[Bug 2909] New: gtkradiant - Level design program for video games
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2909
Bug #: 2909
Summary: gtkradiant - Level design program for video games
Classification: Unclassified
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: bebo.sudo(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2
Spec:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bebosudo-rpms/files/gtkradiant/F18/SRPM/g...
SRPM:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bebosudo-rpms/files/gtkradiant/F18/SRPM/g...
Description:
GtkRadiant is a powerful level editor used for various ego-shooter games.
It stores level data in text format and uses compilers (q3map2 for QuakeIII,
for instance) to create the binary map files.
For more detailed information see:
http://icculus.org/gtkradiant/
-----------
I've yet tried to submit gtkradiant to the redhat bugzilla, but it needs
proprietary SDK to works, so I've to submit to rpmfusion.
Here is the old bug in the rh bugzilla (now closed):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836840
I've followed all Hans' tips and I re-packaged the rpm with the last sources
available.
Here is the result from rpmlint on the spec and on all the rpms:
$ rpmlint -i gtkradiant.spec
../SRPMS/gtkradiant-1.6.3-9.20130803git.fc18.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/gtkradiant-{1.6.3-9.20130803git.fc18.x86_64.rpm,debuginfo-1.6.3-9.20130803git.fc18.x86_64.rpm}
../RPMS/noarch/gtkradiant-data-1.6.3-9.20130803git.fc18.noarch.rpm
gtkradiant.spec: W: invalid-url Source4:
gtkradiant-1.6-gamepacks-20130805.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
gtkradiant.src: W: invalid-url Source4:
gtkradiant-1.6-gamepacks-20130805.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
gtkradiant.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
gtkradiant.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gtkradiant/installs
/usr/share/gtkradiant/gamepacks
The target of the symbolic link does not exist within this package or its file
based dependencies. Verify spelling of the link target and that the target is
included in a package in this package's dependency chain.
gtkradiant.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary q3map2
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
gtkradiant.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary q3map2_urt
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
gtkradiant.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gtkradiant
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
gtkradiant.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary
/usr/share/applications/gtkradiant.desktop gtkradiant
the .desktop file is for a file not present in the package. You should check
the requires or see if this is not a error
gtkradiant-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files.
This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during
the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often
is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security
consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo
extraction not working as expected. Verify that the binaries are not
unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used.
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings.
$
The first two warnings I think could be ignored because the source is created
manually, because the upstream doesn't provide a package for the SDKs.
All the docs are in the gtkradiant-data package, so I don't know if I have to
put some docs manually to solve the third warning.
in the fourth warning, rpmlint complains about a "dangling-symlink", but I
think it shouldn't do it, because it refer at the gamepacks present in the data
package and, as said by rpmlint itself, its a chain of packages.
the other three warnings regard the lack of documentation to the three execs,
but I don't know where to find it.
the "desktopfile-without-binary" warning is a strange error, because the
gtkradiant exec exist, and I don't know how to solve it.
And finally, the error at the end I really don't know what it means and how to
solve it.
But the biggest problem is that package can't work because gtkradiant try to
write in the folder where it is present the exec. I have already reported it to
the developers but nobody helped me. here is the link at the discussion on the
ML: http://icculus.org/pipermail/gtkradiant/2013-February/011841.html
Any sort of help is appreciated :)
Thanks for your time, have a nice day!
Alberto
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2 years, 4 months
[Bug 2997] New: Review Request: spinroot - Formal verification of multi-threaded software applications
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2997
Bug #: 2997
Summary: Review Request: spinroot - Formal verification of
multi-threaded software applications
Classification: Unclassified
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: alexisis-pristontale(a)hotmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2
SPEC: http://lameire.iiens.net/spinroot/spinroot.spec
SRPM: http://lameire.iiens.net/spinroot/spinroot-6.2.5-1.fc18.src.rpm
MOCK BUILD LOG: http://lameire.iiens.net/spinroot/build.log
ALL OTHER USEFULL STUFF: http://lameire.iiens.net/spinroot/
RPMLINT:
spinroot.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti
spinroot.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
spinroot.x86_64: W: invalid-license free use for educational purpose
Not eligible on fedora repo : non free app, only redistribuable without money
exchange.
NB: a "spin" package is already avalable on fedora repo, I rename the package
folowing the website domain
Description:
Spin targets the efficient verification of multi-threaded software, not the
verification of hardware circuits. The tool supports a high level language to
specify systems descriptions called PROMELA (short for: PROcess MEta LAnguage).
Spin has been used to trace logical design errors in distributed systems
design,
such as operating systems, data communications protocols, switching systems,
concurrent algorithms, railway signaling protocols, control software for
spacecraft, nuclear power plants, etc. The tool checks the logical consistency
of a specification and reports on deadlocks, race conditions, different types
of
incompleteness, and unwarranted assumptions about the relative speeds of
processes.
I have no approuved package on rpm-fusion, but I'm already approuved on fedora.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2 years, 4 months
[Bug 3001] New: Review request: nouveau-firmware - Firwmare files used by the nouveau Linux kernel driver
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3001
Bug #: 3001
Summary: Review request: nouveau-firmware - Firwmare files used
by the nouveau Linux kernel driver
Classification: Unclassified
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: chemobejk(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Spawned from discussion in bug #2633
----------------------------------------------------------
SPEC: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=1199
FYI: The SRPM will use the same Nvidia blob files as xorg-x11-drv-nvidia.
----------------------------------------------------------
%description
This package includes firmware files required for the nouveau kernel driver
to activate Video acceleration on certain Nvidia devices.
----------------------------------------------------------
$ rpmlint SRPMS/nouveau-firmware-325.15-1.fc19.src.rpm
RPMS/noarch/nouveau-firmware-325.15-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
nouveau-firmware.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Firwmare -> Firmware,
Firearm
- Oops will fix that of course :-)
nouveau-firmware.src: W: file-size-mismatch extract_firmware.py = 11218,
https://raw.github.com/imirkin/re-vp2/master/extract_firmware.py = 10692
- I made modifications to this script to enable use in "packaging mode"
nouveau-firmware.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Firwmare -> Firmware,
Firearm
- see above
nouveau-firmware.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
- No idea. The binary package has only firmware files for the kernel, i.e.
/usr/lib/firmware/nouveau/*
nouveau-firmware.noarch: W: no-documentation
- Good point. I guess I could add a README with a URL pointing to the nouveau
Video Acceleration page
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
----------------------------------------------------------
This is my first RPMFusion package. I'm a Fedora sponsored package though...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2 years, 4 months
[Bug 3036] New: Review request: RBDoom3BFG - Robert Beckebans' Doom 3 BFG engine
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3036
Bug #: 3036
Summary: Review request: RBDoom3BFG - Robert Beckebans' Doom 3
BFG engine
Classification: Unclassified
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: negativo17(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2
SPEC: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/RBDoom3BFG.spec
SRPM:
http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/RBDoom3BFG-1.1400-11.gitaaed5dd0.fc19.sr...
RBDoom3BFG 3 is a Doom 3 BFG GPL source modification. The goal of RBDoom3BFG 3
is to bring Doom 3 BFG with the help of SDL to all suitable platforms. Bugs
present in the original DOOM 3 will be fixed (when identified) without altering
the original game-play.
Why it's not in Fedora?
Packaging guidelines prohibit engines where the content is not available. The
engine is fully Open Source.
Note:
Information on the package and on the game content is inside the README.txt
file.
$ rpmlint RBDoom3BFG*rpm
RBDoom3BFG.src: W: strange-permission RBDoom3BFG-git-checkout.sh 0751L
RBDoom3BFG.src: W: invalid-url Source0: RBDoom3BFG-1.1400-gitaaed5dd0.tar.bz2
RBDoom3BFG.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libidlib.so libidlib.so
RBDoom3BFG.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/RBDoom3BFG-1.1400/COPYING.txt
RBDoom3BFG.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary RBDoom3BFG
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
> RBDoom3BFG.src: W: strange-permission RBDoom3BFG-git-checkout.sh 0751L
> RBDoom3BFG.src: W: invalid-url Source0: RBDoom3BFG-1.1400-gitaaed5dd0.tar.bz2
Script used to generate the Source0 main file. This is legitimate in Fedora
packaging guidelines.
> RBDoom3BFG.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libidlib.so libidlib.so
This is the main engine code, it is dynamically loaded at runtime from the
ld.so path; default compilation from upstream sources loads it through RPATH.
The game it's looking for that specific name, much like a plugin. There's no
need to run ldconfig in %post/%postun.
The rest can be ignored.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2 years, 4 months
[Bug 3900] New: Review Request: tivolibre - Java app and library for decoding TiVo files to standard MPEG files
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3900
Bug #: 3900
Summary: Review Request: tivolibre - Java app and library for
decoding TiVo files to standard MPEG files
Classification: Unclassified
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: orion(a)cora.nwra.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Java app and library for decoding TiVo files to standard MPEG files.
Spec file: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/rpmfusion/tivolibre.spec
SRPM file:
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/rpmfusion/tivolibre-0.7.2-1.fc23.src.rpm
This contains an implementation of the Qualcomm Touring family of encryption
algorithms and has the following restriction:
# 5. The Turing family of encryption algorithms are covered by patents in
# the United States of America and other countries. A free and
# irrevocable license is hereby granted for the use of such patents to
# the extent required to utilize the Turing family of encryption
# algorithms for any purpose, subject to the condition that any
# commercial product utilising any of the Turing family of encryption
# algorithms should show the words "Encryption by QUALCOMM" either on the
# product or in the associated documentation.
and hence should be considered nonfree.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2 years, 4 months
[Bug 4105] New: Review request: sdcc-nonfree - Small Device C Compiler - nonfree files
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4105
Bug #: 4105
Summary: Review request: sdcc-nonfree - Small Device C Compiler
- nonfree files
Classification: Unclassified
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: rrankin(a)ihug.com.au
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2
Spec URL:
https://github.com/rrankin/sdcc-nonfree/blob/master/sdcc-nonfree.spec
Source URL:
https://github.com/rrankin/sdcc-nonfree/blob/master/sdcc-nonfree-3.6.0-1....
Description:
Files derived from Microchip files which are licensed for
use for Microchip devices only. Files used for compiling code for
14 and 16 bit PIC processors. The sdcc --use-non-free flag must
be used to access these files during compilation and linking.
License:
Restricting use for Microchip devices only makes license on the files
in this package non-free from a Fedora perspective.
Rpmlint:
rpmlint sdcc-nonfree.spec
sdcc-nonfree.spec:51: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
note: %configure is not used as files end up in wrong directory
$ rpmlint sdcc-nonfree-3.6.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: W: invalid-license Redistributable but use for Microchip
devices only
sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/sdcc/non-free/lib/pic16/libdev18f66j60.lib
sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: W: binaryinfo-readelf-failed
/usr/share/sdcc/non-free/lib/pic16/libdev18f66j60.lib readelf: Error:
/tmp/rpmlint.sdcc-nonfree-3.6.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm.fjysaswk/usr/share/sdcc/non-free/lib/pic16/libdev18f66j60.lib:
did not find a valid archive header
... Repeated for each .lib file in package
sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: W: no-documentation
sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/sdcc/non-free/include/pic14/pic16lf1829.h
... Repeats for each .h file in package
sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/sdcc/non-free/include/pic16/pic18lf4580.h
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 724 errors, 1452 warnings.
Notes:
1 W: invalid-license - Licence not suitable for Fedora
2 E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share - The .lib files are not lib files
to be run on the host machine but rather to be included in the
generated PIC code. The .libs files may be arch dependant only
do to the endian of the host machine.
/usr/share is where sdcc expects to find them.
3 W: binaryinfo-readelf-failed - The .lib files are not elf files.
4 W: no-documentation - All documentation is in sdcc package
5 W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package - The .h files are required for
sdcc operation on PIC code and thus should not be in a -devel
package
$ rpmlint sdcc-nonfree-devel-3.6.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
sdcc-nonfree-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Redistributable but use for
Microchip devices only
sdcc-nonfree-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Notes:
1 Invalid license is keeping these files out of Fedora
2 Contains source files which are own documentation
This is my first rpmfusion package I am a sponsored Fedora packager.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2 years, 4 months
[Bug 4700] New: Review request: bitwig-studio - A dynamic software
for creation and performance of musical ideas
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4700
Bug ID: 4700
Summary: Review request: bitwig-studio - A dynamic software for
creation and performance of musical ideas
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Hardware: x86_64
OS: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P1
Component: Review Request
Assignee: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Reporter: cybolic(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2
namespace: nonfree
# Spec
https://github.com/Cybolic/rpmspec-bitwig-studio/blob/master/bitwig-studi...
# Description
Bitwig Studio is a dynamic software for creation and performance of your
musical ideas on stage or in the studio.
This is proprietary piece of software, requiring a purchased license to
function outside of demo mode.
# rpmlint on source package
> bitwig-studio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce
"workflow" is how the text is written on bitwig.com.
> bitwig-studio.src: W: invalid-license EULA
From the RPM documentation, this would seem to be the valid option.
> bitwig-studio.src: W: no-%build-section
There's nothing to build, it's a repackaging.
# rpmlint on binary package
There is a lot of output from rpmlint on the binary, most of which is I don't
see a solution for since this is proprietary software.
This is my first RPM Fusion package. I'm coming from Arch and was saddened to
see that there was no easy way to install Bitwig on RPM systems.
I seem to be sponsored by basset on Fedora, but I'm new to this, so I might be
wrong.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2
[Bug 2] Tracker: New packages awaiting review
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2 years, 4 months
[Bug 4779] New: Review request: gjots2 - gjots2 is a fairly simple
jotter (outline processor) application for your desktop.
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4779
Bug ID: 4779
Summary: Review request: gjots2 - gjots2 is a fairly simple
jotter (outline processor) application for your
desktop.
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Hardware: x86_64
URL: https://sourceforge.net/projects/gjots2/
OS: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P1
Component: Review Request
Assignee: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Reporter: bob.hepple(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2, 30
namespace: free
Source rpm:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gjots2/files/gjots2/3.0.2/gjots2-3.0.2-1...
Spec file:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gjots2/files/gjots2/3.0.2/gjots2.spec/do...
Description:
gjots2 ("gee-jots" or, if you prefer, "gyachts"!) is a way to marshall
and organise your text notes in a convenient, hierarchical way. For
example, use it for all your notes on Unix, personal bits and pieces,
recipes and even PINs and passwords (encrypted with ccrypt(1), gpg(1)
or openssl(1)).
You can also use it to "mind-map" your compositions - write down all
your thoughts and then start to organise them into a tree. By
manipulating the tree you can easily reorder your thoughts and
structure them appropriately.
Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora? Version 2 is is
fedora for several years but I have been unable to get them to upgrade to
version 3 (numerous emails and bug reports). Version 2 is only applicable to
Centos-6 while Centos-7 requires version 3.
rpmlint messages are trivial (below)
THis is my first rpmfusion package
I am seeking a sponsor.
0 11:33 rpmbuild/ $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/gjots2-3.0.2-1.201801081627.noarch.rpm
gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Organise -> Organist, Organism,
Organize
gjots2.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A note jotter. Organise your ideas,
notes, facts in a hierarchy.
gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gyachts -> yachts, g
yachts
gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US marshall -> Marshall,
marshal, marshals
gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US organise -> organist,
organism, organize
gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ccrypt -> crypt, c crypt
gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag
gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openssl -> slope
gjots2.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag
gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/docbook2gjots
gjots2.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/gjots2 /usr/bin/env python
gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2docbook
gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2emacs
gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2html
gjots2.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/gjots2html.py /usr/bin/env
python
gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2lpr
gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2org
gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/org2gjots
gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/__init__.py
gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/common.py
gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/file.py
gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/find.py
gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/general.py
gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/gui.py
gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/prefs.py
gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/printDialog.py
gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/sortDialog.py
gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/version.py
gjots2.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/doc
gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gjots2/COPYING
gjots2.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man
gjots2.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man1
gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2emacs
gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2html.py
gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2lpr
gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2org
gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary org2gjots
gjots2.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/gjots2/INSTALL
gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/cs/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo
gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/de_DE/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo
gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/en_US/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo
gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo
gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo
gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/it/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo
gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/nb/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo
gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/no/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo
gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/ru/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo
gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/sl/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo
gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/sv/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo
gjots2.noarch: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/gjots2.appdata.xml
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 25 errors, 25 warnings.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2
[Bug 2] Tracker: New packages awaiting review
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30
[Bug 30] Tracker : Sponsorship Request
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2 years, 4 months