[Bug 1054938] Review Request: esteidpkcs11loader - Estonian ID card extension for Mozilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054938 --- Comment #4 from Mihkel Vain tura...@gmail.com --- I'm struggling to decide what should I call this package and #1054941. #1054941 is called firefox-esteid right now because as upstream told me and as I wrote in #1054941 comment: This plugin is not strictly Firefox specific (as upstream just told me) and it probably works on other NPAPI browsers too, but officially upstream supports only Firefox. Maybe I should rename #1054941 to mozilla-* and this one as well, because there appears to be no firefox-* packages in repos right now? But then again upstream only supports firefox... I could really use some ideas right now :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855331] Review Request: tesla-polyglot - Modules to enable Maven usage in others JVM languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855331 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |polyglot-maven - Modules to |tesla-polyglot - Modules to |enable Maven usage in |enable Maven usage in |others JVM languages|others JVM languages Alias|polyglot-maven | --- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/tesla-polyglot.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/tesla-polyglot-0.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm - moved from https://github.com/tobrien/polyglot-maven to https://github.com/takari/maven-polyglot/ Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7064170 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091100] Review Request: python-affinity - control processor affinity on windows and linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091100 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added CC||n...@fedoraproject.org Flags||needinfo?(nb@fedoraproject. ||org) --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- I'm back, please answer my question in comment 1. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1110913] Review Request: pam_script - PAM module for executing scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110913 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lkund...@v3.sk Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- I'm sponsoring Jason, removing FE_NEEDSPONSOR. Taking for an official review. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111691] Review Request: qore - multithreaded programming/scripting language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691 --- Comment #4 from David Nichols da...@qore.org --- (In reply to Jason Taylor from comment #1) Hi David, I would take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL for your Source URL information. ok done http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag also provides some information on conditionals to clean up the rh_dist you define in the spec. ok done I am not sure if the suse/sles related conditional logic is allowable since it isn't pertinent, someone else may be able to offer insight. ok removed The duplicate License: declaration also seems unnecessary %defattr is unnecessary %clean is unnecessary unless supporting el5 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean ok - all done thanks very much for the excellent review and help! David -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111691] Review Request: qore - multithreaded programming/scripting language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691 --- Comment #5 from David Nichols da...@qore.org --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2) Please drop those futile opensuse macros in Fedora packages. ok - done I wanted to have one spec file for all rpm-based distros, but since it's a problem I've made a spec file just for fedora/rhel thanks david -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 709328] Review Request: psi-plus - Jabber client based on Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709328
--- Comment #91 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Bug Report:
https://github.com/psi-plus/plugins/blob/c5a6119f13e6182ba5564a1f2adb007cc1b83de5/generic/contentdownloaderplugin/form.cpp#L259
QFile fd(fullFileName);
if(!fd.open(QIODevice::WriteOnly) || fd.write(reply-readAll()) == -1) {
qDebug() Content Downloader Plugin: fd.errorString() fullFileName;
}
You should change WriteOnly to (hopefully) ReadWrite, because my Qt doesn't
seem to open a file as WriteOnly by default. I don't know what's the logic
behind.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111691] Review Request: qore - multithreaded programming/scripting language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #6 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3)
More detailed initial review thought(Note you need a sponsor, I can't help,
I will address this at the end):
1. The packaging style looks like a decade ago.
%define qore_ver 0.8.11
You should put 0.8.11 in Version tag and use %{version} instead of custom
macro, we have some fundamental macros which you should avoid using custom
macro replaced
you are right, this spec file was born a long time ago.
this has been fixed
2. I don't think you've read the guideline, for example, %define - %global:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.
25global_preferred_over_.25define
I did not read them closely enough, you are right.
this is now fixed.
3. Remove those non-Fedora conditional bits:
sll removed
4. # see if we can determine the distribution type
%if 0%{!?dist:1}
%define rh_dist %(if [ -f /etc/redhat-release ];then cat
/etc/redhat-release|sed s/[^0-9.]*//|cut -f1 -d.;fi)
%if 0%{?rh_dist}
%define dist .rhel%{rh_dist}
%else
-
Please learn how to use macro %{?el}/%{?fedora}
fixed
4. Drop obsoleted RPM macros which are still heavily used by other distros:
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%clean
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
removed / fixed
5. You are polluting dist tag:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag
ok done
6. Drop BuildRequires: gcc-c++:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2
dropped / done
7. Never make BuildRequires: fdupes in any Fedora specs, we don't need it.
removed (was there for opensuse)
8. You should avoid packaging libraries with version as its package name:
libqore5
You'd better change it to libqore or qore-libs
changed to libqore for fedora / rhel
9. I still don't understand those Provides: in libqore, can't RPM handle
this?
actually, no (at least not AFAIK). the Provides are there so that qore binary
modules, which are loaded at runtime by libqore, can be matched with the module
ABI of the qore library.
I plan on making submission requests for qore module packages later (hopefully
after I can get sponsorship to main qore for Fedora - I realize that this is
not a given and anyway will take time and commitment on my part). There are
quiet a few of these already.
The modules then will declare Requires: for the specific module API that they
are compiled against. These modules will be binary-loadable by future libqore
packages that declare the old module ABI. The RPM system then will not
complain when libqore is upgraded and a module compiled against a previous
version of qore (and using an older, but still compatible qore module ABI) is
still on the system.
Otherwise without this mechanism, I would have to add an explicit dependency to
libqore in the modules' spec files, which would be more restrictive than what
is actually necessary, since future versions of libqore normally maintain ABI
compatibility with earlier versions.
It was my impression that the spec files Provides: lines for such artificial
dependencies was to handle this sort of situation.
10. %ifarch x86_64 ppc64 x390x
c64=--enable-64bit
%endif
# need to configure with /usr as prefix as this will be used to derive the
module directory
./configure RPM_OPT_FLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS --prefix=/usr --disable-debug
--disable-static $c64 --libdir=%{_libdir}
a) %configure macro should be used
b) Does qore work on ARM? We will have AArch64(ARM v8) in the future.
I have moved all the 64-bit detection stuff to configure and added support for
64-bit ARM (aarch64)
11. /usr/bin/ - %{_bindir}
%{_prefix}/include/ - %{_includedir}
/usr/share/man/ - %{_mandir}
I think you don't need to care about RHEL5 nowadays.
done - removed
12. Why not merge 2 doc packages into 1 -doc?
The reason for this is because the devel-doc package is only needed for
programmers programming against the C++ API (ie for qore binary modules). This
doc package is large, but most users won't need it (I expect).
Most users will only need the doc package, which has the Qore documentation
telling programmer's how to program in the Qore language.
So From my point of view it makes sense to have two packages for the two very
different kinds of documentation provided by qore.
However, if this is a blocking issue for acceptance by Fedora, then let me
know, and I will merge them both.
13. mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/bin
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{module_dir}/%{qore_ver}
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/man/man1
I think install script should do that(create in install script or with
install -p), since you are the upstream, these could be enhanced.
you are right, this was not necesary, configure generates a Makefile that
performs these actions automatically.
This has been removed from the
[Bug 709328] Review Request: psi-plus - Jabber client based on Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709328 --- Comment #92 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #91) And read this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17686561/qt-qnetworkreply-is-always-empty -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111691] Review Request: qore - multithreaded programming/scripting language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes
| Increase the Release tag every time you upload a new package to avoid
| confusion. The reviewer and other interested parties probably still have
| older versions of your SRPM lying around to check what has changed between
| the old and new packages; those get confused when the revision didn't change.
The %changelog also doesn't document any of the changes you've supplied.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
mv $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/test
$RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/examples
mv test examples should suffice.
At the beginning of each of the main spec file sections, you are within the
primary builddir already as specified via %setup (or its default -n
%name-%version).
%configure --disable-debug --disable-static
This belongs at the beginning of the %build section.
Also see rpm -E %configure.
%build
%{__make}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make
%package doc
Summary: API documentation, programming language reference, and Qore example
programs
Group: Development/Languages
Rather Group: Documentation unless you want to drop the Group tag altogether:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag
Requires: libqore%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Plain documentation packages (which contain files that can be displayed with
arbitrary HTML/PDF viewers) typically do not need to depend on base libraries,
or else you could not install the documentation without pulling in dependency
bloat.
%package -n libqore
Summary: The libraries for the qore runtime and qore clients
Group: Development/Languages
The Group tag for runtime library base packages has been System
Environment/Libraries for many years.
%package devel
Summary: The header files needed to compile programs using the qore library
Group: Development/Languages
The Group tag for build-time library -devel packages has been
Development/Libraries for many years.
Provides: qore-module-api-0.18
Provides: qore-module-api-0.17
Provides: qore-module-api-0.16
Provides: qore-module-api-0.15
Provides: qore-module-api-0.14
Provides: qore-module-api-0.13
Provides: qore-module-api-0.12
Provides: qore-module-api-0.11
Provides: qore-module-api-0.10
Provides: qore-module-api-0.9
Provides: qore-module-api-0.8
Provides: qore-module-api-0.7
Provides: qore-module-api-0.6
Provides: qore-module-api-0.5
Odd. And rather limited. You could not do Requires: qore-module-api = 0.10,
for example. Why not
Provides: qore-module(api) = 0.5
Provides: qore-module(api) = 0.6
Provides: qore-module(api) = 0.7
...
and so on?
[...]
Have you pointed the fedora-review tool at this ticket yet?
fedora-review -b 691
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111691] Review Request: qore - multithreaded programming/scripting language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691 --- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- %package doc Plus, documentation very often is not arch-specific, so a -doc subpackage could be BuildArch: noarch. In that case, an arch-specific dependency on a library base package would not be possibly anyway. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111691] Review Request: qore - multithreaded programming/scripting language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691
--- Comment #9 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #7)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes
| Increase the Release tag every time you upload a new package to avoid
| confusion. The reviewer and other interested parties probably still have
| older versions of your SRPM lying around to check what has changed between
| the old and new packages; those get confused when the revision didn't
change.
done - new URLs below
The %changelog also doesn't document any of the changes you've supplied.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
ok done
mv $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/test
$RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/examples
mv test examples should suffice.
At the beginning of each of the main spec file sections, you are within the
primary builddir already as specified via %setup (or its default -n
%name-%version).
ok, thanks, done
%configure --disable-debug --disable-static
This belongs at the beginning of the %build section.
Also see rpm -E %configure.
done
%build
%{__make}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make
ok done
%package doc
Summary: API documentation, programming language reference, and Qore
example programs
Group: Development/Languages
Rather Group: Documentation unless you want to drop the Group tag
altogether:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag
ok done
Requires: libqore%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Plain documentation packages (which contain files that can be displayed with
arbitrary HTML/PDF viewers) typically do not need to depend on base
libraries, or else you could not install the documentation without pulling
in dependency bloat.
ok done
%package -n libqore
Summary: The libraries for the qore runtime and qore clients
Group: Development/Languages
The Group tag for runtime library base packages has been System
Environment/Libraries for many years.
ok fixed
%package devel
Summary: The header files needed to compile programs using the qore library
Group: Development/Languages
The Group tag for build-time library -devel packages has been
Development/Libraries for many years.
ok done
Provides: qore-module-api-0.18
Provides: qore-module-api-0.17
Provides: qore-module-api-0.16
Provides: qore-module-api-0.15
Provides: qore-module-api-0.14
Provides: qore-module-api-0.13
Provides: qore-module-api-0.12
Provides: qore-module-api-0.11
Provides: qore-module-api-0.10
Provides: qore-module-api-0.9
Provides: qore-module-api-0.8
Provides: qore-module-api-0.7
Provides: qore-module-api-0.6
Provides: qore-module-api-0.5
Odd. And rather limited. You could not do Requires: qore-module-api =
0.10, for example. Why not
Provides: qore-module(api) = 0.5
Provides: qore-module(api) = 0.6
Provides: qore-module(api) = 0.7
...
and so on?
[...]
ok, this makes sense. The reason I did not do it like this before is because I
did not come up with this solution when I was first researching this topic.
however there are already a set of dependent module RPMs out in the wild (for
Fedora, RHEL, and other distributions) that assume the old non-versioned
Provides: are available.
I would be happy to change it, because I agree that it looks better/cleaner,
however I'm afraid of breaking the existing RPMs.
So I'm not sure what to do here - any advice you can give would be greatly
appreciated.
Have you pointed the fedora-review tool at this ticket yet?
fedora-review -b 691
I'm running it now against the new SRPM and spec file with: fedora-review -n
qore. It's still running at the moment, so I'll react when I get some output.
Thanks for this tip; I did not know about this until now.
Thanks a lot for your in-depth review and excellent constructive comments. My
packaging knowledge is slowly improving with the state of the qore packaging
for Fedora.
URLs with updated spec and new SRPM:
- Spec URL: http://qore.org/srpms/qore.spec
- SRPM URL: http://qore.org/srpms/qore-0.8.11-2.fc20.src.rpm
thanks,
David
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422
Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@der-flo.net
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@der-flo.net
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
Issues
==
[ ]: Please add some words to the subpackages instead of using just %{summary}
Package Review
==
Legend:
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
BSD (3 clause), GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), GPL
(unversioned/unknown version) GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
--- please add a comment where the breakdown is
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/octovis,
/usr/lib64/cmake
--- please add something like mkdir -p {_bindir}/octovis and
mkdir -p %{_datadir}/octovis to the %install-section
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
--- Please replace /sbin with %{_sbindir}
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
--- There are some issues.
Please fix those issues and I'll take another review.
[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).
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[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]: 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
[Bug 1111691] Review Request: qore - multithreaded programming/scripting language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691 --- Comment #10 from David Nichols da...@qore.org --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #8) %package doc Plus, documentation very often is not arch-specific, so a -doc subpackage could be BuildArch: noarch. In that case, an arch-specific dependency on a library base package would not be possibly anyway. thanks, excellent tip, this was also done in revision 2 as in the links above. Also I finished running fedora-review on the updated SRPM and spec, and as far as I can see from that output the only thing left to resolve (besides what I hope are minor/acceptable rpmlint warnings) is the Provides: lines for the library ABIs. As I mentioned before, I'm not sure what to do about those without causing problems with older module RPMs. thanks, David -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 474818] Review Request: perl-Class-XSAccessor - Generate fast XS accessors without runtime compilation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474818 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 474818] Review Request: perl-Class-XSAccessor - Generate fast XS accessors without runtime compilation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474818 --- Comment #13 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634906] Review Request: http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634906 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 634906] Review Request: http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634906 --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094289] Review Request: perl-Term-Encoding - Detect encoding of the current terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094289 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094289] Review Request: perl-Term-Encoding - Detect encoding of the current terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094289 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109490] Review Request: alglib - A numerical analysis and data processing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109490 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109490] Review Request: alglib - A numerical analysis and data processing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109490 --- Comment #15 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109491] Review Request: liblbfgs - Limited-memory Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109491 --- Comment #15 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109491] Review Request: liblbfgs - Limited-memory Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109491 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1110749] Review Request: perl-Net-Statsd-Server - A Perl port of Flickr/Etsy's statsd metrics daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110749 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1110749] Review Request: perl-Net-Statsd-Server - A Perl port of Flickr/Etsy's statsd metrics daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110749 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1110945] Review Request: voro++ - Library for 3D computations of the Voronoi tessellation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110945 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1110945] Review Request: voro++ - Library for 3D computations of the Voronoi tessellation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110945 --- Comment #17 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111334] Review Request: python-yubico - Pure-python library for interacting with Yubikeys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=334 --- Comment #13 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111334] Review Request: python-yubico - Pure-python library for interacting with Yubikeys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=334 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111561] Review Request: git-remote-hg - mercurial wrapper for git
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561 --- Comment #20 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111561] Review Request: git-remote-hg - mercurial wrapper for git
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111634] Review Request: git-remote-bzr - bazaar wrapper for git
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634 --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111634] Review Request: git-remote-bzr - bazaar wrapper for git
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1054938] Review Request: esteidpkcs11loader - Estonian ID card extension for Mozilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054938 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- What would be the least surprise to the user? One approach could be not much thinking about it (mozilla-* here, although not strictly right according to the upstream support; and keep the firefox in the name of the broswer plugin itself #1054941 - it is part of the upstream name anyway). Another approach: only firefox is officially supported, so using prefix firefox- for both packages (firefox just happen to use mozilla paths). And slight different package name will correspond to less broad of browsers supported also in this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107250] Review Request: SDL2_net - SDL portable network library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107250 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- I believe you are asking for: -- Initial spec based on upstream provided sample spec file +- Initial spec based on upstream provided sample spec file (#1107250) I think this pattern could be made a suggestion for improvements of packaging guidelines, as it would make a lot easier to search back for the original review of a package. Thanks for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107250] Review Request: SDL2_net - SDL portable network library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107250 Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: SDL2_net Short Description: SDL portable network library Owners: pcpa Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 985129] Review Request: text2nato - text converter to nato phonetic alphabet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985129 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mind...@gmail.com ||) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107250] Review Request: SDL2_net - SDL portable network library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107250 Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net --- (In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #2) I believe you are asking for: -- Initial spec based on upstream provided sample spec file +- Initial spec based on upstream provided sample spec file (#1107250) I think this pattern could be made a suggestion for improvements of packaging guidelines, as it would make a lot easier to search back for the original review of a package. Yes - that's what i had in mind Thanks for the review! Your are welcome :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111634] Review Request: git-remote-bzr - bazaar wrapper for git
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634 Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net --- I missed to set the ASSIGNED-Flag - sorry for that! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107422] Review Request: octomap - Efficient Probabilistic 3D Mapping Framework Based on Octrees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422 Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1110749] Review Request: perl-Net-Statsd-Server - A Perl port of Flickr/Etsy's statsd metrics daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110749 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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1110749] Review Request: perl-Net-Statsd-Server - A Perl port of Flickr/Etsy's statsd metrics daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110749 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Net-Statsd-Server-0.17-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Net-Statsd-Server-0.17-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 --- Comment #4 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2/glite-lb-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.fc21.src.rpm My first package review. I'll do my best :) :-) Thanks for the review! ^--- I guess we can ignore these. At least to me there are no spelling mistakes and since gLite is the preferred way to spell it, we should not capitalize it. I agree. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ Guidelines#Man_pages Man pages are the traditional method of getting help on a unix system. Packages should contain man pages for all binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them. Sometimes, other distributions (notably Debian), have man pages for programs. You can use those as a starting point. You should provide man pages for those binaries. Man pages created. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1105730] Review Request: seqan - Open source C++ library of efficient algorithms and data structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105730 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- seqan-1.4.1-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058941] Review Request: GtkAda3 - Ada binding to GTK+ 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058941 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- GtkAda3-3.8.2-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109491] Review Request: liblbfgs - Limited-memory Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109491 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- liblbfgs-1.10-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/liblbfgs-1.10-3.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109491] Review Request: liblbfgs - Limited-memory Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109491 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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1110945] Review Request: voro++ - Library for 3D computations of the Voronoi tessellation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110945 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- voro++-0.4.6-6.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/voro++-0.4.6-6.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1110945] Review Request: voro++ - Library for 3D computations of the Voronoi tessellation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110945 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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111916] New: Review Request: golang-github-docker-libcontainer - Configuration options for containers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916 Bug ID: 916 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-docker-libcontainer - Configuration options for containers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: l...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-docker-libcontainer/golang-github-docker-libcontainer.spec SRPM URL: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-docker-libcontainer/SRPMS/golang-github-docker-libcontainer-1.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: libcontainer specifies configuration options for what a container is. It provides a native Go implementation for using Linux namespaces with no external dependencies. libcontainer provides many convenience functions for working with namespaces, networking, and management. Fedora Account System Username: lsm5 Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7065045 $ rpmlint golang-github-docker-libcontainer.spec SRPMS/golang-github-docker-libcontainer-1.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm RPMS/noarch/golang-github-docker-libcontainer-devel-1.0.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm golang-github-docker-libcontainer.spec:59: W: setup-not-quiet golang-github-docker-libcontainer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespaces - name spaces, name-spaces, names paces golang-github-docker-libcontainer.src:59: W: setup-not-quiet 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111916] Review Request: golang-github-docker-libcontainer - Configuration options for containers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916 Lokesh Mandvekar l...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||admil...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vba...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111917] New: Review Request: python-docker-registry-core - Core package for docker-registry (drivers) developers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917 Bug ID: 917 Summary: Review Request: python-docker-registry-core - Core package for docker-registry (drivers) developers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: l...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/python-docker-registry-core/python-docker-registry-core.spec SRPM URL: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/python-docker-registry-core/SRPMS/python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Core package for docker-registry (drivers) developers Fedora Account System Username: lsm5 $ rpmlint python-docker-registry-core.spec SRPMS/python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-1.fc20.src.rpm RPMS/noarch/python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-1.fc20.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7065101 (failed) Build on local machine succeeds though. RPM build errors: Not a directory: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-1.fc21.noarch/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/docker_registry_core-1.0.6-py2.7.egg-info File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-1.fc21.noarch/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/docker_registry_core-1.0.6-py2.7-nspkg.pth File not found by glob: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-docker-registry-core-1.0.6-1.fc21.noarch/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/docker_registry_core-1.0.6-py2.7.egg-info/* Child return code was: 1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111196] Review Request: perl-App-find2perl - Translate find command lines to Perl code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=196 David Dick dd...@cpan.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dd...@cpan.org --- Comment #2 from David Dick dd...@cpan.org --- Should this package have a subpackage of find2perl? Since the following are the only installed files for this package; /usr/bin/find2perl /usr/share/doc/perl-App-find2perl /usr/share/doc/perl-App-find2perl/Changes /usr/share/doc/perl-App-find2perl/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/perl-App-find2perl/README /usr/share/man/man1/find2perl.1.gz it might be easier for users to yum install find2perl rather than yum install perl-App-find2perl? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111196] Review Request: perl-App-find2perl - Translate find command lines to Perl code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=196 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- (In reply to David Dick from comment #2) Should this package have a subpackage of find2perl? Since the following are the only installed files for this package; /usr/bin/find2perl /usr/share/doc/perl-App-find2perl /usr/share/doc/perl-App-find2perl/Changes /usr/share/doc/perl-App-find2perl/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/perl-App-find2perl/README /usr/share/man/man1/find2perl.1.gz it might be easier for users to yum install find2perl rather than yum install perl-App-find2perl? In the past it's not. But I think we could add Provides: find2perl after the split. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
