Spec URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout.spec SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout-0.3.2-2.fc13.src.rpm Other rpms and logs from the mock build are available here: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/ Description: Scout is an interface to Tomboy notes or Gnote that uses DBus to communicate. It presents a command-line interface and tries to be as simple to use as possible. Different actions can be taken to interact with Tomboy or Gnote. Actions are simple to create, making the application easily extensible. Current actions make it possible to list note names, display note contents, search for text inside notes and to delete notes. Additional Info : needs "pandoc" for generation of man pages. The haskell sig is in the process of packaging "pandoc".
Updated spec and srpm: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout-0.3.2-3.fc13.src.rpm koji scratch build at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2507979
I've started to review it, but it looks that the version is no longer available. $ spectool scout.spec | awk '{print $2}' | xargs wget --2010-10-09 14:20:36-- http://github.com/lelutin/scout/downloads/lelutin-scout-v0.3.2-5-gbc7fb4f.tar.gz Resolving localhost... ::1, 127.0.0.1 Connecting to localhost|::1|:3128... connected. Proxy request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 2010-10-09 14:20:36 ERROR 404: Not Found. It looks that the new v0.4 version is available. Please consider to update to the latest available version.
Hello, Thank you for undertaking the review. Here are the latest rpms/spec: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout-0.4-1.fc13.src.rpm http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout.spec results of the mock build are at: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/ rpmlint reports: [Ankur@070905042 SPECS]$ rpmlint scout.spec ../SRPMS/scout-0.4-1.fc13.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm scout.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://github.com/lelutin/scout/downloads/lelutin-scout-v0.4-0-ga2ae61f.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found scout.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://github.com/lelutin/scout/downloads/lelutin-scout-v0.4-0-ga2ae61f.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found scout.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scout scout.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://github.com/lelutin/scout/downloads/lelutin-scout-v0.4-0-ga2ae61f.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. regards, Ankur
> Here are the latest rpms/spec: > > http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout-0.4-1.fc13.src.rpm > > http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout.spec > The spec file seems to be not updated.
(In reply to comment #4) > > Here are the latest rpms/spec: > > > > http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout-0.4-1.fc13.src.rpm > > > > http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout.spec > > > The spec file seems to be not updated. hey, It is. Please refresh your browser? Maybe it's showing you the older cached copy of the file. Ankur %changelog * Sat Oct 09 2010 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 0.4-1 - Update to latest upstream release
Ankur, Please find some initial comments. - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint scout-0.4-1.fc13.src.rpm scout.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://github.com/lelutin/scout/downloads/lelutin-scout-v0.4-0-ga2ae61f.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Downloading the tarball I end up in the following location: http://download.github.com/lelutin-scout-v0.4-0-ga2ae61f.tar.gz NOT OK - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines It matches the original project name, but the name seems to be ambigous. I found a completely different project with the same name[1], thus maybe it would be reasonable to use the name of the original tarball to avoid any possible clash? On the other hand it looks the project has changed its name in the past[2], maybe it will be changed again to more closely reflect its purpose to e.g. [gnote|tomboy]-cli or something similar? Maybe other packagers could help you in the final decision? - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. The package doesn't own all required directories as described in[3] e.g.: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout-0.4-py2.6.egg-info/ /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout/ /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout/actions/ NOT OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. The spec file says that the license is "LGPLv2 and Copyright only" LICENSE file claims that the software is GPLv2, except for "format-subst.pl" which is under a GNU LGPLv2", There is an information on the web page of the project[4] that all files are under the BSD license except the format-subst.pl file which is under GPLv2. The setup.py file mention that the license is BSD. Additionally the projects' web page[4] says: "A copy of the BSD license should be available with the source code. Also, a short license notice can be found in all files." But I couldn't find the BSD license included in the sources. Neither of source file contains any license notice. Could you please clarify all the issues with the author? NOT OK References: [1] http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/opensuse/factory/noarch/scout-0.1.0-42.2.noarch.html [2] bug #583672, comment #15 [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories [4] http://github.com/lelutin/scout
Just a few informational comments on the licensing scenario: The crucial source for determining the license of a (binary) package is the information given in the source tarball. The website or any other external resources are more or less irrelevant here. Nonetheless, the upstream author should certainly be encouraged to keep the information on the project website up-to-date. (In reply to comment #6) > The spec file says that the license is "LGPLv2 and Copyright only" Yes, this should be replaced with BSD. > LICENSE file claims that the software is GPLv2, except for "format-subst.pl" > which is under a GNU LGPLv2", No, everything is *BSD* except format-subst.pl. The header comment of format-subst.pl says the file is under LGPLv2+. However, as far as I see, the perl file is not packaged. Thus, its license can be ignored. > But I couldn't find the BSD license included in the sources. The BSD license text (3 clause variant) is listed at the top of file LICENSE. > Neither of source file contains any license notice. Right, this should be fixed upstream, but it's not a blocker here.
Hello, I've emailed upstream (already ccd to the bug) requesting fixes. I'll provide an updated spec once the tar is fixed up. Thank you. regards, Ankur
yes, the license of the project is a 3-clause BSD, as found in the file LICENSE. only the file format-subst.pl is under LGPL-v2 and this file is useful only when working in the git repository (it generates the file with the version tag). it shouldn't change anything in an exported archive and it is not installed with the python code. about the point: "Neither of source file contains any license notice". Does this mean packaging requires that all source files contain a line that mentions the license? for the name of the tar archive: this is indeed a bit of a problem. It's probably due to the way GitHub names the archive files. FWIW, for the .deb packages, I use a service [1] that generates stable URLs from tagged archives on github. I hope it can be useful for RPM also. about the name clash: argh! I made sure I searched around to see if other projects already used this name. if possible to package it without changing the name yet another time, I'd be grateful. [1]:http://githubredir.debian.net/
Thanks for the feedback, Gabriel. (In reply to comment #9) > yes, the license of the project is a 3-clause BSD, as found in the file > LICENSE. That's fine. Currently, it looks like a 4 clause license because of the additional asterisk before "this". Maybe you can drop it. But that's just cosmetic. > about the point: "Neither of source file contains any license notice". > Does this mean packaging requires that all source files contain a line that > mentions the license? No, it doesn't. Damian just pointed out that a note on your project website says there are short license notices present in the source files, but they aren't. It's an inconsistency but not a reason to block the review here. > for the name of the tar archive: this is indeed a bit of a problem. It's > probably due to the way GitHub names the archive files. > FWIW, for the .deb packages, I use a service [1] that generates stable URLs > from tagged archives on github. I hope it can be useful for RPM also. Is version 0.4-0-ga2ae61f the official release of version 0.4? In this case the additional hash is a bit confusing because it makes the tarball look like a snapshot release of an upcoming version 0.4 that may still change. If possible, please provide a tarball without additional tags in the filename when releasing a final version. Damian, sorry, I didn't intend to take over your review. Please continue reviewing this package submission.
Hello, Updated spec with license change: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout.spec srpm: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout-0.4-2.fc13.src.rpm mock build et all at: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/ rpmlint output: [Ankur@070905042 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/scout-0.4-2.fc13.src.rpm scout.spec /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm scout.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name} scout.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version} scout.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://download.github.com/lelutin-scout-v0.4-0-ga2ae61f.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found scout.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name} scout.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version} scout.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://download.github.com/lelutin-scout-v0.4-0-ga2ae61f.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found scout.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scout scout.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name} scout.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version} scout.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://download.github.com/lelutin-scout-v0.4-0-ga2ae61f.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. I've added the stable URL for the package as a comment. It redirects to Source0. Since the haskell sig hasn't yet packaged "pandoc", the man page is still missing from this package. Thanks! regards, Ankur
Ankur, Please find below my review: - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. rpmlint scout-0.4-2.fc13.src.rpm scout.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name} scout.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version} scout.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://download.github.com/lelutin-scout-v0.4-0-ga2ae61f.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. OK, Have you consider to follow Gabriel's suggestion as given in the comment #9 regarding using the stable URLs? - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK, BSD, LGPLv2+ - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NOT OK, as per comment #7 it should either BSD, LGPLv2+ or BSD. - 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 must be included in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK, with small suggestion to remove the article "A" from the Summary to keep it concise. - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. 6fb9f618ac45094028e43d710db83982 OK - MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK. If you have any plans to support older releases than F-13 or RHEL 5 please add appropriate python_site(lib|arch) macros[1]. - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. OK - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. OK - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. OK - MUST: Packages must NOT OK bundle copies of system libraries. OK - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. OK - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. The package do not own all required directories as described in[2] e.g.: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout-0.4-py2.6.egg-info/ /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout/ /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout/actions/ Please correct it. NOT OK. - MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK. - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK - MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). OK - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. OK - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - MUST: Packages must NOT OK contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. OK - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK Please correct remaining issues. References: [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
Hello, * Wed Oct 13 2010 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 0.4-3 - Corrected license to LGPLv2+ and BSD - corrected directory ownership Updated spec: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout.spec Updated srpm: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout-0.4-3.fc13.src.rpm Mock build info at: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/ rpmlint output: [Ankur@070905042 SPECS]$ rpmlint scout.spec ../SRPMS/scout-0.4-3.fc13.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm scout.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name} scout.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version} scout.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name} scout.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version} scout.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scout scout.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name} scout.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version} 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. About the source URL. The utility that Gabriel suggested gives me a URL for the package which is only a redirect: http://githubredir.debian.net/github/lelutin/scout/v0.4.tar.gz [http://githubredir.debian.net/githubredir.cgi?author=lelutin&project=scout] However, the downloaded package name still contains the hash etc.(This link redirects to the normal download location). Since the Source0 needs the actual name of the tar to be extracted(which is not 0.4.tar.gz), this utility is not helpful here. Thank you for the review. regards, Ankur
Sorry for chiming in again. :) - The License tag should be BSD only, since the Perl script (the only file under LGPLv2+) is not packaged. Thus, the whole noarch package consists of BSD-licensed files only. - Please conditionally define macro %{python_sitelib} as described in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros (required for F12 and EPEL <= 5) Damian, if you plan to do the formal review, please assign the ticket to yourself and set the fedora-review flag to "?".
Hello, (In reply to comment #14) > Sorry for chiming in again. :) > > - The License tag should be BSD only, since the Perl script (the only file > under LGPLv2+) is not packaged. Thus, the whole noarch package consists of > BSD-licensed files only. Will correct this. > > - Please conditionally define macro %{python_sitelib} as described in > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros > (required for F12 and EPEL <= 5) > I don't intend to build the package for F12, which will be EOL as F14 goes gold(6 weeks from now). I don't intend to maintain the package for EPEL either. If requested/needed, I will create a branch later. > Damian, if you plan to do the formal review, please assign the ticket to > yourself and set the fedora-review flag to "?". Thanks! regards, Ankur
(In reply to comment #15) > I don't intend to build the package for F12, which will be EOL as F14 goes > gold(6 weeks from now). I don't intend to maintain the package for EPEL either. Ah, that's OK. In this case, you can also drop the BuildRoot field, the %clean section, and the rm statement at the beginning of %install.
Created attachment 453300 [details] duplicate files proposal patch
Ankur, It looks that directory owning fix caused that a lot of files are now specified more than once, which is against[1]. Please look at the rpmbuild log: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout-0.4-py2.6.egg-info/PKG-INFO warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout-0.4-py2.6.egg-info/SOURCES.txt warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout-0.4-py2.6.egg-info/dependency_links.txt warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout-0.4-py2.6.egg-info/entry_points.txt warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout-0.4-py2.6.egg-info/requires.txt warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout-0.4-py2.6.egg-info/top_level.txt warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout/__init__.py warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout/__init__.pyc warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout/__init__.pyo warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout/actions warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout/actions/__init__.py warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout/actions/__init__.py warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout/actions/__init__.pyc warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scout/actions/__init__.pyc ... To correct it please have a look at the proposal patch attachment #453300 [details]. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
To remove the following warnings in the specfile comments: scout.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name} scout.spec:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version} please precede the % with an additional %, e.g.: %%{name}.
Hello, Made required changes: * Thu Oct 14 2010 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 0.4-4 - corrected directory ownership - corrected macro in comment spec: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout.spec srpm: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout-0.4-4.fc13.src.rpm Thanks, regards, Ankur
rpmlint output: [Ankur@070905042 SPECS]$ rpmlint scout.spec ../SRPMS/scout-0.4-4.fc13.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm scout.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://download.github.com/lelutin-scout-v0.4-0-ga2ae61f.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found scout.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://download.github.com/lelutin-scout-v0.4-0-ga2ae61f.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found scout.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scout scout.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://download.github.com/lelutin-scout-v0.4-0-ga2ae61f.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. regards, Ankur
(In reply to comment #15) > Hello, > > (In reply to comment #14) > > Sorry for chiming in again. :) > > > > - The License tag should be BSD only, since the Perl script (the only file > > under LGPLv2+) is not packaged. Thus, the whole noarch package consists of > > BSD-licensed files only. > > Will correct this. Ankur, you seems to forgot to correct it? Name: scout Version: 0.4 Release: 4%{?dist} Summary: A CLI interface to Tomboy notes and Gnote Group: Applications/Text License: LGPLv2+ and BSD
Duh. I've corrected it in my local copy. Mock's building.
Hello, I hope I'm not late: Updated spec: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout.spec SRPM : http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout-0.4-5.fc13.src.rpm mock info at : http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/ * Sat Oct 16 2010 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 0.4-5 - corrected license regards, Ankur
Updated spec: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/scout/scout-0.4-6.fc13.src.rpm regards, Ankur
Package Review -------------- Key: + = ACCEPTED, Not Applicable - = NEEDSWORK, PROBLEM --- REQUIRED ITEMS --- [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package... [1] [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming... [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, ... [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and... [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual... [+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the ... [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream... [2] [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms ... [+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for... [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using ... [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared... [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must... [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec... [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be... [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the... [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix... [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require... [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives,... [+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include ... [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other... [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. --- SUGGESTED ITEMS --- [+] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a ... [+] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file ... [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [3] [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all... [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base... [+] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,... [+] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, ... [-] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. ---------------- Package APPROVED ---------------- References: [1]. rpmlint scout-0.4-6.fc13.src.rpm scout.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://download.github.com/lelutin-scout-v0.4-0-ga2ae61f.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [2]. md5sum: 6fb9f618ac45094028e43d710db83982 lelutin-scout-v0.4-0-ga2ae61f.tar.gz [3]. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2538070
Thank you!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: scout Short Description: CLI interface to Tomboy notes and Gnote Owners: ankursinha Branches: f13 f14 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
scout-0.4-6.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scout-0.4-6.fc14
scout-0.4-6.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scout-0.4-6.fc13
scout-0.4-6.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update scout'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scout-0.4-6.fc14
scout-0.4-6.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
scout-0.4-6.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
FYI pandoc has been submitted for review now in bug 652582, along with some deps .