[Bug 1198342] Review Request: dateutils - Command-line date and time calculation, conversion, and comparison
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198342 --- Comment #36 from Matthew Miller mat...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #35) (In reply to Matthew Miller from comment #34) Ralf, I believe the current naming to be compliant. I do not agree c.f. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL The problem with your release number is them not being helpful in long terms when something happens to the repo. That seems like a completely separate issue, and not one covered by the packaging guidelines in this case. Again, this isn't my release number; it is an upstream post-release package, unmodified and with the number used as is. But that's okay. We can agree to disagree. I'll push for an upstream 0.3.3 release and then this won't be a concern. -- 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 1212157] Review Request: plotnetcfg - A tool to plot network configuration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212157 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- plotnetcfg-0.3-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/plotnetcfg-0.3-1.fc21 -- 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 1155053] Review Request: jenkins-matrix-auth-plugin - Jenkins Matrix Authorization Strategy Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155053 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jenkins-matrix-auth-plugin Short Description: Jenkins Matrix Authorization Strategy Plugin Upstream URL: https://github.com/jenkinsci/matrix-auth-plugin Owners: msrb mizdebsk msimacek Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-sig Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- 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 1215261] Review Request: pytimeparse - Time expression parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215261
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hgue...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
1. please rename the attached spec too (besides, it's different from the one in
spec)
2. use %{__python2} and %{python2_sitelib} macros = blocker (as python3 will
be default in the future, versioned macros are to be preferred)
3. cleaning buildroot is not needed, drop it from %install too
4. drop Group tag
3. and 4. mostly RHEL/CentOS 6 support is not needed
When these will be done, please needinfo me (@redhat.com preferred) and it'll
be approved (I already reviewed the code, licensing issues, testing deployment
and usage in chrooted env)
--
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 1203749] Review Request: dssp - Protein secondary structure assignment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203749
--- Comment #11 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net ---
Dave, you should also pass distribution-wide linker flags to linker command:
%build
...
echo LDOPTS=%{__global_ldflags} make.config
make %{?_smp_mflags}
Doing rm -rf %{buildroot} is not an error (certainly not review-blocking) if
you wish to maintain a single spec across all EL and Fedora branches, but you
need to use %license where available, so try the following:
%files
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
%license LICENSE_1_0.txt
%doc changelog README.txt
Since the package contains just one binary, please use
%{_bindir}/mkdssp
instead of
%_bindir/*
And, similarly,
%{_mandir}/man1/mkdssp.1*
Finally, I wouldn't insist on patching DESTDIR into the Makefile and simply
used:
make install DEST_DIR=%{buildroot}%{_prefix}
in %install section.
Sending a patch to support setting PREFIX and DESTDIR independently upstream is
of course recommended.
--
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 1155051] Review Request: jenkins-ldap-plugin - Jenkins LDAP Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155051 Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jenkins-ldap-plugin Short Description: Jenkins LDAP Plugin Upstream URL: https://github.com/jenkinsci/ldap-plugin Owners: msrb mizdebsk msimacek Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-sig Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- 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 1217212] Review Request: sqliteodbc - ODBC driver for SQLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217212 Damian Wrobel dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl --- Comment #2 from Damian Wrobel dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl --- Looks like a duplicate of bug #1146181? -- 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 1212157] Review Request: plotnetcfg - A tool to plot network configuration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212157 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- plotnetcfg-0.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/plotnetcfg-0.3-1.el7 -- 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 1218362] Review Request: richacls - Rich Access Control List utilities and dynamic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218362 --- Comment #9 from Andreas Gruenbacher agrue...@redhat.com --- Updated version: https://agruenba.fedorapeople.org/scratch/richacl-1.5-2.fc21.src.rpm https://agruenba.fedorapeople.org/scratch/richacl.spec -- 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 1196780] Review Request: openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
# make install doesn't do anything for this qmake project so we do
# the installs manually
#make INSTALL_ROOT=%{buildroot} install
rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/lib*.a
rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/lib*.la
^^^ this looks like an oversight, presumably there's nothing to delete yet.
Why is ldconfig in %post needed for the main package?
%clean can probably be dropped.
Use %license for COPYING
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text).
Suggestion: use the name of the main package for docs and license dirs:
%global _docdir_fmt %{name}
--
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 1215261] Review Request: pytimeparse - Time expression parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215261 Pradeep Kilambi pkila...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||karlthe...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #4 from Pradeep Kilambi pkila...@redhat.com --- Thank Haikel. Done. Here it is: Spec: https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/python-pytimeparse/python-pytimeparse.spec SRPM: https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/python-pytimeparse/python-pytimeparse-1.1.4-1.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 1192059] Review Request: gtk-sharp3 - GTK 3 sharp for Mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192059 --- Comment #9 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz claudiorodr...@pereyradiaz.com.ar --- Thanks for feedback. I add define for mono macros to proper build in epel7 to. For that I leave the Group tag. Other suggestion was applied Spec URL: https://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/gtk-sharp3.spec SRPM URL: https://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/gtk-sharp3-2.99.3-7.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 1215732] Review Request: pypy3 - Python 3 implementation with a Just-In-Time compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215732 --- Comment #19 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- There are numerous files in /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib-python/3/ with shebangs like this: base64.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 cgi.py:#! /usr/bin/python cProfile.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 encodings/rot_13.py:#!/usr/bin/env python keyword.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 lib2to3/pgen2/token.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 lib2to3/tests/pytree_idempotency.py:#!/usr/bin/env python3 pdb.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 platform.py:#!/usr/bin/env python3 profile.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 pydoc.py:#!/usr/bin/env python3 quopri.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 smtpd.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 symbol.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 tabnanny.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 test/pystone.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 test/regrtest.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 test/re_tests.py:#!/usr/bin/env python3 test/test_array.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 test/test_binhex.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 test/test_errno.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 test/test_gzip.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 test/test_urlparse.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 test/test_userstring.py:#!/usr/bin/env python3 turtledemo/__main__.py:#!/usr/bin/env python3 uu.py:#! /usr/bin/env python3 Now I'm not sure if I should change everything to /usr/bin/pypy3 or what. -- 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 1198342] Review Request: dateutils - Command-line date and time calculation, conversion, and comparison
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198342
--- Comment #38 from Matthew Miller mat...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment
#37)
The internal version inside the source tarball is greater than 0.3.2 and
lower than 0.3.3, so %{version} becoming 0.3.2 or 0.3.3 would not be
entirely right either. Agreed? I hope so.
Right. It is, in fact, version 0.3.2.git37.96a5495 — higher than 0.3.2, lower
than 0.3.3, and the git## numbers sort properly, so this is exactly the
situation in the guidelines as noted in Comment #34. I agree that other
situations might have other complications, but this one seems to be provided
for.
--
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 1215728] Review Request: openstack-gnocchi - HTTP API to store metrics and index resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215728 Pradeep Kilambi pkila...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||karlthe...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #1 from Pradeep Kilambi pkila...@redhat.com --- Made some changes. Here is the new spec: SPEC: https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/openstack-gnocchi/openstack-gnocchi.spec SRPM: https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/openstack-gnocchi/openstack-gnocchi-1.0.0c2-1.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 1198342] Review Request: dateutils - Command-line date and time calculation, conversion, and comparison
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198342
--- Comment #37 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
It is non-trivial. The guidelines would need to be much more complex to cover
all scenarios. They would grow to the size of a book and result in many more
packager(s) preferring dumping grounds such as Fedora Copr where Fedora's
Package Review Process can be avoided.
[...]
The internal version inside the source tarball is greater than 0.3.2 and lower
than 0.3.3, so %{version} becoming 0.3.2 or 0.3.3 would not be entirely right
either. Agreed? I hope so.
[...]
What may not be an immediate problem for dateutils, can result in problems
for other packages with similar upstream versions. Think of versioned
dependencies related to automatic Provides, versions in pkgconfig files,
versions in config tools, versions advertised by program option --version,
versions retrievable via API methods and similar.
How to handle the RPM package %version in all cases cannot be decided with a
one-size-fits-all rule, i.e. one cannot blindly give a post-release snaphot a
%version matching the next upstream version. It may not be compatible enough
with that future release and possibly may not be compatible with the previously
released version anymore either.
When installing from upstream source tarballs, there is no version upgrade
check as when using RPM packages. Files get overwritten by make install.
That's all. The internal version of an upstream source package may be lower
than the previous install. The next version of a tarball snapshot may be lower.
Unless upstream ensures that every new release, whether snapshot or not,
introduces a version higher than an older versions. Whether that's the case and
whether that versioning scheme can be mapped to RPM versioning, is a different
story, but one reason why the guidelines exist. Simply switching to another
service provider that generates nightly snapshots may introduce a different
tarball versioning scheme that may require work-arounds for the RPM package
versions published so far.
Food for thought.
IMHO, during review, the most important thing is to raise awareness of the
problem and the guidelines. It may not be an issue for dateutils, if 0.3.3 is
near, but that's not the point of talking about 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 1192059] Review Request: gtk-sharp3 - GTK 3 sharp for Mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192059 --- Comment #10 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz claudiorodr...@pereyradiaz.com.ar --- Koji task: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9658746 -- 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 1214299] Review Request: kf5-bluez-qt - A Qt wrapper for Bluez
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214299 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-05-05 11:43:57 --- Comment #9 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- imported -- 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 1218788] Review Request: yast2-filesystem - YaST filesystem layout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218788 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Many thanks for the quick review, Christian! * * * New Package SCM Request === Package Name: yast2-filesystem Short Description: YaST filesystem layout Upstream URL: https://en.opensuse.org/Portal:YaST Owners: besser82 Branches: epel7 f22 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 1087855] Review Request: scite - SCIntilla based GTK2 text editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087855 --- Comment #21 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu --- Somehow this review missed the bundled copy of scintilla. -- 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 1215046] Review Request: python-gear - Pure Python Async Gear Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215046 Pranav Kant pranav...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pranav...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Pranav Kant pranav...@gmail.com --- Just a quick informal review. * You need either python2-devel or python3-devel in BR. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires * You have some commented out commands in %build section. Either use them or remove them. * Binary eggs must be removed in %prep section; remove .egg-info files. * You don't need %clean section. Fedora handles it for you. -- 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 1155048] Review Request: cvsclient - CVS library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155048
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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. 213 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/gil/1155048-cvsclient/review-
cvsclient/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-metadata
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-metadata
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[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 40960 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
[Bug 1155048] Review Request: cvsclient - CVS library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155048 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- NON blocking issues, please fix before import: cvsclient.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 71-1 ['71-1.jenkins11.fc23', '71-1.jenkins11'] [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. Please, use %license macro instead of %doc for license file -- 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 1155048] Review Request: cvsclient - CVS library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155048 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- 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 1203700] Review Request: python-cligj - Click params for GeoJSON CLI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203700 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-cligj-0.1.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cligj-0.1.0-1.fc21 -- 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 1192059] Review Request: gtk-sharp3 - GTK 3 sharp for Mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192059
--- Comment #11 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
Sorry, I made a typo: it's %{?_smp_mflags} not %{?_smp_flags} .
- ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in gtk-sharp3
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
Perl:
[ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`;
echo $version)) missing?
You have some explicit dependencies on perl packages, but they should be
generated automatically. If automatic generation does not work, add a comment
in the spec file.
gtk-sharp3.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gtk-sharp3/AUTHORS
Directory /usr/lib/gapi-3.0 should be owned by gtk-sharp3-gapi
Consider adding %global _docdir_fmt %{name} somewhere at the top. This will
make all subpackages use the same license and doc directories, reducing
duplication of files.
--
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 1215732] Review Request: pypy3 - Python 3 implementation with a Just-In-Time compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215732 --- Comment #20 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- OK, doing that (thanks Zbyszek for help on IRC). https://github.com/fedora-python/pypy3/commit/36afc7f79102c83960c3d6bf8f4a8620554c0137 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9659924 -- 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 1203700] Review Request: python-cligj - Click params for GeoJSON CLI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203700 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-cligj-0.1.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-cligj-0.1.0-1.fc22 -- 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 1203700] Review Request: python-cligj - Click params for GeoJSON CLI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203700 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 1198342] Review Request: dateutils - Command-line date and time calculation, conversion, and comparison
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198342 --- Comment #35 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Matthew Miller from comment #34) Ralf, I believe the current naming to be compliant. I do not agree c.f. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL The problem with your release number is them not being helpful in long terms when something happens to the repo. -- 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 1197605] Review Request: python-django-rest-framework - Web APIs for Django, made easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197605 --- Comment #5 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu --- I think you forgot to upload the new SRPM. At the URL you gave, I get a 404 error. -- 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 1212157] Review Request: plotnetcfg - A tool to plot network configuration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212157 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 1212157] Review Request: plotnetcfg - A tool to plot network configuration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212157 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- plotnetcfg-0.3-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/plotnetcfg-0.3-1.fc22 -- 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 1087855] Review Request: scite - SCIntilla based GTK2 text editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087855 keric...@pppl.gov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||keric...@pppl.gov --- Comment #20 from keric...@pppl.gov --- Can we get this into EPEL6? -- 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 1060804] Review Request: flamp - Amateur Multicast Protocol - file transfer program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804 --- Comment #21 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com --- SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flamp.spec SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flamp-2.2.02-1.fc21.src.rpm * Tue May 5 2015 Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com - 2.2.02-1 - Update to latest upstream release. - Build with external xmlrpc library. -- 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 1218749] New: Review Request: yast2-devtools - YaST Development Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218749
Bug ID: 1218749
Summary: Review Request: yast2-devtools - YaST Development
Tools
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: bjoern.es...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Description:
Common scripts and templates for developing and building YaST2 modules
and components.
Koji Builds:
Frh: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9660683
Issues:
yast2-devtools.noarch:
W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
-- noarch-package
W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/pkgconfig/yast2-devtools.pc
-- package has development / build-purpose, only.
W: no-manual-page-for-binary y2tool
W: no-manual-page-for-binary y2m
-- ignored ;)
yast2-devtools.src:
E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/YaST2/*
-- package is noarch. no real biniaries.
FAS-User:
besser82
Urls:
Spec URL: https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/yast2-devtools.spec
SRPM URL:
https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/yast2-devtools-3.1.30-0.1.fc23.src.rpm
Additional Information:
none
Thanks for review in advance!
--
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 1060852] Review Request: flnet - Amateur Radio Net Control Station
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852 --- Comment #12 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com --- SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet.spec SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet-7.2.3-1.fc21.src.rpm * Tue May 5 2015 Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com - 7.2.3-1 - Update to latest upstream release. - Build with external xmlrpc library. - Update package to use %%license where appropriate. -- 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 1215732] Review Request: pypy3 - Python 3 implementation with a Just-In-Time compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215732 --- Comment #22 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Thank you very much for the review,your comments were very helpful. -- 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 1197605] Review Request: python-django-rest-framework - Web APIs for Django, made easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197605
--- Comment #7 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu ---
I have some errors with fedora-review:
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/rest_framework/locale/en_US/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python2.7
/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/en_US, /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/rest_framework/locale/zh_CN, /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/rest_framework/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python2.7
/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/pt_PT/LC_MESSAGES,
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/rest_framework/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python2.7
/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/pt_BR/LC_MESSAGES,
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/rest_framework/locale/ko_KR/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python2.7
/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/ko_KR, /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/rest_framework/locale/pt_PT, /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/rest_framework/locale/ko_KR, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/rest_framework/locale/pt_BR, /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/rest_framework/locale/pt_BR/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python3.4
/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/pt_PT/LC_MESSAGES,
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/en_US,
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/pt_BR,
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/pt_PT,
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/zh_CN,
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/rest_framework/locale/ko_KR/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python2.7
/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/en_US/LC_MESSAGES
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/rest_framework/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python3.4
/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/pt_PT/LC_MESSAGES,
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/pt_PT,
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/ko_KR,
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/rest_framework/locale/en_US/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python2.7
/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/pt_PT/LC_MESSAGES,
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/pt_BR,
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/pt_PT,
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/rest_framework/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python3.4
/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/zh_CN, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/rest_framework/locale/pt_BR/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python2.7
/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/ko_KR/LC_MESSAGES,
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/ko_KR,
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/pt_BR,
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/rest_framework/locale/pt_BR/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python2.7
/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/en_US, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/rest_framework/locale/en_US/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/lib/python3.4
/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/ko_KR/LC_MESSAGES,
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/en_US,
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rest_framework/locale/zh_CN
I think that %{python3_sitelib}/rest_framework/locale/??/ in your %files
section is too restrictive. Maybe use a *? Or include the whole directory?
--
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 1197605] Review Request: python-django-rest-framework - Web APIs for Django, made easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197605 --- Comment #6 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- shame on me. SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-rest-framework.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-rest-framework-3.1.1-2.fc22.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9660875 -- 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 1218758] Review Request: flmsg - Fast Light Message Amateur Radio Forms Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218758 --- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9660851 -- 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 1218758] New: Review Request: flmsg - Fast Light Message Amateur Radio Forms Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218758 Bug ID: 1218758 Summary: Review Request: flmsg - Fast Light Message Amateur Radio Forms Manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: hobbes1...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//flmsg.spec SRPM URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//flmsg-2.0.10-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: flmsg is a editor / file management tool for ics213 forms which form the basis for emergency communications data transfers. -- 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 1197605] Review Request: python-django-rest-framework - Web APIs for Django, made easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197605 --- Comment #8 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Sigh, that wasn't caught by rpmlint and during build as well. Handling locale files is a bit tricky here. I don't want those files included twice SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-rest-framework.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-rest-framework-3.1.1-3.fc22.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 1218310] Review Request: fedora-user-agent-chrome - User-Agent Fedora branding for Google Chrome/Chromium browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218310 --- Comment #2 from Tomas Popela tpop...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #1) ! The license field in the spec file matches the actual license background.js says or any later version, but the spec file license tag says GPLv2 -- should it be GPLv2+ instead? You are right. I updated the SPEC and SRPM files. -- 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 1213976] Review Request: sqlite-jdbc - SQLite JDBC library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1213976 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sqlite-jdbc Short Description: SQLite JDBC library Upstream URL: https://github.com/xerial/sqlite-jdbc Owners: gil Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-sig -- 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 1193531] Review Request: php-phpspec - Specification-oriented BDD framework for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193531 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-phpspec-2.2.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-phpspec-2.2.0-1.fc22 -- 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 1193531] Review Request: php-phpspec - Specification-oriented BDD framework for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193531 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- php-phpspec-2.2.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-phpspec-2.2.0-1.fc21 -- 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 1213976] Review Request: sqlite-jdbc - SQLite JDBC library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1213976
Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com ---
Sorry for long delay.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
[x] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[x] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[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 must be included in %doc.
[x] The spec file must be written in American English.
[x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use
sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once
imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this
package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with
this.
[x] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[x] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the
package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug
number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding
ExcludeArch line.
[x] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
Apply common sense.
[x] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
[x] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[x] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[x] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[x] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a
package which does create that directory.
[x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in
specific situations.)
[x] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example.
[x] Each package must consistently use macros.
[x] The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement,
but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
[x] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[x] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[x] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires:
%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[x] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[x] Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed
with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel
that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file,
you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first
[Bug 1218310] Review Request: fedora-user-agent-chrome - User-Agent Fedora branding for Google Chrome/Chromium browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218310 Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com --- Looks good to me now. APPROVED -- 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 1218310] Review Request: fedora-user-agent-chrome - User-Agent Fedora branding for Google Chrome/Chromium browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218310 Tomas Popela tpop...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Tomas Popela tpop...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: fedora-user-agent-chrome Short Description: User-Agent Fedora branding for Google Chrome/Chromium browser Upstream URL: https://github.com/tpopela/fedora-user-agent-chrome Owners: tpopela Branches: f22 InitialCC: tpopela -- 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 1192059] Review Request: gtk-sharp3 - GTK 3 sharp for Mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192059 --- Comment #12 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz claudiorodr...@pereyradiaz.com.ar --- I think that now all suggestion was applied. Spec URL: https://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/gtk-sharp3.spec SRPM URL: https://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/gtk-sharp3-2.99.3-8.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 1218749] Review Request: yast2-devtools - YaST Development Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218749
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 ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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.
Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
--- NOT an issue! Package uses %license
= 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 (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 16 files have unknown
license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/YaST2, /usr/share/YaST2
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/YaST2, /usr/share/YaST2
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/vim/site(vim-plugin-
powerline), /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp(autoconf, emacs-filesystem),
/usr/share/emacs(autoconf, emacs-filesystem), /usr/share/vim(vim-common)
[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 92160 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
Note: yast2-devtools : /usr/share/pkgconfig/yast2-devtools.pc
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for
[Bug 1197605] Review Request: python-django-rest-framework - Web APIs for Django, made easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197605 Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu --- This time, it looks good. Approved! -- 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 1197605] Review Request: python-django-rest-framework - Web APIs for Django, made easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197605 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Thanks much, greatly appreciated! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-django-rest-framework Short Description: Web APIs for Django, made easy Upstream URL: http://www.django-rest-framework.org/ Owners: mrunge Branches: f22 -- 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 1218749] Review Request: yast2-devtools - YaST Development Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218749 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Many thanks for the review, Florian! * * * New Package SCM Request === Package Name: yast2-devtools Short Description: YaST Development Tools Upstream URL: https://en.opensuse.org/Portal:YaST Owners: besser82 Branches: epel7 f22 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 1218779] New: Review Request: vagrant-triggers - Vagrant plugin to allow using arbitrary commands on host before/after Vagrant commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218779 Bug ID: 1218779 Summary: Review Request: vagrant-triggers - Vagrant plugin to allow using arbitrary commands on host before/after Vagrant commands Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ngomp...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/vagrant-triggers.spec SRPM URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/vagrant-triggers-0.5.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: A Vagrant plugin that allows for the definition of arbitrary scripts that will run on the host before and/or after Vagrant commands. Fedora Account System Username: ngompa -- 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 1215732] Review Request: pypy3 - Python 3 implementation with a Just-In-Time compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215732 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #23 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: pypy3 Short Description: Python 3 implementation with a Just-In-Time compiler Upstream URL: http://pypy.org/ Owners: churchyard mstuchli Branches: f21 f22 -- 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 1215732] Review Request: pypy3 - Python 3 implementation with a Just-In-Time compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215732 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #21 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- This takes care of the last issue. $ rpm -qpR pypy3-libs-2.4.0-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /usr/bin/pypy3 emacs-filesystem = 24.5 libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libpanel.so.5()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libtcl8.6.so()(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) libtk8.6.so()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) $ rpm -qpR pypy3-2.4.0-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) ld-linux-x86-64.so.2(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.15)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libexpat.so.1()(64bit) libffi.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) librt.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) libutil.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) pypy3-libs(x86-64) = 2.4.0-1.fc23 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) Package is APPROVED. -- 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 1060817] Review Request: fllog - Amateur Radio Log Program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060817 --- Comment #12 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com --- SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/fllog.spec SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/fllog-1.2.0-1.fc21.src.rpm * Tue May 5 2015 Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com - 1.2.0-1 - Update to latest upstream release. - Build with external xmlrpc library. -- 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 1197605] Review Request: python-django-rest-framework - Web APIs for Django, made easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197605 --- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review Upstream does not distribute a license file https://github.com/tomchristie/django-rest-framework/issues/2906 python3 package added SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-rest-framework.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-rest-framework-3.1.1-1.fc22.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 1197605] Review Request: python-django-rest-framework - Web APIs for Django, made easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197605 --- Comment #3 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu --- Mock build fails due to: ImportError: No module named setuptools Please update the BR -- 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 1218788] New: Review Request: yast2-filesystem - YaST filesystem layout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218788
Bug ID: 1218788
Summary: Review Request: yast2-filesystem - YaST filesystem
layout
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: bjoern.es...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Description:
This package holds the common filesystem-layout used by YaST2
and handles log-rotation for YaST2-logfiles.
Koji Builds:
Frh: no build, yet. depends on rhbz #1218749.
Issues:
yast2-filesystem.x86_64: E: no-binary
-- package is arch'ed, because of %{_libdir}.
FAS-User:
besser82
Urls:
Spec URL: https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/yast2-filesystem.spec
SRPM URL:
https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/yast2-filesystem-0.1.0-0.1.fc23.src.rpm
Additional Information:
none
Thanks for review in advance!
--
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 1218788] Review Request: yast2-filesystem - YaST filesystem layout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218788 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||yast2-filesystem -- 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 1218749] Review Request: yast2-devtools - YaST Development Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218749 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1218788 Alias||yast2-devtools Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218788 [Bug 1218788] Review Request: yast2-filesystem - YaST filesystem layout -- 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 1218788] Review Request: yast2-filesystem - YaST filesystem layout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218788 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1218749 (yast2-devtools) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218749 [Bug 1218749] Review Request: yast2-devtools - YaST Development Tools -- 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 1120788] Review Request: Rex - Tool for Automation, Remote Execution and Configuration Deployment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120788 --- Comment #5 from Dominic Hopf dma...@fedoraproject.org --- Updated to 1.2.1: Spec URL: https://dmaphy.fedorapeople.org/Rex/Rex.spec SRPM URL: https://dmaphy.fedorapeople.org/Rex/Rex-1.2.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Koji Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9661659 -- 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 1155048] Review Request: cvsclient - CVS library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155048 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it 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 1218788] Review Request: yast2-filesystem - YaST filesystem layout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218788 Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lupi...@mailbox.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org --- Taken :) Review will follow soon -- 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 1155058] Review Request: jenkins-translation-plugin - Jenkins Translation Assistance Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155058 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Please, update to 1.12 -- 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 1218788] Review Request: yast2-filesystem - YaST filesystem layout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218788
Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch lupi...@mailbox.org ---
Approved!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE.txt in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
=== False positive in this case, see comment in spec
= 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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/logrotate.d
== Makes sense
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[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.
[-]: 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 1 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]: 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]: %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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
=== I don't know how to test this, maybe we weill see in future
[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
[Bug 1197605] Review Request: python-django-rest-framework - Web APIs for Django, made easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197605 --- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Done. I just verified, it really builds in mock. SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-rest-framework.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-django-rest-framework-3.1.1-2.fc22.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 1215997] Review Request: compat-gnutls28 - Compat package with gnutls library ABI version 28
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215997 Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version||compat-gnutls28-3.3.15-1.fc ||23 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-05-05 07:28:49 --- Comment #7 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com --- Package imported and built. -- 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
