[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE Community Edition
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974
--- Comment #48 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> ---
Ok, I have fixed the reference for the bundling exception in my spec file and
can post new SPEC and SRPM if needed.
I was looking at fixing "-p" for the source files but really these are all
things I personally created so that drawexe has icons, a desktop file, etc.,
and are not part of the source archive so I don't think preserving the
timestamps are meaningful.
This seems to address everything so please let me know if anything else remains
unaddressed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
9 years, 11 months
[Bug 957465] New: Review Request: minised - A smaller, cheaper, faster SED implementation
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957465
Bug ID: 957465
Summary: Review Request: minised - A smaller, cheaper, faster
SED implementation
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: unspecified
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: cickumqt(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: notting(a)redhat.com,
package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Category: ---
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/minised.spec
SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/minised-1.14-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description: This is a smaller, cheaper, faster SED implementation. Minix uses
it. GNU used
to use it, until they built their own sed around an extended (some would say
over-extended) regexp package. For embedded use we searched for a tiny sed
implementation especially for use with the dietlibc and found Eric S. Raymond's
sed implementation quite handy. Though it suffered several bugs and was not
under active maintenance anymore. After sending a bunch of fixes we agreed to
continue maintaining this lovely, historic sed implementation.
Fedora Account System Username: cicku
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9b5OLwtXWg&a=cc_unsubscribe
9 years, 11 months
[Bug 1091036] New: Review Request: log4j2 - Apache Log4j 2 - Java logging package
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091036
Bug ID: 1091036
Summary: Review Request: log4j2 - Apache Log4j 2 - Java logging
package
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: puntogil(a)libero.it
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j2.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j2-2.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description:
Log4j is a tool to help the programmer output log statements to a
variety of output targets.
Apache Log4j 2 is an upgrade to Log4j that provides significant
improvements over its predecessor, Log4j 1.x, and provides many
of the improvements available in Logback while fixing some
inherent problems in Logback's architecture.
Fedora Account System Username: gil
--
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
9 years, 11 months
[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE Community Edition
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974
--- Comment #46 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #45)
> Concerning the base package requirements: I'm not sure how to interpret [1]
>
> "When a subpackage requires the base package, it must do so using a fully
> versioned arch-specific (for non-noarch packages) dependency
> Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}"
>
> The result of having the requires autogenerated is basically the same,
> except that they are not fully versioned.
While it may be technically questionable, it seems overboard to replicate
something that RPM is already handling for you. To correct it I would have to
manually check the requires of the subpackages for ones that are not provided
within the package and then find what package provides them. Then I would have
to keep this updated for new releases.
The lack of versioned requires doesn't bother me since it's all coming from the
same source archive and upstream does a good job of bumping the soversion when
ABI incompatible changes are made.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
9 years, 11 months
[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE Community Edition
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974
--- Comment #43 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #41)
> Taking for review. Full review below. Main points:
>
> ** MUST Items: **
> [!]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
> Note:
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> -> gnulib ok, add this link to spec:
> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/174, see
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
Will fix.
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> -> Require: hicolor-icon-theme
I used to do this but in discussion either on another review request or on the
devel mailing list it was determined that RPM can handle this so is overkill to
require it.
> [!]: Only use %_sourcedir in very specific situations.
> Note: %_sourcedir/$RPM_SOURCE_DIR is used.
> See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPM_Source_Dir
> See also OCE.src:183: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
This is for copying all the icons to the right place, I'm using a bash for loop
which means grabbing them directly rather than using the macros... I'm open to
suggestions here.
> OCE-foundation.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
> /usr/lib64/libTKernel.so.8.0.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
> OCE-foundation.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
> /usr/lib64/libTKAdvTools.so.8.0.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
> -> See for instance https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=329912
Already reported upstream. Some fixed, other they think is OK due to specific
use cases.
https://github.com/tpaviot/oce/issues/490
> ** SHOULD Items: **
> [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
> -> Could install %SOURCEx files with -p
Will fix.
> [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in OCE-
> foundation , OCE-modeling , OCE-ocaf , OCE-visualization , OCE-draw ,
> OCE-devel
> -> Are automatic, but might be a good to make them explicit
Hmm... I was letting the sonames drive the dependencies, I would rather leave
it that way if that's OK.
> Also: OCE-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on OCE/OCE-libs/libOCE
There is no OCE base package so this is expected.
> OCE.src:303: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
A library was dropped that I had commented out instead of removing, now gone.
>
> ** Extra Items: **
> [?]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
> is
> arched.
> Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 4249600 bytes in /usr/share
> -> Guess 4MB is okay
Yeah, I don't really want to create another subpackage if it can be avoided.
Thanks,
Richard
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
9 years, 11 months