fedora-review denied: [Bug 225826] Merge Review: gnome-netstatus
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 225826: Merge Review: gnome-netstatus
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=225826
------- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola <dakingun(a)gmail.com>
Hi,
NEEDSWORK:
* Fail to build in mock (rawhide x86_64), seems to need a BR on libxslt;
<<
make[3]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gnome-netstatus-2.12.0/help'
xsltproc -o gnome-netstatus-C.omf --stringparam db2omf.basename gnome-netstatus
--stringparam db2omf.format 'docbook' --stringparam db2omf.dtd "-//OASIS//DTD
DocBook XML V4.1.2//EN" --stringparam db2omf.lang C --stringparam
db2omf.omf_dir
"/usr/share/omf" --stringparam db2omf.help_dir "/usr/share/gnome/help"
--stringparam db2omf.omf_in "`pwd`/./gnome-netstatus.omf.in"
`/usr/bin/pkg-config --variable db2omf gnome-doc-utils` C/gnome-netstatus.xml
db2omf: Could not construct the OMF maintainer element.
Add an author, corpauthor, editor, othercredit, or publisher
element with the role attribute set to "maintainer" to gnome-netstatus.xml.
make[2]: *** [gnome-netstatus-C.omf] Error 10
make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gnome-netstatus-2.12.0/help'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gnome-netstatus-2.12.0'
make: *** [all] Error 2
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.59866 (%build)
>>
* The BuildRoot tag is very short, it doesn't conform to the packaging
guildelines
* Is "Prereq: gtk2 >..." neccesary at all? And also the explicit Requires on
gtk2, libglade2, libgnomeui, and gnome-panel
* Not very sure about this (since the build failed for me half-way), does the
build really depends on gnome-vfs2, maybe that BR ought to be gnome-vfs2-devel.
* Packaging guildelines discourage the use of '%makeinstall' macro, but
advises
using 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' instead.
17 years, 4 months
fedora-review requested: [Bug 226402] Merge Review: SDL
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 226402: Merge Review: SDL
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl> has asked for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226402
------- Additional Comments from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl>
I'm behind a windows machine ATM, so no full review, but a few items to fix and
a few questions to get started:
SHOULDFIX items:
* replace "--x-includes=/usr/include --x-libraries=/usr/%{_lib}"
with "--x-includes=%{_includedir} --x-libraries=%{_libdir}
* BuildRequires: nasm should be: %ifarch %{ix86}, I doubt ppc owners will
be amused when they try to rebuild SDL from srpm for some reason and then
need to install nasm.
questions:
* Why this? : "export tagname=CC"
* Why add -O3 is there any bench mark proof this is benificial?
* Since you now pass "--x-includes=/usr/include --x-libraries=/usr/%{_lib}",
to work around configure's X-detection, do you still need:
BuildRequires imake and libXt-devel?
* Does devel really Requires libXt-devel?
I must say all in all a pretty good specfile, I've seen much worse (both in FE
as in FC).
An important question when moving on with this is what todo with current bz
tickets against SDL. Quite a few of them seem legitimate and not all that hard
to fix. I don't know however if open bz tickets should be concidered blockers
for the review. I see that someone has made one of them block this ticket, but
that can be removed. AFAIK there are no rules for this, we could ask the
mailinglist but that usually leads to much ado about nothing. In my opninion we
should try to fix as many BZ's against SDL as possible during this review, but
not let them block the review, agreed?
Which brings me to the next subject one of the main reasons why I've decided to
review SDL and not just any package is because I'm very active in packaging
games and gaming related libraries (allegro (ask jnovy), CLanLib 0.6 and 0.8,
plib) and as an experiment in co-maintainer ship between (former) FE and FC
maintainers I would like to become a co-maintainer of SDL.
Judging from the current open BZ tickets against SDL, of which most seem easy
to fix, currently other work has higher priorities then SDL, and thus you could
use a hand. I don't know howto shape this co-maintainership for now I'll try to
take a look at some of the open BZ tickets and write fixes for those, notice
btw that bug 217389 already contains fix I've reviewed the fix and it looks
good to me.
Unfortunately I currently don't have internet access at home so I'll only be
able to communicate about this mon, wed, thu and fri.
17 years, 4 months
fedora-review granted: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 225822: Merge Review: gnome-media
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Deji Akingunola <dakingun(a)gmail.com> has granted Bastien Nocera
<bnocera(a)redhat.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>
GOOD:
* Build Ok in mock (x86_64)
* License (GPL) and rpm Group tag OK
* Naming meets the packaging guildlines
* Spec file clean and legible
* Handles locales correctly
* Build dependencies properly listed
* Source file matches upstream's
094a92f01a3581de7b3567f85320df7b gnome-media-2.17.90.tar.bz2
* Own its files and directories correctly
rpmlint warnings/error: This can mostly be ignored
[deji@agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-6.fc7.x86_64.rpm
E: gnome-media obsolete-not-provided gnome
W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/gconf/schemas/CDDB-Slave2.schemas
W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-audio-profiles.schemas
W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-cd.schemas
W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-volume-control.schemas
[deji@agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-6.fc7.src.rpm
W: gnome-media unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnome
[deji@agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-devel-2.17.90-6.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: gnome-media-devel no-documentation
However I wonder if it's not just OK to drop that Obsoletes on gnome, it seems
superfluous of gnome-media to Obsolete gnome as it cannot also provide it
(gnome). I believe you can fix that, so
APPROVED.
APPROVED.
17 years, 4 months
[Bug 187317] Review Request: mindi
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 report.
Summary: Review Request: mindi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187317
------- Additional Comments From bruno_cornec(a)hp.com 2007-02-09 09:39 EST -------
I've added -q and removed -n in the SPEC
The packge still contained one binary file that I have now removed, so I'll now
make the package noarch.rpm indeed.
I'm still looking at why UTF-8 is incorrect.
As soon as I have a new package ready for your analysis, I'll let you know.
Thanks for your feedback.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
17 years, 4 months
fedora-review requested: [Bug 225625] Merge Review: bridge-utils
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 225625: Merge Review: bridge-utils
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Jima <jima(a)beer.tclug.org> has asked for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225625
------- Additional Comments from Jima <jima(a)beer.tclug.org>
Review time! :-)
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
43bbd2a67b59cac3e15d545f8b51df68 bridge-utils-1.1.tar.gz
43bbd2a67b59cac3e15d545f8b51df68 bridge-utils-1.1.tar.gz.1
OK - 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
See below - Should package latest version
2 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package.
Issues:
1. The recommended value for BuildRoot is:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
You may want to use that.
2. rpmlint says:
rpmlint on ./bridge-utils-1.1-2.fc7.src.rpm
W: bridge-utils setup-not-quiet
E: bridge-utils no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
Easily fixed. Add -q to %setup, and "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" after %install.
3. Latest version not used
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=26089 says 1.2 is
available (and has been since 2006-09-20). Please evaluate whether you
should be using this release instead.
4. Bugs open
There are two open bugs against this package:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205810
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169723
I'm not sure either bug is still particularly valid (one is against FC4,
the other looks like it should be resolved).
If you can address the issues above, I think we can call bridge-utils
APPROVED.
17 years, 4 months
fedora-review denied: [Bug 225882] Merge Review: hdparm
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 225882: Merge Review: hdparm
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
manuel wolfshant <wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro> has denied manuel wolfshant
<wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro>'s request for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225882
------- Additional Comments from manuel wolfshant <wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro>
- BuildRoot is not the preferred value
- %build does not use smp flags; if not supported, please add a comment in the
spec
- please also consider including README.accoustic; the feature is documented in
the man page, but the README seems to include a bit more info
The rest seems OK. Please fix the above and I'll do a full review.
17 years, 4 months
fedora-review granted: [Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 226998: Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> has granted Mamoru Tasaka
<mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp>'s request for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998
------- Additional Comments from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
Okay.
----------------------------------------------------
This package is APPROVED by me with the following summary:
* Owner: j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl
* Name: gemdropx
* Summary: Falling blocks puzzlegame
* Branch: FC-devel FC-6
-----------------------------------------------------
Requesting cvs admin for making initial directories.
Please wait until cvs admin answers on this bug.
17 years, 4 months
fedora-review granted: [Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 226436: Merge Review: statserial
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
manuel wolfshant <wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro> has granted Tim Waugh
<twaugh(a)redhat.com>'s request for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436
------- Additional Comments from manuel wolfshant <wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro>
Formal review for release 39:
MUST
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ( GPL ) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream, sha1sum 3ace36585c82238003b37f267263f06aad4f0afd
statserial-1.1.tar.gz
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of
foreign
files/folders
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
- no static, .la, .pc files
- rpmlint is silent on src.rpm; for the binary the following warnings are
generated:
W: statserial spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/statserial-1.1/phone_log
W: statserial doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/statserial-1.1/phone_log
/bin/bash
Since phone_log IS a bash script and bash is supposed to be already installed
anyway, no additional packages are actually pulled so I guess both warnings can
safely be ignored.
SHOULD
- Builds fine in mock for FC6 and devel (x86_64)
- Runs as advertised on FC6/x86_64
Notes:
I have no access to 390 so I can only assume that the hardware being different,
the ExcludeArch is justified.
APPROVED
17 years, 4 months