[Bug 561391] New: Package review: openct
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: Package review: openct
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561391
Summary: Package review: openct
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: ASSIGNED
Severity: medium
Priority: low
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: mitr(a)redhat.com
ReportedBy: mitr(a)redhat.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: notting(a)redhat.com, tmraz(a)redhat.com,
fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Target Release: ---
Miloslav Trmač <mitr(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |fedora-review?
(There probably was a review in Extras.)
* rpmlint:
> openct.src:50: W: unversioned-explicit-provides pcsc-ifd-handler
Is there a reason why this needs to be unversioned?
> openct.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/openct-0.6.19/wiki/trac.css
OK
> openct.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/openct
Is this necessary?
> openct.x86_64: W: missing-lsb-keyword Required-Start in
/etc/rc.d/init.d/openct
> openct.x86_64: W: missing-lsb-keyword Required-Stop in
/etc/rc.d/init.d/openct
OK
> pcsc-lite-openct.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Probably OK
* Consider shipping NEWS
*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_ha...
* http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript says %{_initrddir} is
deprecated and %{_initddir} should be used
* "Description:" is mandatory in the LSB header of openct.init
--
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.
14 years, 4 months
[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 #3 from Thomas Spura <tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-04 08:57:27 EST ---
Cou(In reply to comment #2)
> What should I do with _network.c and _cpd.c, which give me rpmlint errors:
> python-pebl.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_network.c
> python-pebl.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_cpd.c
If they are required at runtime, leave them in the main package.
If they don't, I'd propably delete them.
> Neither of IPython1 and PyXg are included in Fedora, however, they are not
> necessary for running the program. Should I make a README.package file
> describing the situation or should I mention this in the summary of the
> package. What do you think?
If the programm does not crash, if they are not installed, I'd mention in the
spec file as a comment for you, that this are optional packages.
> Lastly, rpmlint gives me the following error:
> python-pebl.i586: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib
> What does that mean?
You can run "rpmlint -I explicit-lib-dependency".
"You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded
explicit Requires: tags."
So R: python-matplotlib is not needed, but this could be a rpmlint bug, because
I don't see it adding the Requires itself:
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <=
4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix)
<= 4.0-1
Requires: /usr/bin/python libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libpython2.6.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) = 2.6 rtld(GNU_HASH)
--
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.
14 years, 4 months
[Bug 561473] New: Review Request: bytelist - A java library for lists of bytes
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: bytelist - A java library for lists of bytes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561473
Summary: Review Request: bytelist - A java library for lists of
bytes
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: mmorsi(a)redhat.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Target Release: ---
Spec URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/jruby/bytelist.spec
SRPM URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/jruby/bytelist-1.0.3-1.fc12.src.rpm
Description:
A small java library for manipulating lists of bytes
Unorphaning package:
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/bytelist
Required by JRuby.
No koji build yet as bytelist depends on jcodings which it pending Fedora
approval itself.
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/bytelist-1.0.3-1.fc12.i386.rpm
bytelist.i386: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Ignoring as source package does not provide documentation.
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/bytelist-1.0.3-1.fc12.src.rpm
bytelist.src:83: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Ignoring this last warning as when package is noarch (eg if using java-openjdk)
the libdir file will not be included, and when the package is architecture
specific (eg when using gcj) it will be. See spec file for conditionals.
--
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.
14 years, 4 months