[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187318
------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2008-05-10 18:24 EST -------
This builds but fails to install for me:
/usr/bin/yum --installroot /mock/fedora-development-x86_64/root/ install
/mock/fedora-development-x86_64/result/mondo-2.2.6-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm
/mock/fedora-development-x86_64/result/mondo-debuginfo-2.2.6-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm
Error: Missing Dependency: mindi >= 1.2.1 is needed by package mondo
Error: Missing Dependency: afio is needed by package mondo
Error: Missing Dependency: buffer is needed by package mondo
I guess the mindi review is stalled out. I don't see any review tickets for
afio or buffer, though; what are they?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
15 years, 12 months
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
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: hylafax
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188542
tibbs(a)math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO| |182235
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2008-05-10 18:02 EST -------
Note to FE-Legal folks, this package needs attention for two reasons and perhaps a third as well. Please search for FE-Legal below.
Now, to the review.
Was the hylafax/hylafax+ issue ever resolved? Do we need FE-Legal to be involved in that?
Can you explain why the tarball in the src.rpm does not match the tarball fetched from the Source0: URL? There seem to be rather significant source differences. This kind of thing is not permissible; the sources in the src.rpm must be identical to the upstream sources except in specific limited cases where we must remove something. I note that the tarball in the src.rpm seems to be three days newer than the one upstream.
I don't believe we should package /etc/hylafax/faxcover_example_sgi.ps. It contains the old SGI name and logo and I'm pretty certain we shouldn't be sticking it in /etc whenever someone installs this software. I'm not even sure we have the legal right to distribute it, which is reason one for blocking FE-Legal.
It doesn't particularly bother me, but the guidelines to specify that you not use a specific sourceforge mirror for the source URL. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL (although personally I find I often have to add one just to get things to download, since sourceforge is so incredibly unreliable).
I recommend not using the name of the package in the summary, as it tends to look rather redundant in listings. Still, there is a change of case so I won't block the package if you think it really needs to be there.
I'm going to have to get expert assistance with the License: tag; the license given in the COPYRIGHT file is actually identical to the libtiff license, which gets its own "libtiff" license tag, but the regex code is clearly the bad "BSD+Advertising" clause which is GPL-incompatible and thus causes issues. Reason two that I'm blocking FE-Legal for guidance.
Your changelog entries are not in one of the acceptable formats. These are parsed automatically, so please follow the formats given in the Changelogs section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines and please also include a comment every time you change the release.
You need a dependency on the crontabs package if you want to put things in /etc/cron.daily.
You call ldconfig in your scriptlets, but you don't have any dependencies on it. When you use the single-line scriptlets (%post -p /sbin/ldconfig) then you don't need them, but when you use multiline scriptlets you have to specify the dependencies manually.
Finally, I have significant issues with the amount of stuff this package puts under /var/spool. I don't believe any of the files belong there at all. Executables, certainly not. Unless you can illustrate how the FHS allows such things, I cannot approve this package. The modem config files need to be under /etc; the executables probably belong under /usr/libexec if they're not supposed to be run by the end user.
Checklist:
X source files do not match upstream.
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
? summary includes the name of the package.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field matches the actual license.
? license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
X changelogs not correctly formatted.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
X final provides and requires:
config(hylafax) = 5.2.4-3.fc9
libfaxserver.so.5.2.4()(64bit)
libfaxutil.so.5.2.4()(64bit)
hylafax = 5.2.4-3.fc9
=
/bin/sh
/sbin/chkconfig
/sbin/service
config(hylafax) = 5.2.4-3.fc9
gawk
ghostscript
libfaxserver.so.5.2.4()(64bit)
libfaxutil.so.5.2.4()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
liblber-2.4.so.2()(64bit)
libldap-2.4.so.2()(64bit)
libpam.so.0()(64bit)
libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
libtiff.so.3()(64bit)
libutil.so.1()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
mailx
sharutils
X (missing crontabs for /etc/cron.*)
X (missing /sbin/ldconfig dependency for %post and %postun)
* %check is not present; no test suite present. I have no way to test this
software.
X shared libraries are present; ldconfig called properly but dependency on it is
missing.
X ownership problems for /etc/cron.*
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
X scriptlets are OK, but ldconfig dependencies are missing.
* code, not content.
documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
no headers.
no pkgconfig files.
no static libraries.
no libtool .la files.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
15 years, 12 months
[Bug 439141] New: Review Request: python-demjson - Python JSON module and lint checker
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439141
Summary: Review Request: python-demjson - Python JSON module and
lint checker
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: thomas.moschny(a)gmx.de
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting(a)redhat.com
Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/python-demjson.spec
SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/python-demjson-1.3-1.fc8.src.rpm
Description:
This module provides classes and functions for encoding or decoding
data represented in the language-neutral JSON format (which is often
used as a simpler substitute for XML in Ajax web applications). This
implementation tries to be as compliant to the JSON specification (RFC
4627) as possible, while still providing many optional extensions to
allow less restrictive JavaScript syntax. It includes complete
Unicode support, including UTF-32, BOM, and surrogate pair processing.
It can also support JavaScript's NaN and Infinity numeric types as
well as it's 'undefined' type.
It also includes a lint-like JSON syntax validator which tests JSON
text for strict compliance to the standard.
--
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, or are watching someone who is.
15 years, 12 months
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
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: hylafax
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188542
tibbs(a)math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |tibbs(a)math.uh.edu
Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2008-05-07 21:52 EST -------
Finally getting back to this review; I'll try to get it finished up.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
15 years, 12 months