https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865371 Jos de Kloe <josdekloe(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |josdekloe(a)gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jos de Kloe <josdekloe(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Your srpm and spec file seem no longer available. Could you make them available again please? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865371 MERCIER Jonathan <bioinfornatics(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|package-review(a)lists.fedora | |project.org | Flags|needinfo?(bioinfornatics@gm | |ail.com) | --- Comment #4 from MERCIER Jonathan <bioinfornatics(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Oh sorry, this request is complety get out of my mind -- 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=7mZCoAbAeP&a=cc_unsubscribe

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865371 Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola(a)iki.fi&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |susi.lehtola(a)iki.fi --- Comment #10 from Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola(a)iki.fi&gt; --- Summary: It is a collection of numerical routines for D language Summary(fr): Est une collection de routine pour le calcul numérique pour le langage D %package devel Summary: It is a collection of numerical routines for D language Summary(fr): Est une collection de routine pour le calcul numérique pour le langage D Avoid using "it is" or "scid is", it's superfluous. Also, use the plural because there are more than one routine. So: Summary: A collection of numerical routines for D language Summary(fr): Une collection de routines pour le calcul numérique pour le langage D %package devel Summary: A collection of numerical routines for D language Summary(fr): Une collection de routines pour le calcul numérique pour le langage D -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865371 Eduardo Mayorga <e(a)mayorgalinux.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |e(a)mayorgalinux.com --- Comment #11 from Eduardo Mayorga <e(a)mayorgalinux.com&gt; --- Any news from this? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865371 --- Comment #13 from Eduardo Mayorga <e(a)mayorgalinux.com&gt; --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #12) You assigned the review to yourself, and there's not been any progress since then. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865371 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege(a)land.ru&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |krege(a)land.ru --- Comment #15 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege(a)land.ru&gt; --- I see srpm and spec here, no "needinfo" flags, not any requests. And no review (review flag set to "?" in 2013-12-23 with no actual review). Christopher, please, me too is who not understand. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865371 --- Comment #17 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege(a)land.ru&gt; --- "Fri Jul 18 13:38:29 UTC 2014"? *Sigh* Anyway, right, waiting for respond. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865371 --- Comment #19 from MERCIER Jonathan <bioinfornatics(a)gmail.com&gt; --- was wrong link to SRPMS SRPMS: http://www.bioinfornatics.eu/packages/scid-0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc22.... SPEC: http://www.bioinfornatics.eu/packages/scid.spec PATCH: http://www.bioinfornatics.eu/packages/scid_install_header.patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865371 MERCIER Jonathan <bioinfornatics(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(i(a)cicku.me) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865371 --- Comment #21 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <kryzhev(a)ispms.ru&gt; --- Package Review ============== Issues. Must be fixed: 1. Latest Changelog version is for 0.1 and current version is 0.3. 2. First Changelog entry is for version 1. Misspell? 3. Script to obtain upstream should be fixed. Your script is for lates available version. Must be: packed version. 4. Summary and Description for -devel should represent -devel package. 5. Anowned dirs: /usr/share/geany and /usr/share/geany/tags. May be split-out that geany file and make it Require: geany? Should be fixed: 1. shared-lib-calls-exit from libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 2. unstripped-binary-or-object libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0. Is it normal for D libraris? 3. /usr/share/doc/scid is already processed in %{doc} macros. You could drop %{_defaultdocdir}/scid. 4. Requires: lapack -- is not neccessary. It would be pulled by auto-requires: liblapack.so.3 5. ldc already require ldc-druntime-devel and ldc-phobos-devel. If there is a reason to left them - good, otherwise they should be removed. 6. The same as for 5, but for -devel. Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [x]: 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [!]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: scid-0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc23.3.x86_64.rpm scid-devel-0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc23.3.x86_64.rpm scid-0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc23.3.src.rpm scid.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr scid.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language scid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language scid.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-0.20150909gitccdc560.3 ['0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc23.3', '0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.3'] scid.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 scid.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language scid-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib scid-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation scid.src: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language scid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language scid.src: W: invalid-url Source0: scid-20150909gitccdc560.tar.xz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: Нет такого файла или каталога scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language scid-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib scid-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation scid.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language scid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language scid.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-0.20150909gitccdc560.3 ['0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc23.3', '0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.3'] scid.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libblas.so.3 scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libgfortran.so.3 scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/librt.so.1 scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2 scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 scid.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings. Requires -------- scid-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config ldc-druntime-devel ldc-phobos-devel libscid-ldc.so.0()(64bit) scid(x86-64) scid (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig lapack ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libblas.so.3()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libdruntime-ldc.so.67()(64bit) libgfortran.so.3()(64bit) liblapack.so.3()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libphobos2-ldc.so.67()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- scid-devel: pkgconfig(scid) scid-devel scid-devel(x86-64) scid: libscid-ldc.so.0()(64bit) scid scid(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 865371 Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865371 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <kryzhev(a)ispms.ru&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|needinfo?(bioinfornatics@gm | |ail.com) | Last Closed| |2017-03-22 06:15:38 --- Comment #22 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <kryzhev(a)ispms.ru&gt; --- This review is stalled. Anybody could feel free to make new review request. Don't forget to mark this one as DUPLICATE. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component