc18.src.rpm -- 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 872320] Review Request: maven-patch-plugin - Maven Patch Plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872320 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Approved. -- 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 787517] Review Request: dawati-artwork - Artwork for the Dawati UX
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787517 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-11-25 10:21:49 -- 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 879928] New: Review Request: rigsofrods - Vehicle simulator based on soft-body physics
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879928 Bug ID: 879928 Summary: Review Request: rigsofrods - Vehicle simulator based on soft-body physics Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: pa...@hubbitus.info Spec URL: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora17/rigsofrods/rigsofrods.spec SRPM URL: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora17/rigsofrods/rigsofrods-0.4.0.4-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Rigs of Rods is an open source vehicle simulator licensed under the GNU General Public License version 3. What makes Rigs of Rods different to most simulators is its unique soft-body physics: vehicles, machines, objects, etc. are simulated in real-time as flexible soft-body objects, giving the simulation an extremely accurate behavior which entirely depends on the physical construction of the vehicles or objects you create. Features - Soft-body physics. Objects according to their weight distribution, construction, and/or suspension (in the case of vehicles). - Advanced flight model based on blade element theory. It allows the accurate simulation of any airplane, based entirely on its physical dimensions and wing airfoils, similar to X-Plane. - Accurate buoyancy model based on elemental pressure gradients, enabling boats with complex hulls to move realistically in the swell. - Basic support for dual-core processing. More multithreading and CUDA support is planned. - Basic support for scripting using AngelScript. - Based on the OGRE Graphics Engine. Fedora Account System Username: hubbitus Please note it is not fully ready yet. Some dependencies follow. -- 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 788569] Review Request: libgda5 - Library for writing gnome database programs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788569 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2012-11-25 10:22:57 --- Comment #7 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com --- libgda was updated to 5.x instead as there weren't many deps and no remaining requirement for compatibility -- 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 836821] Review Request: libcec - Library for HDMI-CEC device control
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836821 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-11-25 10:26:53 -- 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 838608] Review Request: shim - first stage UEFI bootloader
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838608 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-25 10:27:21 -- 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 879928] Review Request: rigsofrods - Vehicle simulator based on soft-body physics
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879928 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady -- 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 879903] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-armsoc - Xorg X11 armsocdrm driver
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879903
--- Comment #2 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz ---
formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below:
OK* source files match upstream:
1a3782f990fe51db30b68de5cf52c46cac0928d1
xorg-x11-drv-armsoc-0.5.1.tar.bz2
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible (MIT). License text included in
package.
OK latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK compiler flags are appropriate.
OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
OK debuginfo package looks complete.
BAD rpmlint is silent.
OK final provides and requires look sane.
N/A %check is present and all tests pass.
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK no scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK no headers.
OK no pkgconfig files.
OK no libtool .la droppings.
OK not a GUI app.
- the URL should probably point to armsoc home (git) and not to X.org home
- git archive --format=tar --prefix=%{name}-%{version}/ %{version} | bzip2
~/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
is the correct command to recreate the archive
(s/%{gittag}-%{version}/%{version}/)
- rpmlint complains a bit - please fix the mixed tabs and spaces isue
--
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 872320] Review Request: maven-patch-plugin - Maven Patch Plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872320 Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se --- Many thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: maven-patch-plugin Short Description: Maven Patch Plugin Owners: ellert Branches: f17 f18 master InitialCC: java-sig -- 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 879931] New: Review Request: angelscript - AngelCode Scripting Library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879931 Bug ID: 879931 Summary: Review Request: angelscript - AngelCode Scripting Library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: pa...@hubbitus.info Spec URL: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora17/angelscript/angelscript.spec SRPM URL: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora17/angelscript/angelscript-2.22.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: The AngelScript library is a software library for easy integration of external scripting to applications, with built-in compiler and virtual machine. The scripting language is easily extendable to incorporate application specific datatypes and functions. It is designed with C++ in mind, as such it shares many features with C++, for example syntax and data types. Fedora Account System Username: hubbitus -- 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 879931] Review Request: angelscript - AngelCode Scripting Library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879931 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||879928 -- 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 879928] Review Request: rigsofrods - Vehicle simulator based on soft-body physics
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879928 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||879931 -- 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 879932] New: Review Request: SocketW - It is a streaming socket C++ library designed to be easy to use
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879932 Bug ID: 879932 Summary: Review Request: SocketW - It is a streaming socket C++ library designed to be easy to use Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: pa...@hubbitus.info Spec URL: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora17/SocketW/SocketW.spec SRPM URL: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora17/SocketW/SocketW-031026-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: It supports Unix sockets and TCP/IP sockets with optional SSL/TLS (OpenSSL) support. It allows you to write portable and secure network applications quickly without needing to spend time learning low-level system functions or reading OpenSSL manuals. Fedora Account System Username: hubbitus -- 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 879932] Review Request: SocketW - It is a streaming socket C++ library designed to be easy to use
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879932 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||879928 -- 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 879928] Review Request: rigsofrods - Vehicle simulator based on soft-body physics
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879928 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||879932 -- 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 879933] New: Review Request: caelum - Add-on for the 3D graphics rendering engine OGRE
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879933 Bug ID: 879933 Summary: Review Request: caelum - Add-on for the 3D graphics rendering engine OGRE Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: pa...@hubbitus.info Spec URL: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora17/caelum/caelum.spec SRPM URL: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora17/caelum/caelum-0.6.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Caelum is an add-on for the 3D graphics rendering engine OGRE, aimed to render atmospheric effects. Fedora Account System Username: hubbitus -- 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 879931] Review Request: angelscript - AngelCode Scripting Library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879931 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@danny.cz --- Comment #1 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz --- Hm, the spec looks like mine from http://fedora.danny.cz/danny/development/SRPMS/repoview/angelscript.html :-) If the app you are packaging needs an older version of angelscript I'd prefer to create 2 packages: angelscript that will follow the latest versions and angelscript2221 as a compat package with the required version. Otherwise the general requirement for packaging the latest version can't be fullfiled. -- 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 879933] Review Request: caelum - Add-on for the 3D graphics rendering engine OGRE
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879933 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||879928 -- 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 879928] Review Request: rigsofrods - Vehicle simulator based on soft-body physics
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879928 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||879933 -- 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 879931] Review Request: angelscript - AngelCode Scripting Library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879931 --- Comment #2 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz --- Sadly angelscript is another example where API/ABI stability in a library is not maintained in any way :-( -- 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 772362] Review Request: sigil - Free, Open Source WYSIWYG ebook editor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772362 --- Comment #32 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 872320] Review Request: maven-patch-plugin - Maven Patch Plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872320 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 879397] Review Request: php-Slim - PHP micro framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879397 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 772362] Review Request: sigil - Free, Open Source WYSIWYG ebook editor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772362 --- Comment #33 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz --- (In reply to comment #30) (In reply to comment #29) - Provides: bundled(libtidy) needed for bundled stuff is missing APPROVED, please fix the missing Provides before import Will do. And one more note - I would like to keep the condition for using the bundled PCRE as I will build the latest sigil packages for older Fedoras in my repo. For Fedora 16 and 17 we can provide sigil 0.5.3 as it doesn't depend on UTF-16 support in pcre. I was actually planning on keeping the condition for the bundled PCRE, and simply building with a bundled PCRE for F-16 and F-17, given that we've a fix for this bundling in the latest release I don't see this as an issue. I'll hold of with building for F-16 and F-17 till we've an agreement on how to deal with this. well, your option will make my life easier, so I agree with your plan :-) -- 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 872320] Review Request: maven-patch-plugin - Maven Patch Plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872320 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | -- 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 879749] Review Request: xs-activation - OLPC XS Activation Server
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879749
--- Comment #5 from Alex aadav...@learn.senecac.on.ca ---
(In reply to comment #4)
A few notes as part of the review :
1) Packager tag should not be used
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
2) I do not think %post should be kept, as people may not read it, and that
it doesn't help much. I think there is even a policy to say that %post
should be silent.
3)
%install
echo hello
#rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
pwd
ls
make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT PYTHON_SITELIB=%{python_sitelib} install
no need for echo, pwd, ls, as this is likely just for debugging.
4) having /library is forbidden in Fedora :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout
We cannot create arbitrary top level directory. So you should see with
upstream to change this.
5) the changelog entry should be more descriptive
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
( ie, explain what you changed before the previous version and this one
6) BuildArch: x86_64
Why limit to x86_64 ?
7) THis one is subtle.
%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/olpc-scripts/setup.d/*
If you install xs-activation, and remove it, as the directory
/etc/sysconfig/olpc-scripts/ is not listed in %files, it would not be
removed, and so this would be a leftover. We try to avoid that. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories for details
8)
BuildRequires: python-devel
you need to explin if this is python2 or python3
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires ( otherwise,
this may break the day we switch to python3, so we try to be proactive and
prevent the issue before it happens )
9)
Requires: bash
Requires: python
Bash is preinstalled, and I think python will be automatically detected (
ie, rpm will add the requires by itself )
10)
Requires: usbmount
usbmount is not in Fedora, so the package need to be added.
11)
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib())}
not sure if that's needed anymore, since all supported Fedora should already
have the macro defined
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros
12) the description is rather terse, and could IMHO be improved.
13) I think a better url would be http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XS-activation
Do not hesitate to contact me ( either misc, on irc.freenode.net ), or ask
question in this bug if there is something unclear.
thanks.
for the x86_64 I use this because I was to do a x86_64 or i386 build on the
package. I thought if noarch build was removed I will get an x86_64.
I made changes to the correction should I resubmit the review?
--
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 877403] Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877403 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brendan.jones...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|brendan.jones...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- I'll take this review on. -- 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 866156] Review Request: giada - audio looper for JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866156 Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ism...@olea.org -- 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 823338] Review Request: rubygem-moneta - unified interface for key/value stores
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823338 --- Comment #2 from Julian C. Dunn jd...@aquezada.com --- Since Jonas seems to no longer be working on these, I'm taking them over slowly. Here's my spec SRPM that I propose to use to undeprecate rubygem-moneta: can you please review: http://fedorapeople.org/~jdunn/rubygem-moneta/rubygem-moneta.spec http://fedorapeople.org/~jdunn/rubygem-moneta/rubygem-moneta-0.6.0-2.fc19.src.rpm Again, I'm only planning to support EPEL6, not EPEL5, in addition to the Fedoras. -- 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 866156] Review Request: giada - audio looper for JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866156 Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 877403] Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877403
--- Comment #9 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---
Rpmlint output. I'd remove the extraneous commented sections (why do you need
them?) Using %% for your macros in comments will supress this warning.
Also the devel-dependancy error.
svnkit.src:25: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
svnkit.src:25: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
svnkit.src:25: W: macro-in-comment %{versionr}
svnkit.src:25: W: macro-in-comment %{versionr}
svnkit.src:86: W: macro-in-comment %package
svnkit.src:86: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
svnkit.src:89: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
svnkit.src:89: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
svnkit.src:89: W: macro-in-comment %{release}
svnkit.src:92: W: macro-in-comment %description
svnkit.src:92: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
svnkit.src:144: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir}
svnkit.src:151: W: macro-in-comment %files
svnkit.src:151: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
svnkit.src:152: W: macro-in-comment %{install_loc}
svnkit.src:152: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
svnkit.src:153: W: macro-in-comment %doc
svnkit.noarch: E: devel-dependency java-devel
svnkit-cli.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Jsvn - Sven
svnkit-cli.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jsvn - Sven
svnkit-javahl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tigris - Tigris
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 20 warnings.
--
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 879953] New: Review Request: xs-config - XS/XSX default configuration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879953 Bug ID: 879953 Summary: Review Request: xs-config - XS/XSX default configuration Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Reporter: aadav...@learn.senecac.on.ca Spec URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/xs-config.spec SRPM URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/xs-config-0.7.0.46.g9b886c8-2.src.rpm Description: hey I just finished packaging up xs-config and i would appreciate a review so that I can get it into fedora extra. Fedora Account System Username:aadavis1 -- 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 879953] Review Request: xs-config - XS/XSX default configuration
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879953 --- Comment #1 from Alex aadav...@learn.senecac.on.ca --- the %files in the spec file has trouble keeping one file, it overwrites every time. -- 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 866188] Review Request: non-mixer - An audio mixer for JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866188 --- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- After having a first look at the sources, I read this: Notes to packagers: Non-Mixer, Non-DAW, and Non-Session-Manager, although stored in the same repository, are completely independent programs which can be built and packaged separately by descending into their respective sub-directories. What about Non-DAW and Non-Session-Manager? Are you planning to package them separately? Or maybe you don't see any benefit of this extra stuff? -- 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 879954] New: Review Request: rssh - Restricted shell for use with OpenSSH, allowing only scp and/or sftp
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879954 Bug ID: 879954 Summary: Review Request: rssh - Restricted shell for use with OpenSSH, allowing only scp and/or sftp Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Reporter: aadav...@learn.senecac.on.ca Spec URL: http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/rssh.spec SRPM URL:http://matrix.senecac.on.ca/~aadavis1/packaging/rssh-2.3.3-3.fc17.src.rpm Description: hi I just finish packaging up rssh and I would appreciate a review so that I can get into fedora extras. Fedora Account System Username:aadavis1 -- 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 868666] Review Request: paris-traceroute - A network diagnosis and measurement tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868666 Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: paris-traceroute Short Description: A network diagnosis and measurement tool Owners: fab Branches: F17 F18 InitialCC: -- 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 879397] Review Request: php-Slim - PHP micro framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879397 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- 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 879397] Review Request: php-Slim - PHP micro framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879397 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-Slim-2.1.0-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-Slim-2.1.0-5.fc17 -- 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 879397] Review Request: php-Slim - PHP micro framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879397 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-Slim-2.1.0-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-Slim-2.1.0-5.el6 -- 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 866188] Review Request: non-mixer - An audio mixer for JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866188 --- Comment #7 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Good question. Non-session-manager is already packaged, the sequencer is up for review by someone else but is in stasis and non-mixer is also packaged. Upstream do not release source tarballs at all (and there's no indication that this is planned). Upstream seems to change rather rapidly so it makes sense to package things separately at this stage as I've set out to do. Recently upstream has also forked FLTK (NTK) which soon will be required by all packages but it is not in a releaseable state. Later it may very well make more sense to obsolete all of these and build them from a single source tar ball, but we lose the ability to isolate separate rpograms to source snapshots. -- 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 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717
Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|volke...@gmx.at
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
I'm not sure if anything could be gained by removing the unused dependencies on
shared libraries; See below!
tvdb_export.h claims LGPLv2+, which surprises me, in the face of the KDE
exception. I suggest to inform upstream, if you agree that this finding is
strange.
Besides that, this package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
Also builds on PPC and PPC64
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
devel
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: 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.
Upstream doesn't include it, packager informed upstream.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license^
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL, LGPL (v2 or later). 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/media/speicher1/makerpm/rpmbuild/SPECS/868717-libtvdb/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
See above!
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[Bug 878653] Review Request: NetworkManager-l2tp - NetworkManager VPN plugin for l2tp
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878653 --- Comment #4 from Ivan Romanov dr...@land.ru --- This errors came from NetworkManager-pptp package. Do I should to inform the NetworkManager-pptp maintainer about it? -- 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 877403] Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877403 --- Comment #10 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org --- G: The src was a wrong one. Please get this http://olea.org//tmp/omegat-fedora-feature/svnkit-1.7.5-5.olea.src.rpm Don't worry about the olea suffix, it's not in the spec. The issue with the commented macros is explained bc this is a revived dead package and while I didn't checked the commented bits, they are not relevant for my OmegaT support goals, I want them to be easely recovered when someone take interest on them. -- 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 866188] Review Request: non-mixer - An audio mixer for JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866188 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Alias||non-mixer Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #7) Later it may very well make more sense to obsolete all of these and build them from a single source tar ball, but we lose the ability to isolate separate rpograms to source snapshots. Let's do so. It doesn't matter if we release multiple programs from the same source tarball but from different srpms, as long as we are able to keep them compatible. Taking this for a full review. -- 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 873643] Review Request: php-pecl-uuid - Universally Unique Identifier extension for PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873643 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-pecl-uuid-1.0.3-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- 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 873643] Review Request: php-pecl-uuid - Universally Unique Identifier extension for PHP
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873643 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- 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 859504] Review Request: php-xcache - Fast, stable PHP opcode cacher
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859504 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- 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 859504] Review Request: php-xcache - Fast, stable PHP opcode cacher
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859504 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-xcache-3.0.0-1.el6.1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- 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 879016] Review Request: phpMemcachedAdmin - Administration for memcached
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879016 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- phpMemcachedAdmin-1.2.2-5.svn262.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- 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 879016] Review Request: phpMemcachedAdmin - Administration for memcached
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879016 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- 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 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- The KDE e.V. as proxy clause is only something KDE offers as an option to its developers, not a requirements, it's fine by KDE licensing policies to just use v2+, and it's not a problem to have some stuff under v2+ and other stuff under v2 or v3 or whatever KDE e.V. approves because there is a nonempty intersection: in fact, the former is a superset of the latter, so the latter is also the intersection. -- 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 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 --- Comment #9 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- I suspect that the tvdb_export.h file is based on one of the many other *_export.h files in KDE code, it's standard boilerplate code, so it makes sense for it to be licensed as liberally as possible. -- 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 866188] Review Request: non-mixer - An audio mixer for JACK
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866188
--- Comment #9 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4725613
$ rpmlint -i -v *
non-mixer.src: I: checking
non-mixer.src: I: checking-url http://non.tuxfamily.org/nsm (timeout 10
seconds)
non-mixer.src: W: invalid-url Source0: non-daw-20121013-git61addce.tar.bz2
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
non-mixer.i686: I: checking
non-mixer.i686: I: checking-url http://non.tuxfamily.org/nsm (timeout 10
seconds)
non-mixer.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/non-mixer-1.0.0/COPYING
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
non-mixer.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary non-mixer
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
non-mixer.x86_64: I: checking
non-mixer.x86_64: I: checking-url http://non.tuxfamily.org/nsm (timeout 10
seconds)
non-mixer.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/non-mixer-1.0.0/COPYING
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
non-mixer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary non-mixer
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
non-mixer-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
non-mixer-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://non.tuxfamily.org/nsm (timeout
10 seconds)
non-mixer-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/non-daw-20121013/FL/FL/New_Project_Dialog.H
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
non-mixer-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/non-daw-20121013/FL/FL/New_Project_Dialog.C
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
non-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
non-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://non.tuxfamily.org/nsm
(timeout 10 seconds)
non-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/non-daw-20121013/FL/FL/New_Project_Dialog.H
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
non-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/non-daw-20121013/FL/FL/New_Project_Dialog.C
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
non-mixer.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: non-daw-20121013-git61addce.tar.bz2
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 4 warnings.
Incorrect fsf addresses don't matter. However, as already mentioned by Volker,
you could patch the sources (not the license file itself) to make rpmlint
somewhat happier, but in my mind it isn't worth the effort.
The other issues (no source url, no manpages) can be ignored.
git://git.tuxfamily.org/gitroot/non/daw.git
is not available. There are fltk.git and non.git. Moreover, the Git revisions
in your spec file don't match:
Release:0.3.gitae6b78cf%{?dist}
Source0:non-daw-20121013-git61addce.tar.bz2
--
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 866188] Review Request: non-mixer - An audio mixer for JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866188 --- Comment #10 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the effort Mario. You've got me thinking. I think I will generate the other programs from a single source, probably the non-daw package which is already in Fedora, and retire non-session-manager - but not right now. Sorry to waste your time. I think we can close off this review. -- 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 879932] Review Request: SocketW - It is a streaming socket C++ library designed to be easy to use
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879932 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Add the isa macro in the devel sub-package -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package The build doesn't respect Fedora's compiler flags. As a consequence: SocketW-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/SocketW-031026/README SocketW.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSocketW.so.0.031026 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 -- Please inform upstream! Remove %defattr(-,root,root) Consider to add the Todo file, the examples and the docs directory. I'd personally drop the It is a from the summary. Patch1 should have an upstream ticket, I think. -- 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 866188] Review Request: non-mixer - An audio mixer for JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866188 Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|805236 (FedoraAudio)| Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Assignee|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co |nob...@fedoraproject.org |m | Flags|fedora-review? | Last Closed||2012-11-25 14:21:56 --- Comment #11 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- OK, I roll back my changes and close this report now. Ping me once you have a new package to review. -- 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 879397] Review Request: php-Slim - PHP micro framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879397 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-Slim-2.1.0-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-Slim-2.1.0-5.fc18 -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-libarchive-3.0.4-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- 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 869861] Review Request: pam_openshift - Openshift PAM module
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869861 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- 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 869861] Review Request: pam_openshift - Openshift PAM module
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869861 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- pam_openshift-1.1.2-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- 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 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- 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 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- harmonyseq-0.16-9.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- 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 878680] Review Request: perl-UUID-Tiny - Pure Perl UUID Support With Functional Interface
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878680 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-UUID-Tiny-1.03-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- 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 878680] Review Request: perl-UUID-Tiny - Pure Perl UUID Support With Functional Interface
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878680 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- 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 878245] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Numbers - Turn 407 into four hundred and seven, etc
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878245 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- 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 878245] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Numbers - Turn 407 into four hundred and seven, etc
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878245 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Lingua-EN-Numbers-1.04-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- 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 876409] Review Request: perl-Growl-GNTP - Perl implementation of GNTP Protocol (Client Part)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876409 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- 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 876409] Review Request: perl-Growl-GNTP - Perl implementation of GNTP Protocol (Client Part)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876409 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Growl-GNTP-0.15-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- 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 872320] Review Request: maven-patch-plugin - Maven Patch Plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872320 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 872320] Review Request: maven-patch-plugin - Maven Patch Plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872320 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- maven-patch-plugin-1.1.1-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/maven-patch-plugin-1.1.1-4.fc17 -- 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 872320] Review Request: maven-patch-plugin - Maven Patch Plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872320 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- maven-patch-plugin-1.1.1-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/maven-patch-plugin-1.1.1-4.fc18 -- 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 879933] Review Request: caelum - Add-on for the 3D graphics rendering engine OGRE
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879933 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- The build fails for me: -- Looking for C++ include OIS.h - not found could not find the OIS includes. Please install them. Not sure if this is the cause though. ?_isa (See SocketW comment!) /usr has a macro I think it should be enough to include lgpl.txt. Requires: pkgconfig should be in the section of the devel package and possibly as BR BR cmake Is this really a system wide library or rather a private one? -- 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
