[Bug 879928] New: Review Request: rigsofrods - Vehicle simulator based on soft-body physics
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879928
Bug ID: 879928
Summary: Review Request: rigsofrods - Vehicle simulator based
on soft-body physics
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Reporter: pahan(a)hubbitus.info
Spec URL: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora17/rigsofrods/rigsofrods.spec
SRPM URL:
http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora17/rigsofrods/rigsofrods-0.4.0.4-2.fc17.sr...
Description:
Rigs of Rods is an open source vehicle simulator licensed under the GNU General
Public License version 3. What makes Rigs of Rods different to most simulators
is its unique soft-body physics: vehicles, machines, objects, etc. are
simulated
in real-time as flexible soft-body objects, giving the simulation an extremely
accurate behavior which entirely depends on the physical construction of the
vehicles or objects you create.
Features
- Soft-body physics. Objects according to their weight distribution,
construction, and/or suspension (in the case of vehicles).
- Advanced flight model based on blade element theory. It allows the accurate
simulation of any airplane, based entirely on its physical dimensions and
wing airfoils, similar to X-Plane.
- Accurate buoyancy model based on elemental pressure gradients, enabling
boats
with complex hulls to move realistically in the swell.
- Basic support for dual-core processing. More multithreading and CUDA support
is planned.
- Basic support for scripting using AngelScript.
- Based on the OGRE Graphics Engine.
Fedora Account System Username: hubbitus
Please note it is not fully ready yet. Some dependencies follow.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
6 years, 4 months
[Bug 808097] New: Review Request: ima-tests - IMA Linux Test Project(LTP) test programs
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: ima-tests - IMA Linux Test Project(LTP) test programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808097
Summary: Review Request: ima-tests - IMA Linux Test
Project(LTP) test programs
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: pwouters(a)redhat.com
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: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/ima/ima-tests.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/ima/ima-tests-0.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: The IMA test programs included in the LTP testsuite have a number
of
LTP dependencies. This tar creates the necessary includes, defines,
and stub function definitions in order to run the IMA programs in a
standalone mode.
--
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.
6 years, 5 months
[Bug 755510] New: Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension
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: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510
Summary: Review Request:
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome
shell system monitor extension
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: unspecified
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: nicolas.vieville(a)univ-valenciennes.fr
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: notting(a)redhat.com,
package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Classification: Fedora
Story Points: ---
Type: ---
Spec URL:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/gnome-shell-extension-system-moni...
SRPM URL:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/gnome-shell-extension-system-moni...
SRPM URL:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/Fedora/gnome-shell-extension-system-moni...
Project URL: https://github.com/paradoxxxzero/gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet
Description: Display system informations in gnome shell status bar, such as
memory usage, cpu usage, network rates…
$ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W:
devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/system-monitor-applet-config
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W:
no-manual-page-for-binary system-monitor-applet-config
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
As the SPEC file can build this gnome-shell-extension for F-15 and F-16, here
is the rpmlint outputs on F-15 files. I was unable to deal with rpmlint errors
with F-15 srpm file on a F-16 host (confusion about "dist" and "fedora" macros
I suppose). But to be complete, mock builds this package for F-15 and F-16
without any problems. I haven't tried with rawhide. Should I? This is my first
review for Fedora and my skill in such things is not complete.
$ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc15.src.rpm
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/rpmlint", line 379, in <module>
main()
File "/usr/bin/rpmlint", line 169, in main
runChecks(pkg)
File "/usr/bin/rpmlint", line 229, in runChecks
check.check(pkg)
File "/usr/share/rpmlint/SpecCheck.py", line 143, in check
self.check_spec(pkg, self._spec_file)
File "/usr/share/rpmlint/SpecCheck.py", line 564, in check_spec
pkgfile = pkg.files()[url.split("/")[-1]]
KeyError:
'paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-1.99-78-g14ef176.tar.gz'
$ rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-1.99-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W:
devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/system-monitor-applet-config
gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.noarch: W:
no-manual-page-for-binary system-monitor-applet-config
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
This review request comes after this bug report:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710386
I'm a newcomer in such things for Fedora and not very familiar with packaging,
but I'm volunteer for this package. I'll try to understand and to respect all
the documentation and guidelines available on the contributor's part of the
Fedora Web site, but any comments on the question are welcome. Last but not the
least, as a newcomer, I'm also seeking a sponsor.
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Cordially,
--
NVieville
--
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.
6 years, 6 months
[Bug 1056054] New: Review Request: ibsim - InfiniBand network simulator
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056054
Bug ID: 1056054
Summary: Review Request: ibsim - InfiniBand network simulator
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: jonstanley(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: dledford(a)redhat.com, fenlason(a)redhat.com,
fullung(a)gmail.com, jonstanley(a)gmail.com,
jpopelka(a)redhat.com, jstanley(a)rmrf.net,
package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
volker27(a)gmx.at
Depends On: 773492
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #773492 +++
ibsim allows you to create a topology file that represents your InfiniBand
fabric and then hook the ibsim application in between your end user application
and the fabric itself and then use ibsim to create fake fabric events that your
application will then see (such as link up/link down/packet loss/etc). If you
aren't well versed in InfiniBand fabric management or know what a MAD packet
is, this application is not for you. It is a very low level, get your hands
dirty program. However, to someone who wants to see exactly how an application
will perform under specific circumstances it will simulate those circumstances
without the application knowing the difference between the simulation or the
real event.
Packages can be found at:
http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Package%20Review/
--- Additional comment from Doug Ledford on 2012-01-11 18:28:13 EST ---
[dledford@schwoop SPECS]$ rpmlint ibsim.spec ../SRPMS/ibsim-0.5-5.fc15.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/ibsim-*
ibsim.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US infiniband -> infinitude
ibsim.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US infiniband -> infinitude
ibsim.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ibsim
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
--- Additional comment from Doug Ledford on 2012-01-11 18:28:38 EST ---
--- Additional comment from Albert Strasheim on 2012-01-12 00:52:13 EST ---
Looks good.
--- Additional comment from Jiri Popelka on 2012-06-29 10:28:23 EDT ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
==== C/C++ ====
[-]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
%{_libdir}/umad2sim/libumad2sim.so is ok in main package because it's not used
for development.
Also there seem to be no versioned library files installed, so
%{_libdir}/umad2sim/libumad2sim*.so*
could be I think changed to
%{_libdir}/umad2sim/libumad2sim.so
==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
No need to use %defattr macro,
see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_Permissions
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#ExcludeArch_.26_ExclusiveArch
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#Tracker_Bugs
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Fa...
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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 %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
It creates %{_libdir}/umad2sim/, doesn't it ?
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
Just some harmless warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : 8f4928dbee64b0c0caaf838d03d95a86
MD5SUM upstream package : 8f4928dbee64b0c0caaf838d03d95a86
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
I didn't find any openib[-diag] package, so I think the
Conflicts: openib-diags < 1.3
line could be removed.
--- Additional comment from Jon Stanley on 2012-10-22 15:58:14 EDT ---
I'll take this review from Doug after talking with him. I'll get this one taken
care of shortly.
--- Additional comment from Jon Stanley on 2012-10-25 00:50:48 EDT ---
New SRPM: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/ibsim-0.5-6.20120810git.fc19.src.rpm
New spec: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/ibsim.spec
--- Additional comment from Volker Fröhlich on 2013-04-17 11:44:30 EDT ---
I think you should open a new review request then.
--- Additional comment from Jon Stanley on 2013-04-17 14:22:54 EDT ---
Huh? This is just a change in maintainer from Doug to me. I'll happily open a
new request if wanted, but it doesn't seem to apply in this case.
--- Additional comment from Thomas Moschny on 2013-04-27 14:45:08 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Huh? This is just a change in maintainer from Doug to me. I'll happily open
> a new request if wanted, but it doesn't seem to apply in this case.
The last section in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews can be read in
such a way that when the original submitter is not going to finish the
submission, a new ticket shall be opened by the new/next submitter. While meant
for the case of a not responding submitter, I'd say the procedure itself also
fits here.
--- Additional comment from Volker Fröhlich on 2014-01-18 18:55:57 EST ---
Now how is this going to continue?
--- Additional comment from Jiri Popelka on 2014-01-20 07:43:51 EST ---
Wow, looks like the one who's actually been unresponsive here has been me - no
idea why I haven't responded to comment #6.
Anyway, Jon, as others pointed out it'd probably be better to fill a new
request and make this one duplicate of it. Could you do that ? Thanks
--- Additional comment from Jon Stanley on 2014-01-21 08:33:10 EST ---
Sure thing.
Since there's nothing different from this bug other than the maintainer, I'm
just going to clone it.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773492
[Bug 773492] Review Request: ibsim - InfiniBand network simulator
--
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
6 years, 7 months