[Bug 920929] New: Review Request: nodejs-chownr - Recursively change UNIX permissions
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920929 Bug ID: 920929 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-chownr - Recursively change UNIX permissions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: tchollingswo...@gmail.com Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-chmodr.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-chmodr-0.1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm FAS Username: patches Description: Recursively change UNIX permissions, like `chmod -R`. This is blocking an update to npm and the stable 0.10.0 release of Node.js. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=18ya1vzUl4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920929] Review Request: nodejs-chownr - Recursively change UNIX permissions
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920929 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||905256 (F19FeatureNodeJS), ||920926 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yLv4erxbPxa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920929] Review Request: nodejs-chmodr - Recursively change UNIX permissions
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920929 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |nodejs-chownr - Recursively |nodejs-chmodr - Recursively |change UNIX permissions |change UNIX permissions -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JbhwLrtAYna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919460] Review Request: devassistant - Developer tool for setting up projects quickly
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919460 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-03-13 02:28:50 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dVVFyOKpmsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920929] Review Request: nodejs-chmodr - Recursively change UNIX permissions
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920929 --- Comment #1 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-chmodr.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-chmodr-0.1.0-2.fc18.src.rpm * Wed Mar 13 2013 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com - 0.1.0-2 - fix License tag -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ro33amV6fAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920929] Review Request: nodejs-chmodr - Recursively change UNIX permissions
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920929 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jamieli...@fedoraproject.or ||g Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SYBA6nsXKwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920929] Review Request: nodejs-chmodr - Recursively change UNIX permissions
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920929
Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Looks fine, package approved!
= MUST items =
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 contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[Bug 895077] Review Request: python-docopt - Pythonic argument parser, that will make you smile
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895077 Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-03-13 02:58:18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=goVQuNOaqwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920929] Review Request: nodejs-chmodr - Recursively change UNIX permissions
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920929 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-chmodr Short Description: Recursively change UNIX permissions Owners: patches Branches: f19 f18 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7wjeDoiPkba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 917365] Review Request: ibus-bogo - Vietnamese engine for IBus input platform
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917365 --- Comment #2 from Truong Anh Tuan tua...@iwayvietnam.com --- Update the latest version to fix the release number to suitable with upstream one and fix some important bugs. The package for review now here: Spec URL: http://tuanta.fedorapeople.org/ibus-bogo/ibus-bogo.spec SRPM URL: http://tuanta.fedorapeople.org/ibus-bogo/ibus-bogo-0-2.9.a564b30.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=i4pEKL8Mvaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919265] Review Request: Bijiben - Note taking app
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919265
Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boche...@fedoraproject.org
Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)
--- Comment #2 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org ---
I'm not a sponsor, so I can't accept your package, but I want to use your
application in Fedora so I'll start the review, hopefully to speed up the
inclusion. :)
There are many problems with your package, but most of them are trivial to fix.
I am a bit perplexed by the licensing of Bijiben, so I'm blocking FE-LEGAL, but
I don't think there is any major problem, I'm just not sure what value to use
for the License tag.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: gtk-update-icon-cache is not invoked
= See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
[!]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
= See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop
= The desktop file is installed by the Makefile, so you could use
%install
[... snip ...]
desktop-file-validate
%{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
= See details below
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
= Package bundles libgd. I believe this is fine given the nature of
libgd, but you must add:
Provides: bundled(libgd)
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
= I'm fairly confident that you will not build this package in an old
EPEL, so please remove the clean section.
[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
= Shouldn't %{_datadir}/help/C/%{name} be marked as %doc?
[!]: The spec file handles locales properly.
= See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
= Package drops a file in %{_datadir}/gnome-shell/search-providers/
This folder is owned by gnome-shell, but adding a requirement on it
would be bad for people who want to use the application in other
desktops. Please have bijiben own the folder.
= Package drops a file in %{_libdir}/%{name}. Please own this folder.
[!]: Uses parallel make.
= Use make %{?_smp_mflags}
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
Note: %define url_ver %(echo %{version}|cut -d. -f1,2)
= Use %global instead
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
= Looking at gnome-photos, it neither provides not requires 'libgd.so()'
It also doesn't even install it at all. Shouldn't you be doing the
same thing?
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
= Please pass INSTALL=/usr/bin/install -p to the make install command
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
= See details below
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
= Package bundles libgd. I believe this is fine given the nature of
libgd, but you must add:
Provides: bundled(libgd)
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
= Note that many people prefer leaving an empty line between changelog
entries, as it makes the whole thing more readable. This is purely a
matter of preference though, not a blocker.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
= I'm fairly confident that you will not build this package in an old
EPEL, so please remove this line.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for
[Bug 916508] Review Request: npth - The New GNU Portable Threads library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916508 Milan Bartos mbar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Milan Bartos mbar...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: npth New Branches: f19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3uY9uPt8Jfa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 883104] Review Request: idle3-tools - Manipulate the value of the idle3 timer found on recent WD Hard Disk Drives
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883104
Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #6)
... why bump the spec? we're not released/built yet.
It is sort of good practice to help keep track of changes during package review
process. :)
Anyway, now your package is ready to go, good job. Full review follows.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/lorenzodalrio/workspace/reviews/review-idle3-tools/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]:
[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605 Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com Flags|needinfo? | Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com --- I will review your package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=piwO7m8uNra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 894269] Review Request: maven-downloader - Maven artifact downloader
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894269 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-03-13 05:07:48 --- Comment #5 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Built for F19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=382873 Closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oBufrJcNPna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 895536] Review Request: maven-repository-builder - Maven repository builder
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895536 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||mizde...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-03-13 05:08:52 --- Comment #7 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Built for F19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=388192 Closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DWgreAaeDLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892625] Review Request: resiprocate - SIP reference implementation, SIP proxy, TURN server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892625 Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(lemen...@gmail.co ||m) --- Comment #6 from Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au --- Peter, could you please add the comments you submitted over chat? Do you think this package is potentially ready (or close to being ready) for F19? WebRTC (actually, SIP over WebSockets) support is also coming in the next release, 1.9.0 most likely, but it could be a couple of months away. That is a real game-changer, but it may be too late for F19. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mR7ZLQEOhQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919265] Review Request: Bijiben - Note taking app
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919265 --- Comment #3 from Pierre-Yves Luyten p...@luyten.fr --- Hello Matthieu, thanks much for the review (sorry there was all these little things..). I will submit soon new SPEC and SRPM soon for the technical parts. Concerning the license : yes, some of the code comes from other applications. I believe i should keep different copyright holders / authors depending on where the initial code comes from. So it's not a wrong copy paste, but I can add me if that's better. To simplify things * for GPLv2+ i should just choose GPLv3+. * for the LGPLv2+ / [LGPLv2 or LGPLv3] distinction : = first idea, keep files and have package choose LGPLv2 keeping libgd submodule as it is, LGPLv2+, seems important. Can't we choose LGPLv2 for the package without touching the source files? = other idea, change files have LGPLv2+ For the files coming from evolution, I can ask the author to authorize moving files in libbiji to LGPLv2+, or I can rewrite things myself using LGPLv2+. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tbOrpGKplXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 918801] Review Request: schroedinger-cat-backgrounds - Schrödinger's Cat desktop backgrounds
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=918801 Martin Sourada martin.sour...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-03-13 06:01:27 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4xG8HP89NHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915144] Review Request: rasmol - Molecular Graphics Visualization Tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915144 --- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- update-desktop-database is not required. Both main and -gtk subpackage call update-desktop-database as both of them have .desktop files. That's contradictory. So, you run the tool although that's not required? That's harmless, but superfluous. qt package check paths in the same way. So it looks to be safe. Qt does it to adjust install paths. You do it to patch a header file that influences compilation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CHYzdNJvMra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838780] Review Request: ghc-shakespeare-text - Interpolation with quasi-quotation
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838780 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|Ready | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uRmFqzDGR1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920174] Review Request: ghc-geniplate - Use template Haskell to generate Uniplate-like functions
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920174 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||Ready -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iqHnCeVlFDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920022] Review Request: ghc-xml-types - Basic types for representing XML
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920022 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||Ready -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=prvjVNORYoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919851] Review Request: ghc-IfElse - Anaphoric and miscellaneous useful control-flow
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919851 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||Ready -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KV7et4rMTSa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916553] Review Request: ghc-setenv - Cross-platform library for setting environment variables
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916553 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||Ready -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xbFscFWPfGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919469] Review request: mate-applet-softupd - MATE Software Update Applet
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919469 --- Comment #12 from Patrick Monnerat p...@datasphere.ch --- I can't tell whether Patrick should patch my RPM file or keep an entirely new one; to me, Fedora seems too cutting-edge in terms of spec files (e.g., I don't want to lose, in general, the ability to build on/for RHEL - or cut off things which will work on other RPM-based distros), so I guess it is better for the package maintainer to decide. That's my idea too, and that's why the misc patch only change things in the included spec file that are applicable to generic rpmbuilds. I maintain a Fedora spec file separately and do not force it into the project. The original misc patch was primarily made for upstream and it was (originally) quicker and simpler to include it as is in the Fedora build since it is a superset of the needed fixes. I'm perfectly aware that changing the tarball spec file has no impact on the Fedora package. I've now implemented the needed changes into 2 patches: badvarset to fix configure.ac. morefrench to add the translated string. SPEC URL: http://monnerat.fedorapeople.org/mate-applet-softupd.spec SRPM URL: http://monnerat.fedorapeople.org/mate-applet-softupd-0.2.5-3.fc18.src.rpm @Assen: many thanks for your participation :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EF6DkN28kya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605
--- Comment #3 from Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com ---
Hi Steve,
your package is almost ok, please add BuildRequire: python-devel
to meet python packaging guidelines. [1]
Full review follows.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
= MUST items =
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 contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/lorenzodalrio/workspace/reviews/NFStest/913605-NFStest/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI
[Bug 839301] Package Rename Review Request: python-django-evolution - Schema evolution for Django
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839301 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-django-evolution New Branches: el6 Owners: sgallagh, diegobz InitialCC: Migrating from django-evolution to python-django-evolution on EL6 to make maintenance simpler. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ECYHNd2AFNa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839301] Package Rename Review Request: python-django-evolution - Schema evolution for Django
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839301 --- Comment #9 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XG3CkUT5uza=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 916508] Review Request: npth - The New GNU Portable Threads library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916508 --- Comment #18 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HNwXvBFu81a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919265] Review Request: Bijiben - Note taking app
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919265 --- Comment #4 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to comment #3) Hello Matthieu, Only one t. ;) thanks much for the review (sorry there was all these little things..). No worries, the purpose of the review is also to learn about these things. :) Concerning the license : yes, some of the code comes from other applications. I believe i should keep different copyright holders / authors depending on where the initial code comes from. So it's not a wrong copy paste, but I can add me if that's better. I see. You probably add yourself to every file you have modified anyway. To simplify things * for GPLv2+ i should just choose GPLv3+. Indeed, you can do that, which simplifies the resulting License tag. * for the LGPLv2+ / [LGPLv2 or LGPLv3] distinction : = first idea, keep files and have package choose LGPLv2 keeping libgd submodule as it is, LGPLv2+, seems important. Can't we choose LGPLv2 for the package without touching the source files? libgd's license is LGPLv2+ The license of the files coming from Evolution is LGPLv2 or LGPLv3. The result of these two parts is (if I'm not mistaken) LGPLv2+ and (LGPLv2 or LGPLv3). It is under **both** these licenses (and), not either or. So the License tag for the total package would be: License: GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and (LGPLv2 or LGPLv3) If you decide to make the GPLv2+ files into GPLv3+ (as mentioned above), then the License tag for the package becomes: License: GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+ and (LGPLv2 or LGPLv3) I don't think you can get any simpler than that at the moment. In any case, libgd will go away at some point in the future, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. = other idea, change files have LGPLv2+ For the files coming from evolution, I can ask the author to authorize moving files in libbiji to LGPLv2+, or I can rewrite things myself using LGPLv2+. Maybe. - All in all, the above is my interpretation, and I'd prefer having the legal folks confirm what is the appropriate License tag to use here. One thing I might not have made clear: even if I'm right in my first comment and the License tag ends as complicated as I suggested, I don't think that it is a legal issue, as all these licenses are (I believe) perfectly compatible with each other. My comment in the review was simply that the License tag you used (GPLv2+) is wrong, and it should be set to (I think) what I suggested above. Unless I'm completely wrong on this and the legal folks say that there is a fundamental problem with these licenses, that very complex License tag would be perfectly acceptable. All I reported was that your current License tag doesn't match what is actually in the package. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0HU3kh2nM3a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919469] Review request: mate-applet-softupd - MATE Software Update Applet
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919469
Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de ---
APPROVED !
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later). 1 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rave/919469-mate-applet-
softupd/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked when required
Note: icons in mate-applet-softupd
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[Bug 917162] Review Request: salt-cloud - Generic cloud provisioning tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917162 --- Comment #3 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pe9jiLkrdCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920929] Review Request: nodejs-chmodr - Recursively change UNIX permissions
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920929 --- Comment #4 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cm3DiHrfVwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915144] Review Request: rasmol - Molecular Graphics Visualization Tool
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915144 --- Comment #14 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich kr...@land.ru --- Spec URL: http://krege.fedorapeople.org/rasmol/rasmol.spec SRPM URL: http://krege.fedorapeople.org/rasmol/rasmol-2.7.5-6.fc18.src.rpm (In reply to comment #13) update-desktop-database is not required. Both main and -gtk subpackage call update-desktop-database as both of them have .desktop files. That's contradictory. So, you run the tool although that's not required? That's harmless, but superfluous. Oh. What a... Hm. Shame for me. It is only now when I understand what you both talking about. Sorry. Sure, it is not required and they are removed. qt package check paths in the same way. So it looks to be safe. Qt does it to adjust install paths. You do it to patch a header file that influences compilation. But the check itself for paths looks to be the same. Anyway, are there better ideas? * Thu Mar 13 2013 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich kr...@land.ru 2.7.5-6 - Remove update-desktop-database from post and postun scripts as .desktop files do not contain MimeType key. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hflC941xeWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919265] Review Request: Bijiben - Note taking app
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919265 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mcla...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com --- Hey Mathieu, I can sponsor Pierre-Yves; thanks for getting the package review started anyway. If you want to continue that would be fantastic. I'll look over what you've found so far -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OuR3tZzEIDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919265] Review Request: Bijiben - Note taking app
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919265 --- Comment #6 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com --- Wrt to libgd - that is not actually a separately installable library, just a git module that is being shared by a number of new GNOME applications, while the code is getting ready for eventual gtk inclusion. In any case, bijiben should not install it, but link against it statically. Pierre-Yves: you should add static to your LIBGD incantation in configure.ac -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=v6smnG1cVHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919265] Review Request: Bijiben - Note taking app
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919265
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com ---
wrt:
= Shouldn't %{_datadir}/help/C/%{name} be marked as %doc?
%find_lang does this for you if you use --with-gnome
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LejW1dy8Yfa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 903246] Review Request: cpopen - Creates a subprocess in simpler safer manner
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=903246 --- Comment #4 from Yaniv Bronhaim bronh...@gmail.com --- Updated: http://bronhaim.fedorapeople.org/python-cpopen.spec http://bronhaim.fedorapeople.org/python-cpopen-1.2-1.fc17.src.rpm rpmlint -i python-cpopen.spec :) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. renamed createprocess to cpopen-createprocess -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=v9Ir03c8jta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902025] Review Request: pybugz - command line interface to bugzilla
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902025 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jQDh3uHraIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902025] Review Request: pybugz - command line interface to bugzilla
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902025 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- pybugz-0.10-4.git683dd.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pybugz-0.10-4.git683dd.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0UPcddFTaxa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902025] Review Request: pybugz - command line interface to bugzilla
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902025 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- pybugz-0.10-4.git683dd.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pybugz-0.10-4.git683dd.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qrqAfXuZvHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902025] Review Request: pybugz - command line interface to bugzilla
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902025 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- pybugz-0.10-4.git683dd.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pybugz-0.10-4.git683dd.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eDYauMyFeja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920387] Review Request: heat-cfntools - Instance tools for Heat provisioned instances
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920387 Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com --- Fine. Per comment #4, reviewed and pkg approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zVcb2UZFoya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902025] Review Request: pybugz - command line interface to bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902025
Pavel Raiskup prais...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2013-03-13 09:39:26
--- Comment #19 from Pavel Raiskup prais...@redhat.com ---
Thanks for all your help Scott, I reverted my downstream changes and edited the
manpage/code a little to allow users more easily adopt pybugs to Red Hat
bugzilla. I'll update the package once something is pushed upstream.
I created the {f17,f18,el6} updates already ~ closing NEXTRELEASE according to
PG.
Pavel
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BaXOFsGxlHa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915144] Review Request: rasmol - Molecular Graphics Visualization Tool
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915144
--- Comment #15 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
How about evaluating %__isa_bits instead?
%if %{?__isa_bits} == 64
# ...
%else
# ...
%endif
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=k9lAXRpoiJa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 836840] Review Request: gtkradiant - level design program for videogames
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836840 Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hdego...@redhat.com --- Comment #13 from Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com --- Hi All, Bebo has send a mail about this package to the Fedora-games mailinglist I think it is useful to reproduce my reply to his mail here: I've taken a quick look at your gtkradiant packages, but as already indicated by both Jason and Michael in this bug, your package as is, is no good. I'm sorry to say so, but it is no good at all. You cannot create package for a FOSS distro such as Fedora by using precompiled binaries from upstream and putting those in an rpm. If you look at other spec files in Fedora you will see they all start with the C source code, then compile and install this, ie: %build %configure make %install make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT Rather then using prebuild binaries, using prebuild binaries simple is not acceptable within Fedora. So what you need to do is get the sources and use those as Source0, since the sources are on github, and they're not tagging releases just take a git-snapshot .zip file as Source0 by clicking on the zip button here: https://github.com/TTimo/GtkRadiant This means that your Source0 won't have a url and rpmlint will complain, but that is ok. Simple add a comment above the Source0 tag to explain where the sources come from. But I see that gtkradiant also uses scons as a buildsystem, which is a pain to work with. Since you're new to packaging it would likely be better to choose a different package as your first Fedora packages. Sorry I could not be more helpful. Regards, Hans -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cTMEFbNj71a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908088] Review Request: ascend - ASCEND modelling environment
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088 Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||920518 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=r2k7CbqXBea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920518] Review Request: metis - Serial Graph Partitioning and Fill-reducing Matrix Ordering
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920518 Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||908088 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SfGWNXTJnqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 908088] Review Request: ascend - ASCEND modelling environment
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908088 --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande trp...@katamail.com --- doc sub-package changed to noarch. Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ascend/ascend-0.9.8-4.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AcilsSn5xwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 913130] Review request: libgovirt - C library to use oVirt REST API
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913130 Daniel Berrange berra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Daniel Berrange berra...@redhat.com --- Diff of spec file looks good. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MdxBKRQU6ia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902024] Review Request: gdk-pixbuf-psd - GdkPixbuf loader for the PSD file format
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902024
--- Comment #7 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[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 %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Requires(post): gdk-pixbuf2 is available for post install scriplet but could be
removed then. The library dependencies requires the gdk-pixbuf2 that will owns
the needed directories.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or
generated. 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/mockbuilder/902024-gdk-pixbuf-psd/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
I would suggest to use this in order not to hardcode the version in the path
for the files section:
%global gdk_pixbuf_binarydir %(pkg-config gdk-pixbuf-2.0
--variable=gdk_pixbuf_binarydir)
[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.
[x]: 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]: 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 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball
[Bug 868266] Review Request: pyglet - A cross-platform windowing and multimedia library for Python
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868266 --- Comment #7 from Petr Viktorin pvikt...@redhat.com --- Not likely, the fork uses pyglet's modules. Looking at them again, though, they are mostly efforts to port to Python 3. Given that pypng upstream supports Python 3, it might be possible to use the upstream version after all. I'll test while waiting on pypng to clear the licensing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LPiFCezYAJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919590] Review Request: python-tftpy - TFTP module for Python
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919590 Jeff Bastian jbast...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Jeff Bastian jbast...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-tftpy Short Description: TFTPy is a pure Python implementation of the Trivial FTP protocol Owners: jbastian Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9zRwgkaipUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ 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 Bug 879928 depends on bug 873353, which changed state. Bug 873353 Summary: Ogre 1.8 and packaging lags https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873353 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vFEM7EHohna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 921207] New: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-ElasticSearch - Horde ElasticSearch client
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921207 Bug ID: 921207 Summary: Review Request: php-horde-Horde-ElasticSearch - Horde ElasticSearch client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/8b24534a55b53a2d0728a9ef002e7ec79a9dbb40/php/horde/php-horde-Horde-ElasticSearch/php-horde-Horde-ElasticSearch.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-horde-Horde-ElasticSearch-1.0.2-1.remi.src.rpm Description: Lightweight API for ElasticSearch (http://www.elasticsearch.org/). Fedora Account System Username: remi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=41g9lCvILBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 921207] Review Request: php-horde-Horde-ElasticSearch - Horde ElasticSearch client
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921207 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||n...@fedoraproject.org Alias||Horde_ElasticSearch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rlsPWarcAda=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771254] Review Request: libva-vdpau-driver - HW video decode support for VDPAU platforms
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771254 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #22 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: libva-vdpau-driver New Branches: f19 Owners: kwizart InitialCC: Sorry, I should have requested a f19 branch also -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bMvxMNDIlva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 769487] Review Request: python-glumpy - Small python library for rapid visualization of numpy arrays
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769487 --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com --- Sorry for such long review. The last time I tried to runtime test this, I've experienced a very bad crash. I can test it with nvidia and intel hardware. Is there any spec update ? (this seems the last upstream version). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GkxyBssOwTa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919590] Review Request: python-tftpy - TFTP module for Python
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919590 --- Comment #6 from Jeff Bastian jbast...@redhat.com --- I see python-tftpy is already in git, but it is retired. Maybe it just needs to be un-retired for Fedora 18? http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-tftpy.git/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IO6blQuqCqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 771254] Review Request: libva-vdpau-driver - HW video decode support for VDPAU platforms
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771254 --- Comment #23 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Qw4z19OXqna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919590] Review Request: python-tftpy - TFTP module for Python
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919590 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Un-retired for devel, file a Package Change request for f19, f18, etc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PMGZdC3cOma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919590] Review Request: python-tftpy - TFTP module for Python
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919590 Jeff Bastian jbast...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Jeff Bastian jbast...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-tftpy New Branches: f18 f19 Owners: jbastian -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JNJvyBzFuua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919590] Review Request: python-tftpy - TFTP module for Python
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919590 --- Comment #9 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nbjYT8IlRea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 --- Comment #13 from Alex G. mr.nuke...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libsigrok Short Description: Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers Owners: mrnuke Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC: mrnuke -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BqohVrfQXda=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 Alex G. mr.nuke...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DX3riLuCNba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 865976] Review Request: libsigrok - Basic hardware access drivers for logic analyzers
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865976 --- Comment #14 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FNK7fhrFYOa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919590] Review Request: python-tftpy - TFTP module for Python
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919590 --- Comment #10 from Jeff Bastian jbast...@redhat.com --- I'm waiting for the package to be unblocked before I can build. https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5531 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6g3redd1mja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest++.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007 François Cami f...@fcami.net changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #11 from François Cami f...@fcami.net --- As Luke is not a packager yet, his review is non binding. Lifting NotReady keyword. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CvUnryOYYba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 921264] New: Review Request: weatherspect - ASCII art simulation of current weather
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921264 Bug ID: 921264 Summary: Review Request: weatherspect - ASCII art simulation of current weather Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: jruzi...@redhat.com Spec URL: http://srck.cz/pkg/weatherspect/weatherspect.spec SRPM URL: http://srck.cz/pkg/weatherspect/weatherspect-1.11-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: WeatherSpect provides a reasonably accurate simulation of what the weather looks like outside, in ASCII art. Fedora Account System Username: jruzicka -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TpKhbp0yA1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907261] Review Request: poly2tri - A 2D constrained Delaunay triangulation library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907261 --- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/poly2tri.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/downloads/hroncok/SPECS/poly2tri-0.0-3.20120407hgacf81f1f1764.fc18.src.rpm Using soname version 1.0.0 See http://code.google.com/p/poly2tri/issues/detail?id=66#c1 for justification -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7aklHtdY70a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907032] Review Request: amftools - AMF file library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907032 --- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Question about soname and it's version: https://sourceforge.net/p/amftools/discussion/general/thread/4c517730/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ahm9tKxghYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919100] Review Request: crudini - A utility for manipulating ini files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919100 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8HItW99JbAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919100] Review Request: crudini - A utility for manipulating ini files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919100 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- crudini-0.3-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/crudini-0.3-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lsQJHxLHhha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919100] Review Request: crudini - A utility for manipulating ini files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919100 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- crudini-0.3-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/crudini-0.3-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KE1svdMp6da=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 919100] Review Request: crudini - A utility for manipulating ini files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919100 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- crudini-0.3-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/crudini-0.3-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xQ8Z7Hwr9va=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 921286] New: Review Request: cmd - wrap bash functions into a command
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921286 Bug ID: 921286 Summary: Review Request: cmd - wrap bash functions into a command Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: juanmabcm...@gmail.com Spec URL: http://juanmabc.fedorapeople.org/packages/cmd/cmd.spec SRPM URL: http://juanmabc.fedorapeople.org/packages/cmd/cmd-0.4.10-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: command line command wrapper ( http://code.google.com/p/cmdsh/ ) Fedora Account System Username: juanmabc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BvnNsR4Wava=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 910793] Review Request: spice-html5 - Pure Javascript SPICE client
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910793 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- spice-html5-0.1.2-2.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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bwap7h5T3Fa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 910793] Review Request: spice-html5 - Pure Javascript SPICE client
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910793 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cB9cN8NyYLa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920929] Review Request: nodejs-chmodr - Recursively change UNIX permissions
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920929 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-03-13 17:53:56 --- Comment #5 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- Built for rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5119285 Thanks for taking care of this so quickly! :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=atjqzgeZOea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 804980] Review Request: python-dingus - A record-then-assert mocking library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804980 Tim Flink tfl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tfl...@redhat.com --- Comment #6 from Tim Flink tfl...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-dingus New Branches: el6 Owners: tflink I spoke with bkabrda via email and he does not want to maintain an el6 branch but is OK with me doing it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=inKD431m3ca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 892625] Review Request: resiprocate - SIP reference implementation, SIP proxy, TURN server
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892625 --- Comment #7 from Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au --- Peter's initial feedback: made a few changes to the resiprocate.spec.in https://github.com/lemenkov/resiprocate/compare/d8ed117f61...529d33bb89 Most of them are applicable to other RPM-based distros as well, although some might be problematic. This one for example: https://github.com/lemenkov/resiprocate/commit/0b9b94109:55:44 Here is a resulting spec-file http://peter.fedorapeople.org/resiprocate.spec09:59:54 Builds perfectly fine in Rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4916758 Requesting updated spec-file from you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OBeedflyxPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875308] Review Request: mate-menu-editor - MATE Desktop menu editor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875308 --- Comment #7 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- Wolfgang you can take this if you would like, per our IRC conversation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ippV0EfZxpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 882559] Review Request: mate-file-manager-image-converter - MATE Desktop file manager image converter plugin
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882559 --- Comment #6 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- Wolfgang you can take this if you would like, per our IRC conversation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FhTIUFRTyla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 875308] Review Request: mate-menu-editor - MATE Desktop menu editor
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875308 Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chat-to...@raveit.de Assignee|rdie...@math.unl.edu|chat-to...@raveit.de Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yJmwqmTn3na=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907075] Review Request: qaccessibilityclient - QAccessibilityClient library is used when writing accessibility clients
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907075 Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BuAMrHT1YBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907075] Review Request: qaccessibilityclient - QAccessibilityClient library is used when writing accessibility clients
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907075 --- Comment #3 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- First step, a cursory glance at the specfile: # drop broken FindOpenCV.cmake rm -fv cmake/FindOpenCV.cmake Huh? There's no such file to delete. (This is no blocker because rm -f of a non-existent file will just do nothing, but please remove that bogus rm.) Url: https://… Pedantic hairsplitting: Isn't the canonical spelling of this tag URL: rather than Url:? :-) (RPM is not case-sensitive in this place, so it doesn't really matter. So there too, no blocker.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=95Egbj8u8Ja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 921304] New: Review Request: python-pecan - A lean WSGI object-dispatching web framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921304 Bug ID: 921304 Summary: Review Request: python-pecan - A lean WSGI object-dispatching web framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: p...@draigbrady.com Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/ceilometer/python-pecan.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/ceilometer/python-pecan-0.2.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: A WSGI object-dispatching web framework, designed to be lean and fast with few dependencies Fedora Account System Username: pbrady -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1PwAimTAida=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 921305] New: Review Request: python-wsme - Web Services Made Easy
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921305 Bug ID: 921305 Summary: Review Request: python-wsme - Web Services Made Easy Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: p...@draigbrady.com Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/ceilometer/python-wsme.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pbrady/ceilometer/python-wsme-0.5b1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Web Services Made Easy, simplifies the implementation of multiple protocol REST web services by providing simple yet powerful typing which removes the need to directly manipulate the request and the response objects. Fedora Account System Username: pbrady -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ega3NOAdKNa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907075] Review Request: qaccessibilityclient - QAccessibilityClient library is used when writing accessibility clients
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907075
Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(rdie...@math.unl.
||edu)
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org ---
Review complete, some issues found:
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: 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 No known patent problems
x No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
x %cmake macro used
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
! see rpmlint output:
qaccessibilityclient.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog
0.1.0-1.20121113git ['0.1.0-0.1.20121113git.fc18', '0.1.0-0.1.20121113git']
changelog says 0.1.0-1.20121113git, should say 0.1.0-0.1.20121113git
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
- not a GUI application
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
! -devel needs Requires: cmake for directory ownership
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL, Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck:
LGPL
/var/lib/mock/fedora-18-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/qaccessibilityclient-0.1.0/tests/auto/simple/simplewidgetapp.cpp
Checked to be LGPLv2 (2.1) or LGPLv3 (or later as approved by KDE e.V.) as
the rest.
Unknown or generated
/var/lib/mock/fedora-18-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/qaccessibilityclient-0.1.0/src/atspi/atspi-constants.h
This one is generated, no reason to believe it is not covered by the same
license, AT-SPI2 is LGPLv2+ (which is a superset of the qaccessibilityclient
license).
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
x # KDE e.V. may determine that future LGPL versions are accepted
documented
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
! -devel is missing a Requires: qt4-devel (can't use it without that)
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=...
[Bug 920447] Review Request: marked - A markdown parser for Node.js built for speed
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920447 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- marked-0.2.8-2.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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cfhSmkl7qDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920447] Review Request: marked - A markdown parser for Node.js built for speed
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920447 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=r5jZOxruQAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915144] Review Request: rasmol - Molecular Graphics Visualization Tool
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915144
--- Comment #16 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich kr...@land.ru ---
Spec URL: http://krege.fedorapeople.org/rasmol/rasmol.spec
SRPM URL: http://krege.fedorapeople.org/rasmol/rasmol-2.7.5-7.fc18.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #15)
How about evaluating %__isa_bits instead?
%if %{?__isa_bits} == 64
# ...
%else
# ...
%endif
Had found that in qt.spec, didn't have time to update yestersay.
* Wed Mar 14 2013 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich kr...@land.ru 2.7.5-7
- Let apply 64b patch according to the __isa_bits macros.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GlRYyXNYkMa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 912930] Review Request : icaro - Robotic Educational Project
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912930 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LSw2EyOrLwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 912930] Review Request : icaro - Robotic Educational Project
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912930 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- icaro-1.0-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QJXaFibE9ga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907075] Review Request: qaccessibilityclient - QAccessibilityClient library is used when writing accessibility clients
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907075 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(rdie...@math.unl. | |edu)| --- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/simon/qaccessibilityclient.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/simon/qaccessibilityclient-0.1.0-0.2.20121113git.fc18.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Mar 13 2013 Rex Dieter rdie...@fedoraproject.org 0.1.0-0.2.20121113git - fix changelog - -devel: +Requires: cmake qt4-devel - link QT_QTGUI_LIBRARY for undefined symbols - s/Url/URL/ - don't package accessibleapps -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lsvl1uKIAGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 920929] Review Request: nodejs-chmodr - Recursively change UNIX permissions
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920929 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- node-gyp-0.9.1-2.fc18, nodejs-async-0.2.6-1.fc18, nodejs-chmodr-0.1.0-2.fc18, nodejs-fstream-npm-0.1.4-1.fc18, nodejs-glob-3.1.21-1.fc18, nodejs-minimatch-0.2.11-1.fc18, nodejs-mkdirp-0.3.5-1.fc18, nodejs-npm-registry-client-0.2.18-2.fc18, nodejs-read-package-json-0.2.2-1.fc18, nodejs-request-2.14.0-1.fc18, nodejs-semver-1.1.4-1.fc18, npm-1.2.14-2.fc18, nodejs-abbrev-1.0.4-2.fc18, nodejs-ansi-0.1.2-4.fc18, nodejs-inherits-1.0.0-6.fc18, nodejs-mute-stream-0.0.3-3.fc18, nodejs-read-1.0.4-4.fc18, nodejs-retry-0.6.0-2.fc18, nodejs-slide-1.1.3-4.fc18, nodejs-uid-number-0.0.3-4.fc18, nodejs-sigmund-1.0.0-2.fc18, nodejs-osenv-0.0.3-2.fc18, nodejs-init-package-json-0.0.7-3.fc18, nodejs-delayed-stream-0.0.5-2.fc18, nodejs-proto-list-1.2.2-2.fc18, nodejs-which-1.0.5-4.fc18, nodejs-chownr-0.0.1-6.fc18, nodejs-opts-1.2.2-2.fc18, nodejs-once-1.1.1-2.fc18, nodejs-couch-login-0.1.15-2.fc18, nodejs-archy-0.0.2-5.fc18, nodejs-block-stream-0.0.6-4.fc18, nodejs-npmlog-0.0.2-2.fc18, nodejs-opener-1.3.0-4.fc18, nodejs-tobi-cookie-0.3.2-2.fc18, nodejs-promzard-0.2.0-3.fc18, nodejs-combined-stream-0.0.4-1.fc18, nodejs-config-chain-1.1.5-1.fc18, nodejs-fstream-0.1.22-1.fc18, nodejs-fstream-ignore-0.0.6-1.fc18, nodejs-graceful-fs-1.2.0-1.fc18, nodejs-ini-1.1.0-1.fc18, nodejs-lockfile-0.3.0-1.fc18, nodejs-lru-cache-2.2.2-1.fc18, nodejs-mime-1.2.9-1.fc18, nodejs-nopt-2.1.1-1.fc18, nodejs-npmconf-0.0.23-1.fc18, nodejs-read-installed-0.1.1-1.fc18, nodejs-rimraf-2.1.4-1.fc18, nodejs-tar-0.1.16-1.fc18, nodejs-form-data-0.0.7-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0775/node-gyp-0.9.1-2.fc18,nodejs-abbrev-1.0.4-2.fc18,nodejs-ansi-0.1.2-4.fc18,nodejs-archy-0.0.2-5.fc18,nodejs-async-0.2.6-1.fc18,nodejs-block-stream-0.0.6-4.fc18,nodejs-chmodr-0.1.0-2.fc18,nodejs-chownr-0.0.1-6.fc18,nodejs-combined-stream-0.0.4-1.fc18,nodejs-config-chain-1.1.5-1.fc18,nodejs-couch-login-0.1.15-2.fc18,nodejs-delayed-stream-0.0.5-2.fc18,nodejs-form-data-0.0.7-1.fc18,nodejs-fstream-0.1.22-1.fc18,nodejs-fstream-ignore-0.0.6-1.fc18,nodejs-fstream-npm-0.1.4-1.fc18,nodejs-glob-3.1.21-1.fc18,nodejs-graceful-fs-1.2.0-1.fc18,nodejs-inherits-1.0.0-6.fc18,nodejs-ini-1.1.0-1.fc18,nodejs-init-package-json-0.0.7-3.fc18,nodejs-lockfile-0.3.0-1.fc18,nodejs-lru-cache-2.2.2-1.fc18,nodejs-mime-1.2.9-1.fc18,nodejs-minimatch-0.2.11-1.fc18,nodejs-mkdirp-0.3.5-1.fc18,nodejs-mute-stream-0.0.3-3.fc18,nodejs-nopt-2.1.1-1.fc18,nodejs-npmconf-0.0.23-1.fc18,nodejs-npmlog-0.0.2-2.fc18,nodejs-npm-registry-client-0.2.18-2.fc18,nodejs-once! -1.1.1-2.fc18,nodejs-opener-1.3.0-4.fc18,nodejs-opts-1.2.2-2.fc18,nodejs-osenv-0.0.3-2.fc18,nodejs-promzard-0.2.0-3.fc18,nodejs-proto-list-1.2.2-2.fc18,nodejs-read-1.0.4-4.fc18,nodejs-read-installed-0.1.1-1.fc18,nodejs-read-package-json-0.2.2-1.fc18,nodejs-request-2.14.0-1.fc18,nodejs-retry-0.6.0-2.fc18,nodejs-rimraf-2.1.4-1.fc18,nodejs-semver-1.1.4-1.fc18,nodejs-sigmund-1.0.0-2.fc18,nodejs-slide-1.1.3-4.fc18,nodejs-tar-0.1.16-1.fc18,nodejs-tobi-cookie-0.3.2-2.fc18,nodejs-uid-number-0.0.3-4.fc18,nodejs-which-1.0.5-4.fc18,npm-1.2.14-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sAgrU58Ny4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 913790] Review Request: perl-File-Tee - Replicate data sent to a Perl stream
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913790 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LbEouUS5wza=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 913790] Review Request: perl-File-Tee - Replicate data sent to a Perl stream
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913790 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-File-Tee-0.07-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bv0ctXXc2Ia=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907075] Review Request: qaccessibilityclient - QAccessibilityClient library is used when writing accessibility clients
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907075 Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- Looks good now, all MUST issues and most SHOULD issues addressed (only the %define is left, why not use %global?). APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FWyWpf7jIAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
