[Bug 1116552] New: Review Request: ustl - A size-optimized STL implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116552 Bug ID: 1116552 Summary: Review Request: ustl - A size-optimized STL implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i...@cicku.me QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/ustl.spec SRPM URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/ustl-2.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: The C++ standard template library (STL) is a collection of common containers and algorithms in template form. Unfortunately its standard incarnation shipped with gcc is implemented without much concern for code size. Not only is the library itself large, the current version being over a megabyte in size, but with all the code you instantiate by using a vector for each of your containers, it is easy to become fearful and opt for using static arrays instead or, worse yet, abandon C++ altogether for C. This is especially painful to former DOS assembly programmers like myself, who fret endlessly when the size of the executable crosses the magic 64k boundary, forgetting that nobody cares about memory anymore. Of course, these days everyone has gigabytes of RAM and has no compunction about loading up OpenOffice, whose source tree is over a gigabyte in size. Why then bother with saving a kilobyte of code here and there? I can't really say. Maybe it's that warm fuzzy knowledge that you are making maximum possible use of your computer's resources. Maybe it's that thrill you get after expressing your program's functionality in the fewest possible instructions and the minimum imaginable overhead. Or maybe it really is of no importance and any code bloat will be easily overcome by faster processors in some near future. I just know what I like, and it's the sight of clean, concise, and fast code. Therefore this library. Fedora Account System Username: cicku -- 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 1116552] Review Request: ustl - A size-optimized STL implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116552 --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- As much as you may like sed -i … based substitutions in files, be aware that this road is not a safe one. If the match fails, nothing gets substituted. Using patches is to be preferred, unless you add guards more often than not to verify that the sed command has worked. -- 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 1116552] Review Request: ustl - A size-optimized STL implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116552 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #1) As much as you may like sed -i … based substitutions in files, be aware that this road is not a safe one. If the match fails, nothing gets substituted. Using patches is to be preferred, unless you add guards more often than not to verify that the sed command has worked. If you prefer, I could change to awk. I do check my script everytime, from the spec, and also from the koji build.log. The reason of not using patch is that, I only write patch for the code, such build script could be easily fixed. Thanks. -- 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 1028206] Review Request: tayga - nat64 implementation for linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028206 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|m...@zarb.org |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|needinfo? | -- 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 1116552] Review Request: ustl - A size-optimized STL implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116552 --- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- I do check my script everytime, A guard in the spec file (such as a well-crafted grep match) would automate that task during version upgrades. You'll burn your hands sooner or later, if you miss a single failing sed that doesn't cause the build to fail. -- 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 1116560] New: Review Request: shelxle - Qt graphical user interface for SHELXL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116560 Bug ID: 1116560 Summary: Review Request: shelxle - Qt graphical user interface for SHELXL Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i...@cicku.me QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/shelxle.spec SRPM URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/shelxle-1.0.663-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: ShelXle is a graphical user interface for SHELXL, currently the most widely used program for small-molecule structure refinement. It combines an editor with syntax highlighting for the SHELXL-associated .ins (input) and .res (output) files with an interactive graphical display for visualization of a three-dimensional structure including the electron density (Fo) and difference density (Fo-Fc) maps. Special features of ShelXle include intuitive atom (re-)naming, a strongly coupled editor, structure visualization in various mono and stereo modes, and a novel way of displaying disorder extending over special positions. ShelXle is completely compatible with all features of SHELXL and is written entirely in C++ using the Qt4 and FFTW libraries. Fedora Account System Username: cicku -- 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 1116560] Review Request: shelxle - Qt graphical user interface for SHELXL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116560 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Missing kissfftw library in Fedora, bundled 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 1116560] Review Request: shelxle - Qt graphical user interface for SHELXL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116560 David Nichols da...@qore.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||da...@qore.org --- Comment #2 from David Nichols da...@qore.org --- Theres something wrong with the SRPM: cpio: premature end of file WARNING: Cannot unpack /export/home/dnichols/fr/shelxle-1.0.663-1.fc21.src.rpm into /export/home/dnichols/fr/review-shelxle/srpm-unpacked can you please check it? -- 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 1115049] Review Request: freight - A modern take on the Debian archive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115049
Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
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 ---
hi!
Just a few minor stuff:
[ ] Please use macros if possible and replace
Source0:
https://github.com/rcrowley/freight/archive/%{commit}/freight-%{commit}.tar.gz
with
Source0:
https://github.com/rcrowley/%{name}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{commit}.tar.gz
[ ] Please add (#1115049) to the inital comment in the spec-file
[ ] Please add LICENSE, NOTES and README.md to the files-section
[ ] The Group-fiel is only needed for compatibility with EPEL, so it's optional
--
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 1116560] Review Request: shelxle - Qt graphical user interface for SHELXL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116560 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- (In reply to David Nichols from comment #2) Theres something wrong with the SRPM: cpio: premature end of file WARNING: Cannot unpack /export/home/dnichols/fr/shelxle-1.0.663-1.fc21.src.rpm into /export/home/dnichols/fr/review-shelxle/srpm-unpacked can you please check it? I know... It's corrupt now, I have problem with connection here. I will upload again later. Anyway, it's NotReady in Whiteboard field, as it bundles kissfft, I'm seeking the solution now. Thanks. -- 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 1116548] Review Request: g800 - SHARP PC-G800 series emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116548
David Nichols da...@qore.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||da...@qore.org
--- Comment #2 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
an informal review:
from rpmlint:
g800.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programme - programmer,
programmed, program me
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description
programme is a noun (in British English) and should be program when used as
a verb (also American English should be used as per the link above).
from a review of the spec file:
in %setup
sed -i -e 's|-s|%{?__global_ldflags}|g' \
-e 's|-O3|%{optflags}|g' \
-e 's|-Os|%{optflags}|g' \
Makefile
sed -i -e 's|$(EXAMPLE_DOC)|%{_pkgdocdir}/g800config|g' README.Fedora
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
I would take this to mean that the above should include comments. Also I
believe that patch is generally preferred over sed from reading other review
comments.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1111691] Review Request: qore - multithreaded programming/scripting language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691 --- Comment #27 from David Nichols da...@qore.org --- I did my first informal review here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116548#c2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1116548] Review Request: g800 - SHARP PC-G800 series emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116548
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
(In reply to David Nichols from comment #2)
an informal review:
from rpmlint:
g800.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programme -
programmer, programmed, program me
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description
programme is a noun (in British English) and should be program when used
as a verb (also American English should be used as per the link above).
Thanks, I will correct it later.
from a review of the spec file:
in %setup
sed -i -e 's|-s|%{?__global_ldflags}|g' \
-e 's|-O3|%{optflags}|g' \
-e 's|-Os|%{optflags}|g' \
Makefile
sed -i -e 's|$(EXAMPLE_DOC)|%{_pkgdocdir}/g800config|g' README.Fedora
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
I don't think upstream will accept such changes, as the compiler flags, linker
flags can be modified by downstream to match the needs/guidelines[1]. I
replaced all O3 with optflags and dropped the strip flag just because I want to
make the debuginfo package work.
For that readme file, my initial thought was I should use asciidoc to generate
one written by myself, but I don't have time now.
I don't want to start an argument here about the patch style.
[1]---http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
--
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 1116548] Review Request: g800 - SHARP PC-G800 series emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116548
--- Comment #4 from David Nichols da...@qore.org ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3)
(In reply to David Nichols from comment #2)
from a review of the spec file:
in %setup
sed -i -e 's|-s|%{?__global_ldflags}|g' \
-e 's|-O3|%{optflags}|g' \
-e 's|-Os|%{optflags}|g' \
Makefile
sed -i -e 's|$(EXAMPLE_DOC)|%{_pkgdocdir}/g800config|g' README.Fedora
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
I don't think upstream will accept such changes, as the compiler flags,
linker flags can be modified by downstream to match the needs/guidelines[1].
I replaced all O3 with optflags and dropped the strip flag just because I
want to make the debuginfo package work.
I think that your modifications are fine, but maybe you want to add a comment
in the spec as per the link above.
For that readme file, my initial thought was I should use asciidoc to
generate one written by myself, but I don't have time now.
I don't want to start an argument here about the patch style.
[1]---http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
You won't get any arguments out of me, just trying to help.
--
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 1083941] Review Request: giac - Computer Algebra System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1083941 --- Comment #27 from Han Frederic h...@math.jussieu.fr --- I have updated to giac 1.1.1 version (current stable) and cleanup the giac.spec accordingly. Also add a new dependency because of some new features in 1.1.1 http://www.math.jussieu.fr/~han/fedora/1083941/comment27/giac.spec The scratch build on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7109745 -- 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 1083941] Review Request: giac - Computer Algebra System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1083941 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i...@cicku.me --- Comment #28 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Thanks for package giac, I do need 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 1083941] Review Request: giac - Computer Algebra System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1083941
--- Comment #29 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/128x128
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/128x128/mimetypes
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/16x16
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/16x16/mimetypes
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/256x256
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/256x256/mimetypes
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/mimetypes
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/64x64
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps
%dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/64x64/mimetypes
You should add requires of hicolor-icon-theme instead of owning them.
--
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 1050744] Review Request: belle-sip - Linphone SIP stack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050744 nucleo alekc...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1116582 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116582 [Bug 1116582] linphone-3.7.0 is available -- 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 1050744] Review Request: belle-sip - Linphone SIP stack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050744 --- Comment #19 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- (In reply to Jan Kratochvil from comment #18) (In reply to nucleo from comment #17) Can you describe what should be done? add: # The version is used from src/md5.c line: # /* $Id: md5.c,v 1.6 2002/04/13 19:20:28 lpd Exp $ */ Provides: bundled(md5-deutsch) = 1.6 Thanks, finally have a smart people. (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #13) How can you explain other BSD/zlib sources? use: License: GPLv2+ and BSD and BSD with advertising and MIT Unknown or generated belle-sip-1.2.4/include/belle-sip/uri.h - no longer exists belle-sip-1.2.4/tester/register_tester.h - belle-sip-1.3.0 has it GPLv2+ marked already zlib/libpng --- belle-sip-1.2.4/src/md5.c belle-sip-1.2.4/src/md5.h Why do you think so? I would say just BSD. As Rex has pointed out, mark this package as GPLv2+ should be OK. The rest are noted in Provides of the bundled lib. Please fix the spec. Finally before the approval, please explain why you disable the tests. If no reason could be given, enable it in the %check. -- 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 1083941] Review Request: giac - Computer Algebra System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1083941 --- Comment #30 from Han Frederic h...@math.jussieu.fr --- Thank you, so I have remove these lines. http://www.math.jussieu.fr/~han/fedora/1083941/comment30/giac.spec The 1.1.1 tests have been updated with the legal pari syntax so the pari crash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104802 won't appear anymore during the giac check. NB: It is my first package and I still have many things to learn about Fedora, so if someone have the time to take the package feel free to take it. -- 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 1083941] Review Request: giac - Computer Algebra System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1083941 Han Frederic h...@math.jussieu.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|1104802 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104802 [Bug 1104802] gp segfault -- 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 957715] Review Request: gamgi - Build, View and Analyse Atomic Structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957715 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady|Ready --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Ready: NEW SPEC URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/gamgi.spec NEW SRPM URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/gamgi-0.17.1-1.fc21.src.rpm -- 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 1116625] New: Review Request: mp3unicode - Convert MP3 tags to Unicode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116625 Bug ID: 1116625 Summary: Review Request: mp3unicode - Convert MP3 tags to Unicode Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i...@cicku.me QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/mp3unicode.spec SRPM URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/mp3unicode-1.2.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: MP3Unicode is a command line utility to convert ID3 tags in mp3 files between different encodings. Fedora Account System Username: cicku -- 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 1116517] Review Request: libepubgen - an EPUB generator library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116517 David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1116641 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116641 [Bug 1116641] writerperfect-0.9.2 is available -- 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 1116517] Review Request: libepubgen - an EPUB generator library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116517
Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
Package approved.
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]: 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:
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated, *No copyright* MPL (v2.0).
1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1116517-libepubgen/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (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.
[-]: 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 5 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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 must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libepubgen-
doc
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for
[Bug 1116517] Review Request: libepubgen - an EPUB generator library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116517 David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dtar...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libepubgen Short Description: An EPUB generator library Upstream URL: https://sourceforge.net/projects/libepubgen/ Owners: dtardon Branches: 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 1114696] Review Request: repo_manager - Manage your RPM repositories easily
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114696
--- Comment #5 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamed...@gmail.com ---
Only one issue -
repo_manager.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/repo_manager/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
--- This needs to be fixed.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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]: 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/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1114696-repo_manager/licensecheck.txt
--- This is not an issue here.
GPL (v3 or later)
-
repo_manager-0.1.0/repo_manager/__init__.py
repo_manager-0.1.0/repo_manager/repo_manager.py
repo_manager-0.1.0/tests/__init__.py
Unknown or generated
repo_manager-0.1.0/runtests.sh
repo_manager-0.1.0/setup.py
[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.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
--- Usage of underscore is fine since the package is so named upstream.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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 must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
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]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= 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
[Bug 1116653] New: Review Request: abduco - Session management in a clean and simple way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116653 Bug ID: 1116653 Summary: Review Request: abduco - Session management in a clean and simple way Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/abduco.spec SRPM URL: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/abduco-0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: abduco provides session management i.e. it allows programs to be run independently from its controlling terminal. That is programs can be detached - run in the background - and then later reattached. Together with dvtm it provides a simpler and cleaner alternative to tmux or screen. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- 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 1116653] Review Request: abduco - Session management in a clean and simple way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116653 --- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7110365 -- 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 1116653] Review Request: abduco - Session management in a clean and simple way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116653 Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||de...@fateyev.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|de...@fateyev.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- Funny, I've just finished package for it, too ;-) One question: what's the reason to create bogus configure script and run it? Build goes smoothly without it. Do you have plans to package it for EPEL? -- 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 1116653] Review Request: abduco - Session management in a clean and simple way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116653 --- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #2) Funny, I've just finished package for it, too ;-) :-) One question: what's the reason to create bogus configure script and run it? we want to apply Fedora CFLAGS for make. Build goes smoothly without it. Do you have plans to package it for EPEL? If someone needed. -- 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 1116653] Review Request: abduco - Session management in a clean and simple way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116653 --- Comment #4 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- we want to apply Fedora CFLAGS for make. I got it looking at the koji build. I patched all CFLAGS options in spec, it gave me the same result. Anyway, not so important when it works. And with `configure` it seems to be more efficient. If someone needed. I do (for all branches if possible). -- 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 1116653] Review Request: abduco - Session management in a clean and simple way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116653
Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com ---
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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
ISC, Unknown or generated. 5 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/mock/sandbox/test/1116653-abduco/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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 must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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).
[x]: 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]: Buildroot
[Bug 1047647] Review Request: libchardet - Mozilla's Universal Charset Detector C/C++ API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047647 --- Comment #13 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- Any changes here? -- 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 1091483] Review Request: python-pyprintr - Module that allows to emulate the print_r() PHP function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091483 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|volke...@gmx.at Flags||fedora-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 1001452] Review Request: makepp - Compatible but reliable and improved replacement for make
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001452 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2014-07-06 21:38:58 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Due to ccache bug[1], I can't build this package. Closing now. If someone is interested at this package, feel free to open a new ticket. [1]---https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8424 -- 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 1001452] Review Request: makepp - Compatible but reliable and improved replacement for make
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001452 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-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 1114187] Review Request: python-shadowsocks - A fast tunnel proxy that help you get through firewalls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114187 --- Comment #2 from Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-shadowsocks.spec SRPM URL: http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/python-shadowsocks-2.0.8-2.fc20.src.rpm 2.0.8-2 Change: - Explicitly use python2 macros (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1) Hi Robin. At a fast check, your .spec file needs some fixes according to the Python packaging guidelines (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python); also, it does not provide any License file. A license file is already in the upstream git but has not been included in the released tarball. I will persuade upstream to get it included in next release. https://github.com/clowwindy/shadowsocks/issues/151 -- 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 1058628] Review Request: linode-cli - Official command-line interface to the Linode platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058628 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||Ready --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- NEW SPEC URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/linode-cli.spec NEW SRPM URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/linode-cli-1.3.2-1.fc21.src.rpm -- 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 1075598] Review Request: ghc-contravariant - Contravariant functors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075598 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-contravariant-0.5.2-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-contravariant-0.5.2-1.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 1075598] Review Request: ghc-contravariant - Contravariant functors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075598 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-contravariant-0.5.2-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-contravariant-0.5.2-1.fc19 -- 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 1075598] Review Request: ghc-contravariant - Contravariant functors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075598 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 1112072] Review Request: vit - A minimalist Taskwarrior full-screen terminal interface with Vim key bindings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112072
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck:
Unknown or generated
vit-1.2/args.pl
vit-1.2/cmdline.pl
vit-1.2/cmds.pl
vit-1.2/color.pl
vit-1.2/curses.pl
vit-1.2/draw.pl
vit-1.2/env.pl
vit-1.2/exec.pl
vit-1.2/getch.pl
vit-1.2/misc.pl
vit-1.2/prompt.pl
vit-1.2/read.pl
vit-1.2/screen.pl
vit-1.2/search.pl
vit-1.2/vit.pl
vit-1.2/vitrc.pl
[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
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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.
[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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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
= 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc,
[Bug 1075595] Review Request: ghc-transformers-compat - A compatibility shim exposing the new types from transformers 0.3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075595 --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- The best way to enable the three flag is to use run: cabal-tweak-flag three True in %prep. Failing that patching is also okay, but using cabal-tweak-flag is much easier to maintain. (What I said on irc about setting flags with %cabal_configure_options or $cabal_configure_extra_options is suboptimal since it is not visible to tools like cblrpm or cblrepo.) -- 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 1097985] Rename Request: naver-nanum-fonts - Nanum family of Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097985 Daiki Ueno du...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Daiki Ueno du...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: naver-nanum-fonts Short Description: Nanum family of Korean TrueType fonts Owners: ueno Branches: f20 InitialCC: fonts-sig i18n-team -- 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 1075595] Review Request: ghc-transformers-compat - A compatibility shim exposing the new types from transformers 0.3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075595 --- Comment #7 from Ricky Elrod rel...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org/packages/ghc-transformers-compat/ghc-transformers-compat.spec SRPM URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org/packages/ghc-transformers-compat/ghc-transformers-compat-0.3.3.4-2.fc20.src.rpm Scratch build: Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7110763 -- 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 1075595] Review Request: ghc-transformers-compat - A compatibility shim exposing the new types from newer transformers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075595 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |ghc-transformers-compat - A |ghc-transformers-compat - A |compatibility shim exposing |compatibility shim exposing |the new types from |the new types from newer |transformers 0.3|transformers -- 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
