fedora-review denied: [Bug 226569] Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 226569: Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info> has denied Roozbeh Pournader
<roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info>'s request for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226569
------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info>
Random notes:
* License (MIT/X11 mentioned) cannot be confirmed as being free/open source, as
the only file that is shipped in the package lacks any license header and
nothing else in the package talks about the file's license. (BLOCKER)
* As the "make" line in %build does nothing, you may remove it.
* The package puts files in /usr/share/sgml without owning the directory or
depending on any other package that owns the directory. (BLOCKER)
17 years, 3 months
fedora-review denied: [Bug 226329] Merge Review: pycairo
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 226329: Merge Review: pycairo
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info> has denied Roozbeh Pournader
<roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info>'s request for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226329
------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info>
More necessary and suggested changes:
* You forgot to change the BuildRoot
* License is actually LGPL/MPL, while the License field only says LGPL.
(BLOCKER)
* The description and the summary field say exactly the same thing. Expand the
description field.
* I do not know about the specifics of the dependency on cairo, but are you
sure
the dependency is actually >= 1.2.6 and not = 1.2.6?
* The extra info "-n pycairo-%{version}" is not necessary, as the tarball gets
unpacked to the same directory anyway. Just use "%setup -q".
* You should not use .fc7 and such in %changelog comments (unless your change
is
only for that version of Fedora, which is not the case here)
I believe that is all, but I have not done a check-list check yet. Will do that
as soon as you fix these.
17 years, 3 months
fedora-review denied: [Bug 225652] Merge Review: comps-extras
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 225652: Merge Review: comps-extras
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info> has denied Jeremy Katz
<katzj(a)redhat.com>'s request for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225652
------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info>
(In reply to comment #2)
> > W: comps-extras no-url-tag
>
> Yep, there's not one.
Use http://www.fedoraproject.org/ then.
> There isn't an upstream tarball location. The upstream _are_ the packages
> that are built.
If there's a source control system with public anonymous access, please point
to
that. Checking the included tarball against the upstream tarballs are a MUST
item in the review list. (BLOCKER)
> > * GPL may not be a very appropriate license for a set of PNG images
>
> It's not normal, but it's fine.
Then please include a copy of the GPL license in the source tarball (and , and
add a note somewhere in the tarball or the comment field of the image files
themselves that the files are licensed under the GPL. Presently, the only
mention of the license is the spec file, which means that one cannot confirm
that it is used correctly.
If there is no mention of free software license somewhere, one should assume
that it's proprietary, at least according to the US law. (BLOCKER)
> Given that there's nothing actually done, this doesn't actually make a
> difference
Agreed. But then please remove the line "make" from the %build section. The
section is allowed to be empty.
> One better; added the directory as %dir and then the files underneath.
Choice of style really, but keeping two copies of the same info in two
different
places is not what I would personally recommend.
17 years, 3 months
fedora-review granted: [Bug 225630] Merge Review: buildsys-macros
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 225630: Merge Review: buildsys-macros
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info> has granted Roozbeh Pournader
<roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info>'s request for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225630
------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info>
Minor remaining issues:
MUST: US English
* I am not a native speaker, but I think you need a "the" before 'dist' in the
package description: "define the product version and *the* 'dist' tag".
MUST: rpmlint output
W: buildsys-macros conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rpm/macros.disttag
This is bad, I think. Using %config(noreplace) is recommended, although I
don't see any real difference, as I don't think anybody may install this
package on his normal box where it may be updated. It's not in the normal
repos IIRC.
W: buildsys-macros no-documentation
It's fine.
The bureaucracy:
MUST: named fine
MUST: spec file named fine
MUST: packaging guidelines met (except noreplace, mentioned above)
MUST: license fine
MUST: no license file needed as it's public domain
MUST: spec file was made legible
MUST: no source
MUST: builds into noarch on FC6/i386
MUST: no excludearch
MUST: no special build deps
MUST: no locale
MUST: not a lib
MUST: not relocatable
MUST: requires rpm that owns /etc/rpm
MUST: permissions fine
MUST: no dup files
MUST: file permissions fine
MUST: %clean section exists
MUST: macro use fine
MUST: package has code
MUST: no large docs
MUST: no %doc
MUST: no header or static lib
MUST: no *.pc
MUST: no *.so.*
MUST: no -devel
MUST: no *.la
MUST: not GUI
MUST: doesn't own others' files
Package is approved.
17 years, 3 months
fedora-review denied: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 225804: Merge Review: glib2
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info> has denied Matthias Clasen
<mclasen(a)redhat.com>'s request for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804
------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info>
(In reply to comment #13)
> Some more fixes in -3.fc7.
Thanks a lot.
> It would make a lot more sense to give the package to e.g.
> devhelp, which can actually use the content of those directories at runtime.
Considering the discussions on bug 225875 (see comments by Patrice Dumas and
Ralf Corsepius), please either own the directory or depend on something that
does. I believe this is mostly to make sure that installing the package and
then
removing it doesn't leave empty directories around.
All other blockers are fixed now. The package is fine if this problem gets
fixed
either way.
Final rpmlint output:
W: glib2 non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/glib2.sh
W: glib2 non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/glib2.csh
E: glib2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
E: glib2-static devel-dependency glib2-devel
W: glib2-static no-documentation
W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libglib-2.0.a
W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgobject-2.0.a
W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgthread-2.0.a
W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgmodule-2.0.a
(All are fine)
17 years, 3 months
fedora-review denied: [Bug 225895] Merge Review: icon-slicer
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 225895: Merge Review: icon-slicer
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info> has denied Roozbeh Pournader
<roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info>'s request for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225895
------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info>
Random first notes:
* change BuildPrereq to BuildRequires
* change Release to integer value, perhaps also using %{?dist}
* change BuildRoot to
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* License field says MIT, but there is a copy of GPL in the tarball named
COPYING!
* ship at least ChangeLog and AUTHORS in %doc
* use make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install instead of %makeinstall
* change %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-)
* use make %{?_smp_mflags} instead of make
* provide URL field
* provide complete URL of source tarball in the Source field
17 years, 3 months
[Bug 188477] Review Request: maildrop
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: maildrop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188477
johan-fedora(a)deds.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO
------- Additional Comments From johan-fedora(a)deds.nl 2007-02-05 11:48 EST -------
Whoops. Restoring NEEDINFO for this review, as I accidently removed it
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
17 years, 3 months