[Bug 619228] Review Request: shellinaboxd - AJAX based terminal emulator
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=619228
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC|fedora-package-review@redha |package-review(a)lists.fedora
|t.com |project.org
Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Resolution| |DUPLICATE
Status Whiteboard|StalledSubmitter |
Last Closed| |2012-05-09 15:24:14
--- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2012-05-09 15:24:14 EDT ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 820350 ***
--
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.
11 years, 12 months
[Bug 533558] Review Request: gtkwhiteboard - GTK Wiimote Whiteboard
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=533558
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|fedora-package-review@redha |package-review(a)lists.fedora
|t.com |project.org
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2012-05-09 15:19:07 EDT ---
Somehow I never noticed that the legal blocker had been lifted. I sure wish
you had pinged me. Since I already did the review, everything still builds
fine and there's been no new release upstream which would render any of the
earlier work invalid, I'm just going to go ahead and approve this. If you're
still interested, feel free to move forward if the process. If you're not,
please just go ahead and close this out and accept my apologies.
APPROVED
One note, though, since the packaging guidelines have evolved since I first
looked at this. You can remove the %defattr bit from %files since it is
unneeded on everything Fedora and EPEL supports. If you do not intend to build
for EPEL5, you can remove the BuildRoot: line, the entire %clean section and
the first line of %install. You should also be able to remove the %build
section since it's empty.
--
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.
11 years, 12 months
[Bug 806066] New: Review Request: voms-api-java - Virtual Organization Membership Service Java API
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: voms-api-java - Virtual Organization Membership Service Java API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806066
Summary: Review Request: voms-api-java - Virtual Organization
Membership Service Java API
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: mattias.ellert(a)fysast.uu.se
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: notting(a)redhat.com,
package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Classification: Fedora
Story Points: ---
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/voms-api-java.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/voms-api-java-2.0.7-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description:
In grid computing, and whenever the access to resources may be controlled
by parties external to the resource provider, users may be grouped to
Virtual Organizations (VOs). This package provides a VO Membership Service
(VOMS), which informs on that association between users and their VOs:
groups, roles and capabilities.
This package offers a java client API for VOMS.
Note: With the update to version 2.0.7 of voms, the java API was moved to a
separate source tree. So in order to be able to update voms to the latest
version the new separate java package (i.e. this one) must be reviewed for
Fedora so that the java api is not lost in the update.
--
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.
11 years, 12 months
[Bug 574586] Review Request: python26-psycopg2 : psycopg2 Postgres client code for python26 on EPEL5
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=574586
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
CC|fedora-package-review@redha |package-review(a)lists.fedora
|t.com |project.org
Resolution| |NOTABUG
Flag|fedora-review? |
Last Closed| |2012-05-09 14:57:44
--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2012-05-09 14:57:44 EDT ---
This has been sitting so long with no progress that I'm just going to close it
out. Since I've already done the review I should be able to finish it up
pretty quickly if Dave wants to reopen.
--
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.
11 years, 12 months
[Bug 672205] Review Request: pynag - Python Nagios plugin and configuration environment
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=672205
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #16 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2012-05-09 14:45:58 EDT ---
OK, the new package looks good.
APPROVED
One detail I forgot to mention previously relates to this line in %install:
test "x$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "x" && rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
It's really not necessary to do that and hasn't been for a really long time
now. More modern releases don't need any of that, but since you want to build
on RHEL5, you just need:
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Anyway, this isn't particularly problematic; it's just a cleanliness issue.
I've already sponsored you into the packager group, so once those new
permissions propagate through the system you'll be able to make your SCM
request.
As your sponsor I'm here to help you through the rest of the process, so please
don't hesitate to ask any questions you may have. It is probably easiest to
reach me via IRC on #fedora-devel; I see you've been there recently and any
questions you ask can potentially be answered by anyone in the channel if I
don't happen to be around. Or you can contact me via email.
--
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.
11 years, 12 months
[Bug 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
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=662269
--- Comment #8 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> 2012-05-08 18:13:57 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Indeed, I get those rpmlint complaints and they're all fine. (Though I wonder
> why all of the stuff in the srpm has such odd permissions. I guess it could be
> your umask.)
Yeah, I use 027 as my umask.
> The "texlive2010" bit is a little odd since that project is on to texlive2012
> now. Hopefully one day soon that project will actually be finished. (Last I
> checked it was waiting on just two license issues.) Anyway, that's
…an incomplete sentence ;) . I didn't know texlive2012 was that close. I know
jnovy fedorapeople repo hasn't been updated in a long time, but I haven't seen
any reviews going by.
> Since the package contains files of multiple licenses, you'll need at least a
> comment in the spec indicating which file is under which license.
Ah, yeah.
> The examples package has a somewhat odd directory structure; the "examples"
> directory is repeated:
> /usr/share/dpic/examples/examples/README
> I also wonder if the documentation for the examples should be packaged as
> documentation, though that's starting to descend to absurdity.
Hmm, I'll get rid of the duplicate examples thing. Must have skimmed that when
looking at the path lists.
--
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.
11 years, 12 months
[Bug 662269] Review Request: dpic - A compiler for the pic language
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=662269
--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2012-05-08 15:26:21 EDT ---
Indeed, I get those rpmlint complaints and they're all fine. (Though I wonder
why all of the stuff in the srpm has such odd permissions. I guess it could be
your umask.)
The "texlive2010" bit is a little odd since that project is on to texlive2012
now. Hopefully one day soon that project will actually be finished. (Last I
checked it was waiting on just two license issues.) Anyway, that's
Since the package contains files of multiple licenses, you'll need at least a
comment in the spec indicating which file is under which license.
The examples package has a somewhat odd directory structure; the "examples"
directory is repeated:
/usr/share/dpic/examples/examples/README
I also wonder if the documentation for the examples should be packaged as
documentation, though that's starting to descend to absurdity.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
c79dc98fe3c46e2c79a260b54c5e429b2c587ed80edd20699990bbd462914b8a
dpic-2012.04.23.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package (at least one license text is in the README
file)
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
dpic-2012.04.23-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
dpic = 2012.04.23-1.fc18
dpic(x86-64) = 2012.04.23-1.fc18
=
(none special)
dpic-examples-2012.04.23-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
dpic-examples = 2012.04.23-1.fc18
dpic-examples(x86-64) = 2012.04.23-1.fc18
=
dpic = 2012.04.23
* no bundled libraries.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
--
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.
11 years, 12 months