[Bug 1246657] Review Request: nodejs-lower-case-first - Lower case the first character of a string
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246657 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-lower-case-first-1.0.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242724] Review Request: perl-File-Find-Rule-Age - Rule to match on file age
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242724 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242724] Review Request: perl-File-Find-Rule-Age - Rule to match on file age
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242724 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-File-Find-Rule-Age-0.302-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-File-Find-Rule-Age-0.302-3.el6 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242724] Review Request: perl-File-Find-Rule-Age - Rule to match on file age
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242724 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-File-Find-Rule-Age-0.302-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 23. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-File-Find-Rule-Age-0.302-3.fc23 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195573] Review Request: dropbox-api-command - Dropbox API wrapper command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195573 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||dropbox-api-command-1.17-5. ||fc21 Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dropbox-api-command-1.17-5.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1195573] Review Request: dropbox-api-command - Dropbox API wrapper command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195573 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|dropbox-api-command-1.17-5. |dropbox-api-command-1.17-5. |fc21|fc22 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dropbox-api-command-1.17-5.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1246177] libgsasl: reenable gssapi support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246177 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com, ||zbys...@in.waw.pl Component|Package Review |libgsasl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Summary|Review Request: libgsasl - |libgsasl: reenable gssapi |Reenable GSSAPI support |support --- Comment #8 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- My rephrasing of the orignal bug report: Package is built with gssapi support because configure is not finding the implementation. Please add --with-gssapi-impl=mit to ./configure flags. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228503] Review Request: springframework-amqp - Support for Spring programming model with AMQP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228503 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||projects...@smart.ms Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|projects...@smart.ms Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1174290] Review Request: scalasca - Toolset for scalable performance analysis of large-scale parallel applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174290 --- Comment #14 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Re licensing of spec files: I think it is pretty rare for license files to include any licensing information at all. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232816] Review Request: nodejs-spdx - SPDX License Expression Syntax parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232816 Zuzana Svetlikova zsvet...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1248428 --- Comment #2 from Zuzana Svetlikova zsvet...@redhat.com --- New sources: Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs/nodejs-spdx/nodejs-spdx.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs/nodejs-spdx/nodejs-spdx-0.4.1-2.fc22.src.rpm Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248428 [Bug 1248428] Rebase to npm 2.x -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242724] Review Request: perl-File-Find-Rule-Age - Rule to match on file age
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242724 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-File-Find-Rule-Age-0.302-3.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-File-Find-Rule-Age-0.302-3.el7 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242724] Review Request: perl-File-Find-Rule-Age - Rule to match on file age
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242724 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-File-Find-Rule-Age-0.302-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-File-Find-Rule-Age-0.302-3.fc21 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1234905] Review Request: jpype - Full access for Python programs to Java class libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234905 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- You cannot remove _static, it is necessary to display the html pages properly. You should unbundle jquery probably (by replacing jquery.js with a symlink to /usr/share/javascript/jquery/2.1.3/jquery.min.js). Why install the tests is doc... It would imho be much better to stick them in the python dir, so that they are importable as jpypy.tests or so. sanify Why put both python2 and python3 in the same package? This will (among other things) pull in the full python2 stack for python3 users of this package and vice-versa. Why are tests only run with python3? Missing python2-* provides. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1234905] Review Request: jpype - Full access for Python programs to Java class libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234905 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|bjoern.es...@gmail.com |punto...@libero.it --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Björn, i will take this review, if you no have time -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242724] Review Request: perl-File-Find-Rule-Age - Rule to match on file age
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242724 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-File-Find-Rule-Age-0.302-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-File-Find-Rule-Age-0.302-3.fc22 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1234905] Review Request: jpype - Full access for Python programs to Java class libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234905 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(bjoern.esser@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #5 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- - I fully agree about _static inclusion and unbundling of jquery. - Maybe it's best to remove the python2 stack completely. Before latest release, upstream's support was python2 only, now they promise full python3 support without the former github fork named jpype-py3 that's packaged already and my intention is to get it obsoleted when this review is done. Probably, I forgot to remove the python2 lines. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1234905] Review Request: jpype - Full access for Python programs to Java class libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234905 --- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- NON blocking issues: [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated. 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1234905-jpype/licensecheck.txt see above jpype-doc.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/jpype-doc/test/test_jarray_fixes.py /usr/bin/env Please, fix this file Blocking issues: jpype-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244522] Review Request: python-autobahn - Python networking library for WebSocket and WAMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244522 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- I'll review this once the deps are done. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
if [ $1 ]; then
command -v xxd /dev/null 21 || { echo 2 sshrc requires xxd to be
installed locally, but it's not. Aborting.; exit 1; }
sshrc $@
This is an accident waiting to happen. Proper quoting is required around $@. [
$1 ] will go wrong if options are given on the command line.
xxd is requires but it is not Required by anything.
rm -rf %{buildroot} is not necessary.
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1234905] Review Request: jpype - Full access for Python programs to Java class libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234905 --- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Support for both python versions *should* be provided if possible. Many people are still using py2... -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244508] Review Request: python-sphinx-theme-alabaster - Configurable sidebar-enabled Sphinx theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244508 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- The comments about Provides:python2-..., separate build dirs, and _docdir_fmt from #1244514 also apply here. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243530] Review Request: winswitch - A tool which allows you to display running applications on other computers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243530 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- winswitch.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/nautilus-python/extensions/nautilus_winswitch.py Because the file is executable. winswitch.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/winswitch/server_defaults.conf W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/winswitch/ports.conf You need to mark it with %config(noreplace). cicku? -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206732] Review Request: python-gccjit - Python bindings for libgccjit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206732 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- - 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. Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203749] Review Request: dssp - Protein secondary structure assignment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203749 --- Comment #14 from Dave Love d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #13) I (eventually) made changes to specify boost paths and define __global_ldflags. I still don't understand why I should define DEBUG for a production package which has the debuginfo package; it doesn't seem to do anything very useful anyway. I won't be able to look at any more for 10 days, as I'm on holiday. SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp-2.2.1-6.el5.src.rpm Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp.spec -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244510] Review Request: python-txaio - Compatibility API between asyncio/Twisted/Trollius
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244510 --- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- The comments about Provides:python2-..., separate build dirs, and _docdir_fmt from #1244514 also apply here. (I didn't test that build works with a single source directory, but I'll assume so until proven otherwise.) If you remove _sources, you'll get dangling symlinks in the documentation. I think it would be better to keep them, it's just a few kilobytes. Instead of patching jquery, unbundle it: replace the file with a symlink to /usr/share/javascript/jquery/latest/jquery.min.js. Consider using %autosetup instead of %setup + %patch0. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244658] Review Request: dgit - Integration between git and Debian-style archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244658 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200889] Review Request: lpod-python - a python library implementing the OpenDocument Format standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200889
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
Name should be python-lpod according to the guidelines
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29].
Add Provides: python2-lpod = %{version}-%{release}
Use %license macro for the license files.
What about python3 support?
Looks fine.
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1234905] Review Request: jpype - Full access for Python programs to Java class libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234905
--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: Apache (v2.0), Unknown or generated. 15 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/gil/1234905-jpype/licensecheck.txt
Please, ask to upstream to add license header for these files
jpype-0.6.0/doc/conf.py
jpype-0.6.0/native/python/include/capsulethunk.h
jpype-0.6.0/native/python/include/jp_cocoatools.h
jpype-0.6.0/native/python/include/jp_runloopstopper.h
jpype-0.6.0/test/harness/jpype/array/Test2.java
jpype-0.6.0/test/harness/jpype/attr/ClassWithBuffer.java
jpype-0.6.0/test/harness/jpype/attr/TestOverloadA.java
jpype-0.6.0/test/harness/jpype/attr/TestOverloadB.java
jpype-0.6.0/test/harness/jpype/attr/TestOverloadC.java
jpype-0.6.0/test/harness/jpype/exc/ChildTestException.java
jpype-0.6.0/test/harness/jpype/exc/ParentTestException.java
jpype-0.6.0/test/harness/jpype/properties/TestBean.java
jpype-0.6.0/test/harness/jpype/proxy/TestInterface1.java
jpype-0.6.0/test/harness/jpype/proxy/TestThreadCallback.java
jpype-0.6.0/test/transform_xunit_to_appveyor.xsl
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/jpype/awt/event/__pycache__(jpype-py3), /usr/lib/python3.4
/site-packages/jpypex/__pycache__(jpype-py3), /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/jpypex/swing(jpype-py3), /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/jpypex/swing/__pycache__(jpype-py3), /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/jpype/awt(jpype-py3), /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/jpype/awt/event(jpype-py3), /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/jpypex(jpype-py3), /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/jpype/__pycache__(jpype-py3), /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/jpype(jpype-py3), /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/jpype/awt/__pycache__(jpype-py3)
[?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 6 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.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]:
[Bug 1244514] Review Request: python-snappy - Python library for the snappy compression library from Google
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244514
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
Add Provides python2-snappy = %{version}-%{release}.
Putting _snappy in the global namespace is an abomination. Somebody should hit
upstream with a cluebat.
You changed %{py3dir} to python2 and python3 dirs. This is better, but best
would be getting of the dirs completely. This will follow the new draft
guidelines that are being worked on, so you'll be ready for the future :)
So I'd strongly suggest removing all the copying and push/popd-ing.
Also consider adding %global _docdir_fmt %{name}. No need for duplicate dirs
with the same contents.
Looks good. The only required change would be the added provides, the other two
are suggestions. Either way, please post a new version so that I can ack it.
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244517] Review Request: python-wsaccel - Accelerator for ws4py and AutobahnPython
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244517 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Looks good too. The same comments apply as in #1244514. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244658] Review Request: dgit - Integration between git and Debian-style archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244658
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
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.
GPLv3.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Debian(debconf, debhelper)
OK.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 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.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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
Perl:
[!]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`;
echo $version)) missing?
= 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.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
Pfff. They should really enable tarballs on git.dgit.debian.org.
[-]: 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
[Bug 1244510] Review Request: python-txaio - Compatibility API between asyncio/Twisted/Trollius
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244510 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206732] Review Request: python-gccjit - Python bindings for libgccjit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206732
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
%{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1)))}
%if 0%{?fedora} 12
You can drop that, unless you want to package for old EPELs too.
Must Provide: python2-gccjit = %{version}-%{release}
Do you need the whole dance with %{py3dir}? Unless you use 2to3 or modify the
sources during build in another way, it should be fine to build both versions
from the same source directory.
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Allowed, but also obsolete.
Also consider adding %global _docdir_fmt %{name}. No need for duplicate dirs
with the same contents.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244508] Review Request: python-sphinx-theme-alabaster - Configurable sidebar-enabled Sphinx theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244508
Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com
--- Comment #3 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com ---
- Upgrade to the new macros available for F22:
CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS %{__python2} setup.py build - %py2_build
CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS %{__python3} setup.py build - %py3_build
%{__python2} setup.py install --skip-build --root %{buildroot} - %py2_install
%{__python3} setup.py install --skip-build --root %{buildroot} - %py3_install
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1163559] Review Request: python-flask-uwsgi-websocket - High-performance WebSockets for your Flask apps powered by uWSGI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1163559 Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-flask-uwsgi-websocket Short Description: High-performance WebSockets for your Flask apps powered by uWSGI Upstream URL: https://github.com/zeekay/flask-uwsgi-websocket Owners: mayorga Branches: f22 f23 InitialCC: -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328 Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com --- Comment #2 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com --- - The missing dependencies are vim-commons and openssh-clients. - Add a %build section, even if empty, to silent the rpmlint warning. Rpmlint --- Checking: sshrc-0.5-1.fc24.noarch.rpm sshrc-0.5-1.fc24.src.rpm sshrc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bashrc - bash sshrc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vimrc - victim sshrc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sshrc sshrc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary moshrc sshrc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bashrc - bash sshrc.src: W: spelling-erro.tar.gz 640r Summary(en_US) vimrc - victim sshrc.src: W: strange-permission 0.5.tar.gz 640 sshrc.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156658] Review Request: libmatemixer - Mixer library for MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156658 Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-07-30 15:54:14 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242896] Review Request: python-ironic-inspector-client - Python client and CLI tool for Ironic Inspector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242896 Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(juj...@jujens.eu) | --- Comment #3 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu --- (In reply to Dmitry Tantsur from comment #2) - You've tried to install the package on F21. I'm pretty sure it does not have all the dependencies. The following succeeds: sudo mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -i https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1987/10351987/python-ironic- inspector-client-1.0.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm Just tested with: fedora-review -b 1242896 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 it works fine. - By python 3 support upstream means unit tests pass on Python 3 mostly. As python-openstackclient is only involved in a shell script, it's not a big deal for tests. But we probably can't declare Python 3 compatibility until it's fixed. OK, this was just to know. - `python -m unittest discover ironic_inspector_client.test` works, though requires python-mock (not sure how to handle it, as it's not a runtime dependency for the project itself). You should add the dependency as BuildRequires. Once this is done, I will approve the package. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244517] Review Request: python-wsaccel - Accelerator for ws4py and AutobahnPython
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244517 --- Comment #4 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu --- SPEC: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/python-wsaccel.spec SRPM: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/python-wsaccel-0.6.2-4.fc22.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244514] Review Request: python-snappy - Python library for the snappy compression library from Google
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244514 --- Comment #12 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu --- New SRPMS: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/python-snappy-0.5-3.fc22.src.rpm SPEC: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/python-snappy.spec Sorry for double post. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244514] Review Request: python-snappy - Python library for the snappy compression library from Google
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244514
--- Comment #11 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu ---
- Issue about _snappy in global namespace signaled:
https://github.com/andrix/python-snappy/issues/33
- Remove python2 and python3 dirs
- Add Provides: python2-snappy = %{version}-%{release}
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242011] Review Request: python-UcsSdk - Python SDK for Cisco UCS Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242011 Brian Demers brdem...@cisco.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(brdem...@cisco.co | |m) | --- Comment #10 from Brian Demers brdem...@cisco.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CiscoSystems/UcsSdk-spec/new-spec-3/python-UcsSdk.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/CiscoSystems/UcsSdk-spec/releases/download/new-spec-3/python-UcsSdk-0.8.2.4-1.fc24.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1163559] Review Request: python-flask-uwsgi-websocket - High-performance WebSockets for your Flask apps powered by uWSGI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1163559
Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[X]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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
Python:
[X]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[X]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[X]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[X]: 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.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3
-flask-uwsgi-websocket
[X]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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
[Bug 1244678] Review Request: duperemove - Tools for deduping file systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244678 --- Comment #2 from Francesco Frassinelli frap...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #1) Now you must use the %license macro to include the license text instead of %docs. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Fixed, thank you. Spec URL: https://about.frafra.eu/duperemove.spec SRPM URL: https://about.frafra.eu/duperemove-0.09.5-2.fc22.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1246891] Review Request: xkb-switch - Switch your X keyboard layouts from the command line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246891
--- Comment #1 from William Moreno williamjmore...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
NEED WORK:
1- Use compiler flags by default:
!: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
If your package run as root, or can run as, also add %global _hardened_build 1
Also see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages
2- The missing manpage is a easy fix the package manedit (UNIX Manual Page
Editor) to create a manpage and add it ass Source1, if you create a manpage
please propose it to upstream.
3- Build failed in ppc64le
!: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
See:
http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/williamjmorenor/fedora-review-test/monitor/
If your package only build in x86 and x86_64 you must add a:
ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64
If a error with copr (f22 build fine and I look your koji build also) you can
omit this.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
OK: Package does not contain kernel modules.
OK: Package contains no static executables.
OK: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
OK: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
OK: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
OK: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
OK: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
OK: Changelog in prescribed format.
OK: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
NA: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
NA: Development files must be in a -devel package
OK: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
OK: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
OK: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK: Package does not generate any conflict.
OK: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
OK: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
OK: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
OK: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
OK: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
OK: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
OK: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
OK: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
OK: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
OK: Package installs properly.
OK: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
OK: 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.
OK: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
OK: Package must own all directories that it creates.
OK: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
OK: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
OK: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
OK: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
OK: Dist tag is present.
OK: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
OK: Permissions on files are set properly.
OK: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
OK: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
OK: Package does not use a name that already exists.
OK: Package is not relocatable.
OK: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
OK: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
OK: File names are valid UTF-8.
OK: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
NA: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
OK: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
OK: Package functions as described.
OK: Latest version is packaged.
OK: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
OK: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
NA: %check is present and all tests pass.
OK: Packages should try to
[Bug 1191062] Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and comparison functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191062
Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|e...@mayorgalinux.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- 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.
Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- ExclusiveArch tag is missing.
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Node.js?rd=Node.js/Packagers#ExclusiveArch
- The description lines must not be longer than 79 characters.
- Why are the tests disabled? And these should not be included as %doc.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
Note: Use %license macro.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: Unknown or generated. 3 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/mayorga/1191062-nodejs-
samsam/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 5 files.
[!]: 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.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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
[Bug 1201176] Review Request: python-pygatt - A Python Module for Bluetooth LE Generic Attribute Profile
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201176 William Moreno williamjmore...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from William Moreno williamjmore...@gmail.com --- Good job in the spec But there is some updates here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python Now you must add a Provide: python2-foo and and build a subpackage for python 2 and 3 Please update the spec and I will run the review. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244508] Review Request: python-sphinx-theme-alabaster - Configurable sidebar-enabled Sphinx theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244508 --- Comment #4 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu --- SPEC: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/python-sphinx-theme-alabaster.spec SRPM: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/python-sphinx-theme-alabaster-0.7.6-3.fc22.src.rpm @Eduardo: Currently I have only seen those macro in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/PythonCleanup2 As far as I know, this document is not yet definitive nor approved. Are those macro ready for use? Should I define them if they are not defined? -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223455] Review Request: mysql-connector-net - Mono ADO.NET driver for MySQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223455 Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com Flags|fedora-review+ | --- Comment #4 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com --- You cannot approve your own packages. Please stick to the procedure described in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1246891] Review Request: xkb-switch - Switch your X keyboard layouts from the command line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246891 William Moreno williamjmore...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244678] Review Request: duperemove - Tools for deduping file systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244678 Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com --- Comment #1 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com --- Now you must use the %license macro to include the license text instead of %docs. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244510] Review Request: python-txaio - Compatibility API between asyncio/Twisted/Trollius
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244510 --- Comment #3 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu --- - Add provides for python2-txaio - Remove usage of python2 and python3 dirs - Unbundle jquery - Don't remove _sources of documentation I won't use %autosetup as I had problem with line endings when I tried to use it on this package. SPEC: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/python-txaio.spec SRPM: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/python-txaio-1.0.0-3.fc22.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1168432] Review Request: python-PyMySQL - Pure-Python MySQL client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168432 --- Comment #2 from Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu --- - Add Provides: python2-PyMySQL - Remove usage of %%py3dir SPEC: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/python-PyMySQL.spec SRPM: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/python-PyMySQL-0.6.6-2.fc22.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244508] Review Request: python-sphinx-theme-alabaster - Configurable sidebar-enabled Sphinx theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244508
--- Comment #5 from William Moreno williamjmore...@gmail.com ---
@Julien
There is a update to the Python Packaging wiki, please see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_spec_file
Need work:
==
1- There is not more %files please use %files -n python2-%{pypi_name}
2- Define the python2-%{pypi_name} subpackage, yes now Python 2 and 3 packages
are subpackages for the same spec.
3- Yes you can use %py3_install, %py2_install, %py3_build and %py2_build if you
want to go to epel and F21 you need to define it with %global
Also note this:
Our method in building from the same code to make the two separate modules is
to keep each build as independent as possible. To do that, we copy the source
tree to python3 so that the python 2 sources are entirely independent from the
python 3 sources.
So I will recomend than you use a diferent directory to build the python 2 and
3 package.
Please update the spec and I will run the review
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203749] Review Request: dssp - Protein secondary structure assignment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203749 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #16 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- I would not set DEBUG. As long as -g is being used to compile, that's fine. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1245351] Review Request: ps2emu-tools - PS/2 recording/playback tools for userio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245351 Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com --- Comment #2 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com --- Please update the Spec URL too. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244514] Review Request: python-snappy - Python library for the snappy compression library from Google
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244514 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- - package name is OK (comment #c8) - license is OK (BSD) - license file is not present but upstream is notified - spec file is nice and simple - fs layout is OK - rpmlint says 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. - provides and requires as OK - module seems to work as expected under both python versions Package is APPROVED. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244517] Review Request: python-wsaccel - Accelerator for ws4py and AutobahnPython
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244517 --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Build fails (on F22) with: tests/test_4.py:2: in module import wsaccel.utf8validator E ImportError: No module named 'wsaccel' 1 error in 0.01 seconds === error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.X0O5Tf (%check) -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244508] Review Request: python-sphinx-theme-alabaster - Configurable sidebar-enabled Sphinx theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244508 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu --- I've moved all sorts of new stuff into place but I shouldn't be doing any significant reorganization, just fixing typos and documenting some of the new macros. Do keep in mind that both the build in one directory and the build in separate subdirectories are still supported. It's just that the former is simpler, assuming it works. The latter was merely moved to the appendix. It shouldn't be long before the new macros are in F21 as well, but the old guidelines are still there and perfectly valid if you want to support multiple releases. They're just... far less pleasant and won't handle the future change in the system version of python. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244510] Review Request: python-txaio - Compatibility API between asyncio/Twisted/Trollius
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244510 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Julien Enselme from comment #3) I won't use %autosetup as I had problem with line endings when I tried to use it on this package. I think it has a bug where you have to insert a blank line after the macro in the spec file. I think that bug was fixed at some point, and is only present in stable fedora branches. - Add provides for python2-txaio - Remove usage of python2 and python3 dirs - Unbundle jquery You will need Requires: js-jquery in the -doc subpackage. - Don't remove _sources of documentation SPEC: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/python-txaio.spec SRPM: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/python-txaio-1.0.0- 3.fc22.src.rpm - license is OK (MIT) - latest version is packaged - fs layout is OK - spec file is nice and clean - license file is present and %license macro is used - egg info handling is OK - rpmlint contains only false positives - Requires and Provides almost OK, see ISSUES below Rpmlint: python-txaio.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) asyncio - Asuncion python-txaio.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asyncio - Asuncion python3-txaio.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) asyncio - Asuncion python3-txaio.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asyncio - Asuncion python-txaio-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asyncio - Asuncion python-txaio-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-txaio-doc/html/objects.inv python-txaio-doc.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/python-txaio-doc/html/_static/jquery.js /usr/share/javascript/jquery/latest/jquery.min.js python-txaio-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-txaio-doc/html/_sources/api.txt python-txaio-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-txaio-doc/html/_sources/overview.txt python-txaio-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-txaio-doc/html/_sources/index.txt python-txaio.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) asyncio - Asuncion python-txaio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asyncio - Asuncion 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. ISSUES: Provides: python2-txaio is missing. Requires: js-jquery is missing. Please fix that. Package is APPROVED. -- Note: python guidelines are being updated, but the changes were not announced yet. In case of this package the changes will be fairly cosmetic, so they can be left for later, after the guidelines changes have stabilized and have been formally announced. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244508] Review Request: python-sphinx-theme-alabaster - Configurable sidebar-enabled Sphinx theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244508 --- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to William Moreno from comment #5) Our method in building from the same code to make the two separate modules is to keep each build as independent as possible. To do that, we copy the source tree to python3 so that the python 2 sources are entirely independent from the python 3 sources. Removing that part of the guidelines was one of the changes to the guidelines, explicitly voted on and approved. Please see the example spec file at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file. So there's no need to do that step, unless the installation is actually broken without it. (I see that the link you posted is already dead... so it seems that the guidelines are being changed as we speak). -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244678] Review Request: duperemove - Tools for deduping file systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244678 Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|e...@mayorgalinux.com Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241919] Review Request: python-line_profiler - Line-by-line profiler for Python.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241919 --- Comment #41 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name --- FYI: InitialCC: salimma was not specified in the package change request, therefore it is not honoured. Also you needed to specify all the branches you wanted to unretire. I tried to create them now manually. So if something did not work, please file a Package Change Request again. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1154218] Review Request: graphite-api - Graphite-web, without the interface. Just the rendering HTTP API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154218 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|1239336, 1241698| --- Comment #17 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- not targeting epel7, removing epel related dependent bugs. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239336 [Bug 1239336] Please add epel7 package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241698 [Bug 1241698] please add lato-fonts epel package -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1039299] Review Request: jackson-module-afterburner - Jackson module that uses byte-code generation to further speed up data binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039299 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-module-afterburner.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-module-afterburner-2.5.0b-1.fc22.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1237042] Review Request: nodejs-validate-npm-package-name - Give me a string and I'll tell you if it's a valid npm package name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1237042 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-validate-npm-package-name-2.2.2-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 23. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-validate-npm-package-name-2.2.2-2.fc23 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1237042] Review Request: nodejs-validate-npm-package-name - Give me a string and I'll tell you if it's a valid npm package name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1237042 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1237042] Review Request: nodejs-validate-npm-package-name - Give me a string and I'll tell you if it's a valid npm package name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1237042 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-validate-npm-package-name-2.2.2-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-validate-npm-package-name-2.2.2-2.fc21 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc22.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1237042] Review Request: nodejs-validate-npm-package-name - Give me a string and I'll tell you if it's a valid npm package name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1237042 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-validate-npm-package-name-2.2.2-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-validate-npm-package-name-2.2.2-2.fc22 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1248029] Review Request: perl-Text-Levenshtein-Damerau - Damerau Levenshtein edit distance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248029 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Text-Levenshtein-Damer ||au-0.41-1.fc24 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-07-30 04:53:04 --- Comment #4 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1248080] Review Request: perl-Text-Levenshtein-Damerau-XS - XS Damerau Levenshtein edit distance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248080 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1248080] Review Request: perl-Text-Levenshtein-Damerau-XS - XS Damerau Levenshtein edit distance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248080 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 Tomas Curilla tcuri...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcuri...@gmail.com --- Comment #146 from Tomas Curilla tcuri...@gmail.com --- Please build an epel7 build of elasticsearch for EL7/CentOS7. Thank you. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1248080] Review Request: perl-Text-Levenshtein-Damerau-XS - XS Damerau Levenshtein edit distance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248080 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Text-Levenshtein-Damerau-XS Short Description: XS Damerau Levenshtein edit distance Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Text-Levenshtein-Damerau-XS/ Owners: jplesnik ppisar psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203749] Review Request: dssp - Protein secondary structure assignment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203749 --- Comment #15 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Dave Love from comment #14) (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #13) I (eventually) made changes to specify boost paths and define __global_ldflags. I still don't understand why I should define DEBUG for a production package which has the debuginfo package; it doesn't seem to do anything very useful anyway. You're not forced. I won't be able to look at any more for 10 days, as I'm on holiday. SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp-2.2.1-6.el5.src.rpm Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp.spec Packaging fails on EPEL5: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10543567 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: Tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379
--- Comment #2 from nobra...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/tinyxpath.spec
SRPM URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/tinyxpath-1.3.1-2.fc22.src.rpm
Hi,
Thank you for your reply :D (and yes, tinyxml is my pet peeve)
So,
1) License file
The proper way is to ask upstream to include the license text:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Reported: https://sourceforge.net/p/tinyxpath/feature-requests/3/
2) Done
3) shared library versioning
See the link:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning
The soname should be something like libxpath.so.0.1.
Done, I use 1 instead of %{version} on the contrary of the doc... Because
%{version} is very long (1.3.1)
4)
Done
5)
The problem is there is one error. It is probably not important error, but it
could be reported upstream (and ignored in the %check).
Corrected with a patch, seems like a bug, reported
https://sourceforge.net/p/tinyxpath/support-requests/7/
6) Corrected
7) Corrected
8) Corrected, I've removed the out-of-date rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
9) Corrected, you're right ;)
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223455] Review Request: mysql-connector-net - Mono ADO.NET driver for MySQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223455 --- Comment #2 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz claudiorodr...@pereyradiaz.com.ar --- Spec URL: https://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/mysql-connector-net.spec SRPM URL: https://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/mysql-connector-net-6.9.6-4.fc24.src.rpm Description: Mono ADO.NET driver for MySQL Fedora Account System Username: elsupergomez -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223455] Review Request: mysql-connector-net - Mono ADO.NET driver for MySQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223455 Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz claudiorodr...@pereyradiaz.com.ar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1237042] Review Request: nodejs-validate-npm-package-name - Give me a string and I'll tell you if it's a valid npm package name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1237042 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-validate-npm-package-name-2.2.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241412] Review Request: python-ldap3 - Strictly RFC 4511 conforming LDAP V3 pure Python client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241412 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-ldap3-0.9.8.6-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223455] Review Request: mysql-connector-net - Mono ADO.NET driver for MySQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223455
Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz claudiorodr...@pereyradiaz.com.ar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz
claudiorodr...@pereyradiaz.com.ar ---
= MUST items =
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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: BSD (3 clause), GPL (v2), *No copyright* GPL (v2),
Unknown or generated. 35 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/licenses/mysql-
connector-net(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No), /usr/lib/mono
/mysql-connector-net(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: 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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[x]: 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 is not relocatable.
[x]: 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:
[x]: 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]: 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]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: Tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379
--- Comment #1 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz ---
It's funny opencity unbundled the tinyxml from tinyxpath and bundle it itself.
:-) Good catch.
Issues found:
1) License file
Currently it is used the link created automatically by automake, which points
to GPL license file. But the license is zlib and source code doesn't contain
text license.
libpng/zlib license doesn't require separate license text file distributed with
the sources/binaries, so it is not show-stopper for Fedora packaging and you
can just remove the wrong link.
The proper way is to ask upstream to include the license text:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
2) AUTHORS
This file can be included in the package documentation.
3) shared library versioning
See the link:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning
The soname should be something like libxpath.so.0.1.
4) libxpath.so* files are in both packages (tinyxpath, tinyxpath-devel), the
*.so file (the link) should be in -devel, the other files in the main package.
Something like:
%files
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.0
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.0.*
%files devel
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so
5) tinyxpath binary is more like test and example code, it is not needed to
include it in the tinyxpath package
By the way you can add %check section and use tinyxpath binary there. :-) It
always returns zero exit code, but the out.htm file will contain some em html
tags in case of errors. So the section could look like this?:
%check
./tinyxpath
grep -q 'em' out.htm false
The problem is there is one error. It is probably not important error, but it
could be reported upstream (and ignored in the %check).
6) fedora-review complains about requirement of -devel on the base package:
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
tinyxpath-devel
There is just missing the %{?_isa}.
7) 'Requires: tinyxml' not needed, dependencies on the libraries are generated
automagically by rpmbuild scripts.
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires .
8) fedora-review complains about mixing of %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
9) cosmetic (you can ignore): I would move the %post and %postun sections
before the %file section. This is just cosmetic and I should probably not even
mention it here. But because of atypical placing my first impression was the
%post/%postun sections are not there. :-)
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1174290] Review Request: scalasca - Toolset for scalable performance analysis of large-scale parallel applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174290 --- Comment #13 from Dave Love d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk --- Thanks for the approval. I didn't see a notification about it for some reason. I'll submit the package when I get back from holiday and have understood the MPI changes and checked the docdir comment. Somehow I'd missed the implicit licensing of spec files, and I know to make sure everything has a licence. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1235831] Review Request: vim-vcscommand - version control system commands from within vim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1235831
--- Comment #6 from Nikola Forró nfo...@redhat.com ---
A few notes on the spec:
License tag is wrong, it must contain license short name. The license of the
project is actually MIT. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Valid_License_Short_Names
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense
No URL for Source0, you should mention it in comment or you can use something
like this:
http://www.vim.org/scripts/download_script.php?src_id=19809#/%{name}-%{version}.zip
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Troublesome_URLs
Correct group name is Applications/Editors. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPMGroups
Changelog entry should include release number. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
Are you interested in full review?
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1246724] Review Request: nodejs-js-beautify - jsbeautifier.org for node
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246724 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1236249 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1236249 [Bug 1236249] Bluefish contains bundled python library jsbeautifier and others -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: Tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||val...@civ.zcu.cz Blocks||1193990 Depends On|1193990 | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|val...@civ.zcu.cz Flags||fedora-review? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193990 [Bug 1193990] Review Request: opencity - Full 3D city simulator game project -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1193990] Review Request: opencity - Full 3D city simulator game project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193990 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|1243379 | Depends On||1243379 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 [Bug 1243379] Review Request: Tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 902086] Review request: Elasticsearch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902086 --- Comment #147 from jiri vanek jva...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Tomas Curilla from comment #146) Please build an epel7 build of elasticsearch for EL7/CentOS7. Thank you. Not a smallest chance. If you wont it in epel. do it on your own. And be warned - you will need to transport a lot of dependencies with you Sorry. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199285] Review request: nodejs-inflight - Add callbacks to requests in flight to avoid async duplication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199285 Bug 1199285 depends on bug 1223972, which changed state. Bug 1223972 Summary: nodejs-wrappy is installing in the wrong directory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223972 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241412] Review Request: python-ldap3 - Strictly RFC 4511 conforming LDAP V3 pure Python client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241412 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-ldap3-0.9.8.6-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 23. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-ldap3-0.9.8.6-1.fc23 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241412] Review Request: python-ldap3 - Strictly RFC 4511 conforming LDAP V3 pure Python client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241412 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1236565] Review Request: nodejs-builtins - List of node.js builtin modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1236565 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-builtins-1.0.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-builtins-1.0.2-1.el6 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
