package-review October 2015

package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
1863 discussions

[Bug 1269545] Review Request: python-gnocchiclient - Gnocchi CLI
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Oct '15

07 Oct '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269545 Haïkel Guémar <karlthered(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |karlthered(a)gmail.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |karlthered(a)gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 1269545] Review Request: python-gnocchiclient - Gnocchi CLI
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Oct '15

07 Oct '15

1 0

[Bug 1060920] New: Review Request: openni2 - OpenNI libraries for 3D-sensing
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Oct '15

07 Oct '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060920 Bug ID: 1060920 Summary: Review Request: openni2 - OpenNI libraries for 3D-sensing Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: logans(a)cottsay.net QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://csc.mcs.sdsmt.edu/openni2/openni2.spec SRPM URL: http://csc.mcs.sdsmt.edu/openni2/openni2-2.2.0.33-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Driver and libraries for OpenNI: The standard framework for 3D sensing Fedora Account System Username: cottsay Koji scratch builds: F19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6487506 F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6487509 rpmlint output: openni2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US middleware -> middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight openni2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lifecycle -> life cycle, life-cycle, Wycliffe openni2-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation openni2-java.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib openni2-java.noarch: W: no-documentation openni2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US middleware -> middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight openni2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lifecycle -> life cycle, life-cycle, Wycliffe openni2.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libOpenNI2.so openni2.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libOpenNI2.jni.so openni2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NiViewer openni2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary PSLinkConsole openni2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary PS1080Console openni2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation openni2-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation openni2-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MWClosestPointApp openni2-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary SimpleViewer openni2-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MultiDepthViewer openni2-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ClosestPointViewer openni2-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MultipleStreamRead openni2-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary EventBasedRead openni2-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary SimpleRead openni2-java.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib openni2-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation 8 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 23 warnings. Notes: * This is the next generation of the openni drivers and is different from the openni package currently in Fedora. * This package cannot be built on ppc, but does build on Arm. * Most of the "ThirdParty" bundled software is removed before building, and Fedora versions are used. However, XnLib and glh are not Fedora packages, and are left untouched. The same is true in the openni package that is currently in Fedora. This is my first Fedora package, and I will be needing a sponsor. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 30

[Bug 759818] Review Request: buffer - General purpose buffer program
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Oct '15

07 Oct '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759818 --- Comment #16 from Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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]: 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [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 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. -- it is clear to my why those patches are there, so I leave it as is. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Everything is fine. So once you contact upstream about the license, I will give you approval stamp. -- 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

1 0

[Bug 759818] Review Request: buffer - General purpose buffer program
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Oct '15

07 Oct '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759818 --- Comment #15 from Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> --- (In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #12) > buffer.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/buffer/COPYING > You should containt upstream so they update they license file. However, you > should not alter the file yourself! Did you contact upstream about this one? -- 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

1 0

[Bug 995974] New: Review Request: libbson - BSON library for C
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Oct '15

07 Oct '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995974 Bug ID: 995974 Summary: Review Request: libbson - BSON library for C Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: crtmike(a)gmx.us QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: notting(a)redhat.com, package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://people.midymidy.com/~ekd123/RPM/libbson.spec SRPM URL: http://people.midymidy.com/~ekd123/RPM/libbson-0.1.10-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: libbson is a library providing useful routines related to building, parsing, and iterating BSON documents. It is a useful base for those wanting to write high-performance C extensions to higher level languages such as Python, Ruby, or Perl. Fedora Account System Username: unixekd123 Additional information: There's no stable release of libbson yet. And the compilation failed in 32bit mock. Perhaps I need to disable the -Werror option. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Avf06PKWLF&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 38

[Bug 1252803] New: Review Request: python-zake - kazoo library testing utility
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Oct '15

07 Oct '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1252803 Bug ID: 1252803 Summary: Review Request: python-zake - kazoo library testing utility Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: chkumar(a)redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-zake.spec SRPM URL: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-zake-0.2.2-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: It is a python package that works to provide a nice set of testing utilities for the `kazoo`_ library. It includes the following functionality: * Storage access (for viewing what was saved/created). * Kazoo *mostly* compatible client API. *Sync/transaction/create/get/delete... . Fedora Account System Username: chandankumar Successful Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10678889 -- 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

1 8

[Bug 1259919] New: Review Request: python-castellan - Generic Key Manager interface for OpenStack
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Oct '15

07 Oct '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259919 Bug ID: 1259919 Summary: Review Request: python-castellan - Generic Key Manager interface for OpenStack Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: karlthered(a)gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-castellan.spec SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-castellan-0.2.0-1.fc22.src.… Description: Generic Key Manager interface for OpenStack Fedora Account System Username: hguemar -- 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

1 12

[Bug 1266273] New: Review Request: python-unicodecsv - Drop-in replacement for csv module which supports unicode strings
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Oct '15

07 Oct '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266273 Bug ID: 1266273 Summary: Review Request: python-unicodecsv - Drop-in replacement for csv module which supports unicode strings Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: apevec(a)gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://apevec.fedorapeople.org/fedora/python-unicodecsv.spec SRPM URL: https://apevec.fedorapeople.org/fedora/python-unicodecsv-0.14.1-1.fc24.src.… Description: The unicodecsv is a drop-in replacement for Python 2's csv module which supports unicode strings without a hassle. Fedora Account System Username: apevec -- 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

1 15

[Bug 1242896] New: Review Request: python-ironic-inspector-client - Python client and CLI tool for Ironic Inspector
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Oct '15

07 Oct '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242896 Bug ID: 1242896 Summary: Review Request: python-ironic-inspector-client - Python client and CLI tool for Ironic Inspector Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: dtantsur(a)redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1730743/RPM/python-ironic-inspector-cli… SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1730743/RPM/python-ironic-inspector-cli… Description: Python client and CLI tool for Ironic Inspector This package was split away from openstack-ironic-discoverd upstream during its rename to ironic-inspector. Fedora Account System Username: divius Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10351986 -- 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

1 18

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 October 2015