June 2010 - package-review - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 575185] New: Review Request: python-bunch - python dictionary with attribute-style access

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-bunch - python dictionary with attribute-style access https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=575185 Summary: Review Request: python-bunch - python dictionary with attribute-style access Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: a.badger(a)gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-bunch.spec SRPM URL: http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-bunch-1.0.0-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: python-bunch provides a python class which can perform as a dict whose keys are also accessible as attributes, similar to JavaScript objects. For instance:: >>> import bunch >>> people = bunch.Bunch({'alice': 'here', 'bob': 'there'}) >>> print people['alice'], people.alice here here The piece of python-bunch that sets it apart from similar modules found inside other projects is the bunchify() function which recursively converts from a dict to a Bunch:: >>> multi_level = {'array': ['scalar', {'mapping': 'to show recursion'} ]} >>> bunch.bunchify(multi_level) Bunch(array=['scalar', Bunch(mapping='to show recursion')]) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 11 months

1
23
0 / 0

[Bug 532276] New: Review Request: python-googlevoice - Python language bindings for the Google Voice API

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: python-googlevoice - Python language bindings for the Google Voice API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532276 Summary: Review Request: python-googlevoice - Python language bindings for the Google Voice API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jeff(a)ocjtech.us QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://jcollie.fedorapeople.org/python-googlevoice.spec SRPM URL: http://jcollie.fedorapeople.org/python-googlevoice-0.4-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: This project aims to bring the power of the Google Voice API to the Python language in a simple, easy-to-use manner. Currently it allows you to place calls, send sms, download voicemails/recorded messages, and search the various folders of your Google Voice Accounts. You can use the Python API or command line script to schedule calls, check for new received calls/sms, or even sync your recorded voicemails/calls. Works for Python 2 and Python 3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 11 months

1
23
0 / 0

[Bug 554464] Review Request: python-pebl - Python Environment for Bayesian Learning

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554464 --- Comment #8 from Tadej Janež <tadej.janez(a)tadej.hicsalta.si> 2010-06-03 10:52:48 EDT --- Thanks for a quick reply! (In reply to comment #7) > > There are some rpmlint warnings (just posting the relevant ones, which are not > ignorable): > python-pebl.src:56: W: macro-in-comment %check > python-pebl.src:57: W: macro-in-comment %{__python} > > -> ignorable, because they remind you to add %check again I left the %check disabled and added a comment to the .spec file saying why it is currently disabled. > python-pebl.src:61: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} > python-pebl.src:62: W: macro-in-comment %{python_sitelib} > > -> Better prefix an %, so this won't show up anymore Ok, fixed. > python-pebl.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_network.so _network.so()(64bit) > python-pebl.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_cpd.so _cpd.so()(64bit) > > -> A solution for this is e.g. in bug 537983 comment 27. Ok, I tried your solution, however, I don't know if I used it correctly. The output log of rpmbuild still indicates these unnecessary provides: Finding Provides: /usr/lib/rpm/find-provides | grep -v -e '_cpd.so|_network.so' Finding Requires: /usr/lib/rpm/find-requires | grep -v -e '_cpd.so|_network.so' Provides: _cpd.so _network.so Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 Requires: /usr/bin/python libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libpthread.so.0 libpython2.6.so.1.0 However, rpmlint doesn't give the above 2 warnings anymore. What is happening here? > python-pebl.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_network.so > python-pebl.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_cpd.so > > This is a bit strange... Do you have a debuginfo package? I'm wondering, why > there isn't one here... Yes, I see a separate python-pebl-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc13.i686.rpm package built on my system. Also, that is why I don't see the above rpmlint error messages. > There is /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/test/ > Is that needed at runtime? If not, it would be nice, if you'd delete that (or > ask upstream to do so). Ok, I removed test and test.manual from the final rpm file. See the new .spec file and .src.rpm at http://tadej.fedorapeople.org/. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 492165] New: Review Request: rotoscope - A free rotoscoping application.

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: rotoscope - A free rotoscoping application. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492165 Summary: Review Request: rotoscope - A free rotoscoping application. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: yanstadel(a)googlemail.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://freeki.de/fedora/rotoscope.spec SRPM URL: freeki.de/fedora/rotoscope-0.2-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Rotoscope is a free software rotoscoping application that can be used to give photos a cartoon-like appearance. This is similar to the technique used in movies such as Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 11 months

1
8
0 / 0

[Bug 598553] Review Request: perl-PPIx-Regexp

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598553 Ondrej Vasik <ovasik(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ovasik(a)redhat.com Summary|New package |Review Request: |perl-PPIx-Regexp |perl-PPIx-Regexp -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 598553] New package perl-PPIx-Regexp

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598553 --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com> 2010-06-02 08:46:52 EDT --- Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/PPIx-Regexp/perl-PPIx-Regexp.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/PPIx-Regexp/perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.007-1.fc13.... Description: The purpose of the PPIx-Regexp package is to parse regular expressions in a manner similar to the way the PPI package parses Perl. This class forms the root of the parse tree, playing a role similar to PPI::Document. It compiles cleanly against dist-f14-perltest, dist-f13 and dist-f12 on koji. rpmlint is quiet. This my first spec file. However I already co-maintain some Perl packages. Thus I'm not sure what's correct sponsoring process. Please somebody, review this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 554464] Review Request: python-pebl - Python Environment for Bayesian Learning

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554464 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Spura <tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org> 2010-06-02 05:32:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Ping? Pong. Thanks for the ping!! There are some rpmlint warnings (just posting the relevant ones, which are not ignorable): python-pebl.src:56: W: macro-in-comment %check python-pebl.src:57: W: macro-in-comment %{__python} -> ignorable, because they remind you to add %check again python-pebl.src:61: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} python-pebl.src:62: W: macro-in-comment %{python_sitelib} -> Better prefix an %, so this won't show up anymore python-pebl.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_network.so _network.so()(64bit) python-pebl.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_cpd.so _cpd.so()(64bit) -> A solution for this is e.g. in bug 537983 comment 27. python-pebl.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_network.so python-pebl.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_cpd.so This is a bit strange... Do you have a debuginfo package? I'm wondering, why there isn't one here... There is /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/test/ Is that needed at runtime? If not, it would be nice, if you'd delete that (or ask upstream to do so). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 554464] Review Request: python-pebl - Python Environment for Bayesian Learning

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554464 --- Comment #6 from Tadej Janež <tadej.janez(a)tadej.hicsalta.si> 2010-06-02 04:59:19 EDT --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 598553] New package perl-PPIx-Regexp

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598553 --- Comment #5 from Chris Weyl <cweyl(a)alumni.drew.edu> 2010-06-02 02:08:18 EDT --- ....heh. Looks like that's happening already :) Ralf's right, tho -- this isn't a review request, as there's nothing here to review. /me toddles off to bed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 598553] New package perl-PPIx-Regexp

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598553 Chris Weyl <cweyl(a)alumni.drew.edu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cweyl(a)alumni.drew.edu --- Comment #4 from Chris Weyl <cweyl(a)alumni.drew.edu> 2010-06-02 01:59:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > You can view on it from all three points. However I have never submit a review > request nor written a spec file from scratch. I will do that when I have sparse > time. I'm not the only one who maintains perl packages in Fedora. So maybe > somebody could be faster then me. Actually I use the Bugzilla for the right > thing: to track distribution issues, don't I? Yep -- and here's the workflow commonly used :) When we know there's an issue/upgrade needing attention, the tracking bug should be filed against the component itself. Any package reviews that need to be done should be filed separately, and set to block the tracking bug. Soo, in this case, this bug (tracking) should be filed against perl-Padre; the review bug for perl-PPIx-Regexp should be set to block this bug once it has been created (no matter who creates it). This helps provide a distinction between the two issues here: one, that perl-Padre cannot be updated until perl-PPIx-Regexp is in Fedora; and two, the actual review process itself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

package-review June 2010