package-review November 2015

package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
1893 discussions

[Bug 1277271] New: Review Request: rubygem-algorithms - Useful algorithms and data structures for Ruby
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Nov '15

09 Nov '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277271 Bug ID: 1277271 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-algorithms - Useful algorithms and data structures for Ruby Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: joelsmith(a)redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org This is my first package and I'm seeking a sponsor. Spec URL: http://pkgs-joelsmith.rhcloud.com/rubygem-algorithms/rubygem-algorithms.spec SRPM URL: http://pkgs-joelsmith.rhcloud.com/rubygem-algorithms/rubygem-algorithms-0.6… Description: Ruby Gem that adds support for various data structures and algorithms: Heap, Priority Queue, Deque, Stack, Queue, Red-Black Trees, Splay Trees, sorting algorithms, and more. Fedora Account System Username: joelsmith -- 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 1274496] New: Review Request: perl-SQL-Tokenizer - Simple SQL tokenizer
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Nov '15

09 Nov '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274496 Bug ID: 1274496 Summary: Review Request: perl-SQL-Tokenizer - Simple SQL tokenizer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: emmanuel(a)seyman.fr QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-SQL-Tokenizer/perl-SQL-Tokeni… SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-SQL-Tokenizer/perl-SQL-Tokeni… Description: SQL::Tokenizer is a simple tokenizer for SQL queries. It does not claim to be a parser or query verifier. It just creates sane tokens from a valid SQL query. Fedora Account System Username: eseyman -- 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 1272669] New: Review Request: nodejs-pify - Promisify a callback-style function
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 Nov '15

08 Nov '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272669 Bug ID: 1272669 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-pify - Promisify a callback-style function Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: piotr1212(a)gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-pify.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-pify-2.2.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Promisify a callback-style function Fedora Account System Username: piotrp -- 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 13

[Bug 709328] Review Request: psi-plus - Jabber client based on Qt
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 Nov '15

08 Nov '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709328 Ivan Romanov <drizt(a)land.ru> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On|1234207 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234207 [Bug 1234207] RFE: qjson support for Qt5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 709328] Review Request: psi-plus - Jabber client based on Qt
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 Nov '15

08 Nov '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709328 --- Comment #167 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- psi-plus-0.16-0.21.20141205git440.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 709328] Review Request: psi-plus - Jabber client based on Qt
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 Nov '15

08 Nov '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709328 Bug 709328 depends on bug 1234207, which changed state. Bug 1234207 Summary: RFE: qjson support for Qt5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234207 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|WORKSFORME |--- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 1264712] Review Request: dub - The D package manager
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 Nov '15

08 Nov '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264712 --- Comment #3 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms> --- Created attachment 1091135 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1091135&action=edit licensecheck.txt -- 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 1264712] Review Request: dub - The D package manager
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 Nov '15

08 Nov '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264712 Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |projects.rg(a)smart.ms Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |projects.rg(a)smart.ms Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms> --- You can not do the official review on your own request, as comment #1 introduces. Are you interested in a review swap? SHOULD: - please include also LICENSE_DE.txt file - please add examples/ subfolder as documenation (maybe in a -doc subpackage) - please ship also both scripts/bash-completion and scripts/fish-completion (maybe also in a subpackage) - why is no debuginfo possible? MUST: - add full URL to Source0, it's not sufficient to mention in comment only https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "WTFPL WTFPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 199 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora- review/1264712-dub/licensecheck.txt => WTFPL? See http://www.wtfpl.net/ [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. => No Makefile as commonly used, we use ldmd2. [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 => See my comments above. [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. => See question above. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. => Why no arm? [?]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 2 files. => See above. [?]: 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 does not use a name that already exists. [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. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. => ExcludeArch: arm [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dub-0.9.24-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm dub-0.9.24-1.fc24.src.rpm dub.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr dub.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son dub.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subfolder -> sub folder, sub-folder, suborder dub.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/dub dub.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dub dub.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son dub.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subfolder -> sub folder, sub-folder, suborder dub.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dub-0.9.24.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden dub.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/dub dub.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dub 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- dub (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libdruntime-ldc.so.67()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libphobos2-ldc.so.67()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- dub: dub dub(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1264712 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, 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

1 0

[Bug 922033] New: Review Request: rubygem-robotex - Ruby library to obey robots.txt
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Nov '15

07 Nov '15

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922033 Bug ID: 922033 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-robotex - Ruby library to obey robots.txt Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: msuchy(a)redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: notting(a)redhat.com, package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-robotex/rubygem-robotex.spec SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-robotex/rubygem-robotex-1.0.0-9.fc1… Description: With one line of code, Robotex (pronounced like “robotics”) will download and parse the robots.txt file and let you know if your program is allowed to visit a given link. Fedora Account System Username: msuchy Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5126038 rpmlint output: rubygem-robotex.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) txt -> text, ext, tit rubygem-robotex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US txt -> text, ext, tit rubygem-robotex.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) txt -> text, ext, tit rubygem-robotex.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US txt -> text, ext, tit 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. -- 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=PffPAdsaOY&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 14

[Bug 1249743] New: Review Request: kaadbg - Remote debugger runner for kaa
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 Nov '15

06 Nov '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249743 Bug ID: 1249743 Summary: Review Request: kaadbg - Remote debugger runner for kaa Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: williamjmorenor(a)gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/kaadbg.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/kaadbg-0.3.0-0.fc22.src.rpm Description: Remote debugger runner for kaa Fedora Account System Username: williamjmorenor -- 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 9

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 November 2015