package-review February 2007

package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
2523 discussions

fedora-review requested: [Bug 226480] Merge Review: tclx
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 Feb '07

08 Feb '07

Bug 226480: Merge Review: tclx Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova <mmaslano(a)redhat.com> has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226480

1 0

fedora-review requested: [Bug 226505] Merge Review: ttcp
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 Feb '07

08 Feb '07

Bug 226505: Merge Review: ttcp Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova <mmaslano(a)redhat.com> has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226505

1 0

fedora-review requested: [Bug 226529] Merge Review: vixie-cron
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 Feb '07

08 Feb '07

Bug 226529: Merge Review: vixie-cron Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova <mmaslano(a)redhat.com> has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226529

1 0

fedora-review denied: [Bug 226513] Merge Review: units
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Feb '07

07 Feb '07

Bug 226513: Merge Review: units Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> has denied Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com>'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226513 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: e27f580474702e9138b332acbafafe5b units-1.86.tar.gz e27f580474702e9138b332acbafafe5b units-1.86.tar.gz.1 See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 0 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Might include in %doc: ChangeLog COPYING NEWS README 2. Buildroot should be the default one: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 3. rpmlint says: rpmlint on units-1.86-3.fc7.src.rpm W: units summary-ended-with-dot A utility for converting amounts from one unit to another. Suggest: remove . at the end of summary. W: units no-url-tag Suggest: add a "URL: http://www.gnu.org/software/units/units.html" W: units prereq-use /sbin/install-info Suggest: remove the "Prereq: /sbin/install-info" and replace per http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-47896da5… 62d75deefeb9ba75145a398515db with Requires(post): /sbin/install-info Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info 4. Don't use %makeinstall, instead use 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' per http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MakeInstall 5. Possible missing Buildrequires? checking for sin... no checking for tparm in -lncurses... no checking for tgetent in -ltermcap... no checking for readline in -lreadline... no Once you have addressed these items (either by making the suggested changes, or by explaining why they don't make sense), please reassign this review back to me, and change the 'fedora-review' flag back to ? for me to take action.

1 0

fedora-review requested: [Bug 226513] Merge Review: units
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Feb '07

07 Feb '07

Bug 226513: Merge Review: units Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226513 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> I'd be happy to review this package... look for a full review in a bit.

1 0

fedora-review granted: [Bug 226660] Merge Review: xterm
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Feb '07

07 Feb '07

Bug 226660: Merge Review: xterm Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> has granted Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar(a)redhat.com>'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226660 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> Thanks for the prompt fixes. Just to record here, we discussed adding the desktop file today in the #fedora-desktop irc channel. It seems it should be fine to do so. If this turns out to be a problem due to xterm being installed for the gdm failsafe mode, we can always go back and remove the desktop file. I see no further blockers here, so this package is APPROVED. I think the current plan is to leave this review assigned to you, and with the fedora-review flag set to + until it can be determined how to set them up in CVS. Thanks again.

1 0

fedora-review denied: [Bug 225237] Merge Review: acpid
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Feb '07

07 Feb '07

Bug 225237: Merge Review: acpid Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> has denied Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com>'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> Thanks for the quick fixes and reply... 1. good. ok. 2. good. ok. 3.1 good. ok. 3.2 I suppose so. ok. 3.3 good. ok. 3.4 Not sure why it's complaining about that 0755 init script. ;( good on the prereqs. 3.5 good. ok. 4.1 Humm...I haven't seen that used for /var/log/FOO files before... I guess there aren't many packages that make such files. Looking at for example vixie-cron, it just has no mention of the log file at all. I guess the question is: do we want this package to remove the /var/log/acpid log when the package is removed? Or should it linger around? We should probibly decide what behavior is desired and make all the packages that create /var/log files do the same thing... In fact I am hard pressed to find another package that does things the way this one does. Do you have any example? scrollkeeper appears to ghost the log file, but yum, x.org, vixie-cron just don't claim anything for their log file (ie, it's unowned). 4.2 good. ok. 4.3 good. ok. Setting it back to you to comment on the 4.1 issue. When you do, please assign it back to me and change the fedora-review flag back to ? Thanks again for the quick fixes...

1 0

fedora-review granted: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Feb '07

07 Feb '07

Bug 225609: Merge Review: bash Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> has granted Tim Waugh <twaugh(a)redhat.com>'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> Excellent. I see no further blockers, so this package is APPROVED. Thanks for the great responsiveness and fixes... I think the plan is to leave these review bugs around assigned to you and in the fedora-review + state until it's determined how to merge them into CVS.

1 0

fedora-review denied: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Feb '07

07 Feb '07

Bug 225822: Merge Review: gnome-media Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola <dakingun(a)gmail.com> has denied Deji Akingunola <dakingun(a)gmail.com>'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 ------- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola <dakingun(a)gmail.com> A couple of issues for gnome-media; NEEDSWORK: * rpmlint (on the binary package, the -devel subpackage, and the srpm) produces a number of warnings/errors. Most of it can possibly be ignored, but I think the rpath issue need to be fixed >> [deji@agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-media tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: gnome-media obsolete-not-provided gnome E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libglade/2.0/libgnome-media-profiles.so ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-audio-profiles-properties ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-cd ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/cddb-track-editor ['/usr/lib64'] W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/CDDB-Slave2.schemas W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-audio-profiles.schemas W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-volume-control.schemas W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-cd.schemas [deji@agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-devel-2.17.90-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-media-devel tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: gnome-media-devel no-documentation [deji@agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-1.fc7.src.rpm E: gnome-media tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: gnome-media non-utf8-spec-file gnome-media.spec W: gnome-media unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnome W: gnome-media macro-in-%changelog _datadir W: gnome-media mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 22) * scrollkeeper-update is not being properly called in the post and postun sections according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=show&redir… ScriptletSnippets#head-a4ea5e1946bc113d19d24b4f5bfb543c579e5fc8 * "--add-category X-Redhat-Base" option to desktop-file-install is no longer necesary Not so importantly, the "disable-schemas-install" option can be pass to the configure script instead of setting and unsetting GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTAL env.

1 0

fedora-review denied: [Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Feb '07

07 Feb '07

Bug 225838: Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola <dakingun(a)gmail.com> has denied Deji Akingunola <dakingun(a)gmail.com>'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 ------- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola <dakingun(a)gmail.com> Good: * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Sources, Group and License tags properly in place * Locales handled correctly * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * Package builds OK in Mock. NEEDSWORK: According to the packaging guildlines on rpm scriplets, * The post and postun Requires on desktop-file-utils is not necessary * call to scrollkeeper-update in post section is inclomplete, should be called like; "scrollkeeper-update -q -o %{_datadir}/omf/%{name} || :" * I believe the "add-category X-Redhat-Base" is no longer necessary for the desktop file install. A couple of other minor nitpicks; * You can pass the "--disable-schemas-install" option to the configure script, without needing to set and unset the GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTALL env. * There are a number of rpmlint warnings/errors which I believe can be ignored; [deji@agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-system-monitor-2.17.6-1.fc7.src.rpm W: gnome-system-monitor unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gtop [deji@agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-system-monitor-2.17.6-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-system-monitor obsolete-not-provided gtop W: gnome-system-monitor no-documentation W: gnome-system-monitor non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-system-monitor.schemas

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

package-review February 2007