[Bug 1219662] Review Request: python-terminado - Terminals served to term.js using Tornado websockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219662 --- Comment #12 from Orion Poplawski --- * Mon Feb 22 2016 Orion Poplawski - 0.6-1 - Update to 0.6 - Modernize spec Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-terminado.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-terminado-0.6-1.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 1219662] Review Request: python-terminado - Terminals served to term.js using Tornado websockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219662 --- Comment #11 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- orion's scratch build of python-terminado-0.6-1.fc24.src.rpm for f24-candidate completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13102226 -- 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 1304217] Review Request: python-latexcodec - Lexer and codec to work with LaTeX code in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304217 --- Comment #9 from Jerry James --- Okay, finally got a few minutes to update the URL and add the underscore bundling Provides. New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-latexcodec/python-latexcodec.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-latexcodec/python-latexcodec-1.0.1-2.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 1219662] Review Request: python-terminado - Terminals served to term.js using Tornado websockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219662 --- Comment #10 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- orion's scratch build of python-terminado-0.6-1.fc24.src.rpm for f24-candidate failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13101706 -- 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 1305336] Review Request: R-RInside - C++ Classes to Embed R in C++ Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305336 --- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- nonamedotc's scratch build of R-RInside-0.2.13-1.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13101320 -- 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 1305336] Review Request: R-RInside - C++ Classes to Embed R in C++ Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305336 --- Comment #4 from Mukundan Ragavan --- > > Unversioned so-files > > R-RInside: /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/libs/RInside.so > R-RInside: /usr/lib64/libRInside.so > For the sake of clarity - first entry is not an issue. - second file is also fine - at least, as far as I can tell. -- 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 1305336] Review Request: R-RInside - C++ Classes to Embed R in C++ Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305336 --- Comment #3 from Mukundan Ragavan --- 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 1305336] Review Request: R-RInside - C++ Classes to Embed R in C++ Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305336 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ---> installs fine. $ rpm -qa R-RInside* R-RInside-examples-0.2.13-1.fc24.x86_64 R-RInside-0.2.13-1.fc24.x86_64 - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION ---> This is also fine. - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: R-RInside-examples : /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/qt/qtdensity.h R-RInside-examples : /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/client/callback_helper.h R-RInside-examples : /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/client/rinsideclient.h R-RInside-examples : /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/common/binarystream.h R-RInside-examples : /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/common/constants.h R-RInside-examples : /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/common/typeid.h R -RInside-examples : /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/datatypes/bar.h R -RInside-examples : /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/datatypes/bar_rcpp_wrapper_declarations.h R-RInside-examples : /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/datatypes/bar_rcpp_wrapper_definitions.h R-RInside-examples : /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/datatypes/foo.h R -RInside-examples : /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/datatypes/foo_rcpp_wrapper_declarations.h R-RInside-examples : /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/datatypes/foo_rcpp_wrapper_definitions.h R-RInside-examples : /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/server/internalfunction_clone.h R-RInside-examples : /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/server/rinside_callbacks.h R-RInside-examples : /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/server/rinsideserver.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages ---> All these are perfectly fine. - Package requires R-core. ---> This is fine. - Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires. Note: Missing BuildRequires on R-devel, tex(latex) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:R ---> No issues here. - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages ---> I think this is a bogus warning. $ rpm -qlp R-RInside-devel-0.2.13-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/include /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/include/Callbacks.h /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/include/MemBuf.h /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/include/RInside.h /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/include/RInsideCommon.h /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/include/RInsideConfig.h = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [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. ---> License file not included in the tarball and not included in the rpm. Please get this to upstream's attention [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 76 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305336-R-RInside/licensecheck.txt ---> looks fine. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. ---> See above. [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-co
[Bug 1277484] Review Request: php-nette - Nette Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277484 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- php-nette-2.3.9-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8a21d82c75 -- 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 1277484] Review Request: php-nette - Nette Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277484 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- php-nette-2.3.9-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d9c8a9ad7f -- 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 1307130] Review Request: mkdocs-basic-theme - MkDocs Basic Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307130 --- Comment #5 from William Moreno --- Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/mkdocs-basic-theme.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-2.fc24.src.rpm --- Update requires -- 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 1298180] Review Request: python-libcnml - a CNML parser library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298180 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- python-libcnml-0.9.4-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1298180] Review Request: python-libcnml - a CNML parser library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298180 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-02-22 20:25:11 -- 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 1301268] Review Request: python-netdiff - Python library for parsing network topology data (eg: dynamic routing protocols, NetJSON, CNML) and detect changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301268 Bug 1301268 depends on bug 1298180, which changed state. Bug 1298180 Summary: Review Request: python-libcnml - a CNML parser library for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298180 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 1305333] Review Request: R-highlight - R Syntax Highlighter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305333 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- R-highlight-0.4.7-1.fc23, R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1305334] Review Request: R-inline - Functions to Inline C, C++, Fortran Function Calls from R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305334 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- R-highlight-0.4.7-1.fc23, R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - Transactional Embedded Database Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793 --- Comment #8 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- paulohrpinheiro's scratch build of unqlite-1.1.6-4.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13099781 -- 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 1299146] Review Request: python-epub - Python library for reading EPUB files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299146 --- Comment #5 from Filip Szymański --- Spec URL: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/python-epub/python-epub.spec SRPM URL: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/python-epub/python-epub-0.5.2-2.fc23.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 1310901] Review Request: libmodsecurity- A library that loads/interprets rules written in the ModSecurity SecRules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310901 --- Comment #1 from Athmane Madjoudj --- Notes: - There's couple of issues with a workaround in the spec that were reported upstream - Libinjection is supposed to be bundled (same as with mod_security 2.x): https://github.com/client9/libinjection#embedding -- 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 1310901] New: Review Request: libmodsecurity- A library that loads/interprets rules written in the ModSecurity SecRules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310901 Bug ID: 1310901 Summary: Review Request: libmodsecurity- A library that loads/interprets rules written in the ModSecurity SecRules Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: athma...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libmodsecurity.spec SRPM URL: https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libmodsecurity-3.0-0.gitf44143.fc23.src.rpm Description: Libmodsecurity is one component of the ModSecurity v3 project. The library codebase serves as an interface to ModSecurity Connectors taking in web traffic and applying traditional ModSecurity processing. In general, it provides the capability to load/interpret rules written in the ModSecurity SecRules format and apply them to HTTP content provided by your application via Connectors. Fedora Account System Username: athmane -- 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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - Transactional Embedded Database Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793 --- Comment #7 from Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro --- (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #6) > A couple of other things to note, the summary in this review request should > match what's in the spec file. > > The best "one-liner" I've seen is actually in the description of the github > project, "Transactional Embedded Database Engine" > > Also, when making updates per my (or anyone else's) feedback, it's customary > to bump the release and add what you changed to the changelog. That also > makes it easy when you update the SPEC and SRPM links as you can just paste > the contents of the changelog here. I changed the package and ticket summary, an put all changes in changelog. It is good, or can it be improved? Thank you, the day is not over yet and I learned a lot already!! -- 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 1310863] Review Request: nodejs-duplexer2 - Like duplexer but using streams3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310863
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||t...@compton.nu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
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. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1310863-nodejs-
duplexer2/licensecheck.txt
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x
[Bug 1307130] Review Request: mkdocs-basic-theme - MkDocs Basic Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307130 --- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- williamjmorenor's scratch build of mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13099491 -- 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 1299146] Review Request: python-epub - Python library for reading EPUB files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299146 --- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- fszymanski's scratch build of python-epub-0.5.2-2.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13099451 -- 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 1310859] Review Request: nodejs-beeper - Make your terminal beep
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310859
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||t...@compton.nu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
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. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1310859
-nodejs-beeper/licensecheck.txt
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should
[Bug 1307130] Review Request: mkdocs-basic-theme - MkDocs Basic Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307130 --- Comment #3 from William Moreno --- Looking the build info requieres python(abi) == 3.5 if not a bloquer https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9389/13099389/build.log -- 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 1310853] Review Request: nodejs-sparkles - Namespaced global event emitter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310853
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||t...@compton.nu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
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. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1310853
-nodejs-sparkles/licensecheck.txt
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[Bug 1307130] Review Request: mkdocs-basic-theme - MkDocs Basic Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307130 --- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- williamjmorenor's scratch build of mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13099388 -- 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 1309691] Review Request: hid-replay - debug tools for HID devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309691
Peter Hutterer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Peter Hutterer ---
Package is APPROVED
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "*No
copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 62 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/whot/tmp/2016-02-23-Tue/1309691-hid-replay/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %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
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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
= 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in hid-
replay-debuginfo
[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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translatio
[Bug 1309691] Review Request: hid-replay - debug tools for HID devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309691 --- Comment #6 from Peter Hutterer --- Note for the archives, the spec from comment 4 was silently amended on request to list GPLv2+ as license only since the license field applies to the binary, the source licenses don't matter here. Review below is for the updated spec file. also forgot to answer to this: (In reply to Benjamin Tissoires from comment #2) > Provides: > Should I also provide hid-recorder? No, Provides is only necessary when you are providing contents from another package and you have a potential conflict. -- 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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - Transactional Embedded Database Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793 Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: unqlite - |Review Request: unqlite - |embedded key/value |Transactional Embedded |databasse/engine|Database Engine -- 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 1310886] New: Review Request: notary - A server and client for running and interacting with trusted collections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310886 Bug ID: 1310886 Summary: Review Request: notary - A server and client for running and interacting with trusted collections Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/mitr/notary/notary.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/mitr/notary/notary-0.1-1.20160219git8a5c8c0.fc24.src.rpm Description: A server and client for running and interacting with trusted collections Fedora Account System Username: mitr -- 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 1277484] Review Request: php-nette - Nette Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277484 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- php-nette-2.3.9-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-22d9369b13 -- 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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793 --- Comment #6 from Richard Shaw --- A couple of other things to note, the summary in this review request should match what's in the spec file. The best "one-liner" I've seen is actually in the description of the github project, "Transactional Embedded Database Engine" Also, when making updates per my (or anyone else's) feedback, it's customary to bump the release and add what you changed to the changelog. That also makes it easy when you update the SPEC and SRPM links as you can just paste the contents of the changelog 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 1310873] Review Request: rubygem-async_sinatra - A Sinatra plugin to provide convenience whilst performing asynchronous responses inside of the Sinatra framework running under async webservers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310873 --- Comment #1 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- I updated the files to execute tests, as all the packages are available on Fedora 24. My initial dev work was on a CentOS box where Sinatra is not yet available. -- 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 1310873] New: Review Request: rubygem-async_sinatra - A Sinatra plugin to provide convenience whilst performing asynchronous responses inside of the Sinatra framework running under async webserve
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310873 Bug ID: 1310873 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-async_sinatra - A Sinatra plugin to provide convenience whilst performing asynchronous responses inside of the Sinatra framework running under async webservers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: greg.helli...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/rubygem-async_sinatra/rubygem-async_sinatra.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/rubygem-async_sinatra/rubygem-async_sinatra-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: A Sinatra plugin to provide convenience whilst performing asynchronous responses inside of the Sinatra framework running under async webservers. To properly utilise this package, some knowledge of EventMachine and/or asynchronous patterns is recommended. Currently, supporting servers include: * Thin * Rainbows * Zbatery. Fedora Account System Username: greghellings There are a number of BRs that are commented out. Those are dependencies for the test process, and there are some that are not yet packaged. If those get packaged, then we can uncomment that and add the tests in. -- 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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793
--- Comment #5 from Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #4)
> (In reply to Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #2)
> (...)
> > After this, to "silent" rpmlint, I put a strip in make install.
>
> Not sure what is going on here, I removed the strip command and get a usable
> debuginfo package.
Some issue in my config. In spec I put this line:
%debug_package
And now I get the debuginfo package.
> > > 3c. Since a readme file is provided it should be included in the base
> > > package with %doc.
> >
> > There's no README.md, only license.txt...
>
> I just noticed that, I was looking at it in github where there is one. Has
> there just not been a release since it was added?
The stable version is only on site. The github is "just for fun", according
upstream devs. New features are "frozzen" by now.
> Also, just playing around a bit with the Makefile, after removing the strip
> command I added a symbolic link to the library to go in the -devel package:
>
> ln -rs $(LIBDIR)/$(LIBNAME) $(LIBDIR)/libunqlite.so
>
> Then added to the spec:
>
> %files devel
> %{_includedir}/unqlite.h
> %{_libdir}/libunqlite.so
>
> This is typically needed as a project using this for a dependency wouldn't
> necessarily know about the soversion.
OK
Thanks, now it's good!
--
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 1303649] Review Request: perl-Tie-Sub - Tying a subroutine, function or method to a hash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303649 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Tie-Sub-1.001-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1305333] Review Request: R-highlight - R Syntax Highlighter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305333 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-02-22 15:50:08 -- 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 1305333] Review Request: R-highlight - R Syntax Highlighter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305333 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- R-highlight-0.4.7-1.fc22, R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1305335] Review Request: R-Rcpp - Seamless R and C++ Integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305335 Bug 1305335 depends on bug 1305333, which changed state. Bug 1305333 Summary: Review Request: R-highlight - R Syntax Highlighter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305333 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 1305334] Review Request: R-inline - Functions to Inline C, C++, Fortran Function Calls from R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305334 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-02-22 15:50:04 -- 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 1305335] Review Request: R-Rcpp - Seamless R and C++ Integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305335 Bug 1305335 depends on bug 1305334, which changed state. Bug 1305334 Summary: Review Request: R-inline - Functions to Inline C, C++, Fortran Function Calls from R https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305334 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 1305334] Review Request: R-inline - Functions to Inline C, C++, Fortran Function Calls from R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305334 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- R-highlight-0.4.7-1.fc22, R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1310839] Review Request: nodejs-is-valid-glob - Return true if a value is a valid glob pattern or patterns
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310839
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||t...@compton.nu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
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. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1310839
-nodejs-is-valid-glob/licensecheck.txt
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package
[Bug 1310838] Review Request: nodejs-streamtest - Streams test library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310838
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||t...@compton.nu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
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. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1310838
-nodejs-streamtest/licensecheck.txt
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package sho
[Bug 1310869] New: Review Request: python-zanata2fedmsg - A web app bridging zanata webhooks to fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310869 Bug ID: 1310869 Summary: Review Request: python-zanata2fedmsg - A web app bridging zanata webhooks to fedmsg Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rb...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-zanata2fedmsg.spec SRPM URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-zanata2fedmsg-0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: A web app bridging zanata webhooks to fedmsg -- 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 1310869] Review Request: python-zanata2fedmsg - A web app bridging zanata webhooks to fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310869 --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13097899 -- 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 1310690] Review Request: nodejs-is-generator - Check whether a value is a generator or generator function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310690
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
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. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1310690
-nodejs-is-generator/licensecheck.txt
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
ar
[Bug 1310690] Review Request: nodejs-is-generator - Check whether a value is a generator or generator function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310690 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t...@compton.nu Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |noejs-is-generator - Check |nodejs-is-generator - Check |whether a value is a|whether a value is a |generator or generator |generator or generator |function|function -- 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 1310863] Review Request: nodejs-duplexer2 - Like duplexer but using streams3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310863 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker -- 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 1310863] New: Review Request: nodejs-duplexer2 - Like duplexer but using streams3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310863 Bug ID: 1310863 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-duplexer2 - Like duplexer but using streams3 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-duplexer2/nodejs-duplexer2.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-duplexer2/nodejs-duplexer2-0.1.4-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Like duplexer but using streams3 Fedora Account System Username: jsmith -- 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 1310859] Review Request: nodejs-beeper - Make your terminal beep
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310859 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker -- 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 1310859] New: Review Request: nodejs-beeper - Make your terminal beep
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310859 Bug ID: 1310859 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-beeper - Make your terminal beep Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-beeper/nodejs-beeper.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-beeper/nodejs-beeper-1.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Make your terminal beep Fedora Account System Username: jsmith -- 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 1310853] Review Request: nodejs-sparkles - Namespaced global event emitter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310853 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews), ||1269538 (IoT) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538 [Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora -- 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 1310853] New: Review Request: nodejs-sparkles - Namespaced global event emitter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310853 Bug ID: 1310853 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-sparkles - Namespaced global event emitter Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-sparkles/nodejs-sparkles.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-sparkles/nodejs-sparkles-1.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Namespaced global event emitter Fedora Account System Username: jsmith -- 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 1310339] Review Request: nodejs-output-file-sync - Synchronously write a file and create its ancestor directories if needed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310339 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-output-file-sync -- 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 1310375] Review Request: nodejs-qunitjs - An easy-to-use JavaScript Unit Testing framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310375 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-qunitjs -- 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 1310607] Review Request: qutebrowser - A keyboard-driven, vim-like browser based on PyQt5 and QtWebKit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310607 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/qutebrowser -- 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 1308657] Review Request: nodejs-thenify - Promisify a callback-based function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308657 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-thenify -- 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 1310374] Review Request: nodejs-is-number - Returns true if the value is a number
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310374 --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-is-number -- 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 1309359] Review Request: nodejs-type-check - Allows you to check the types of JavaScript values at runtime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309359 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-type-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 1310371] Review Request: nodejs-clone-stats - Safely clone node's fs.Stats instances without losing their class methods
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310371 --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-clone-stats -- 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 1310370] Review Request: nodejs-extend-shallow - Extend an object with the properties of additional objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310370 --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-extend-shallow -- 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 1310359] Review Request: nodejs-json-stable-stringify - Deterministic JSON.stringify() with custom sorting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310359 --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-json-stable-stringify -- 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 1310342] Review Request: nodejs-terst - A JavaScript testing component with a terse syntax
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310342 --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-terst -- 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 1310689] Review Request: nodejs-safecb - Normalize callback arguments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310689
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||t...@compton.nu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
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. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1310689
-nodejs-safecb/licensecheck.txt
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should
[Bug 1310670] Review Request: nodejs-cli-spinner - A simple spinner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310670
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||t...@compton.nu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
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. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1310670
-nodejs-cli-spinner/licensecheck.txt
[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 92160 bytes in 3 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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package sh
[Bug 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793
--- Comment #4 from Richard Shaw ---
(In reply to Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #2)
>
> > 2. In %build, why is the debug package being disabled? Typically this is
> > only permitted for noarch packages where it doesn't produce anything useful.
>
> I followed the directions of the documentation* to see if it was a recurring
> problem, but could not make the debug package be generated.
>
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo?rd=Packaging/Debuginfo
>
> After this, to "silent" rpmlint, I put a strip in make install.
Not sure what is going on here, I removed the strip command and get a usable
debuginfo package.
> > 3a. A license file only needs to be included in one package assuming the
> > other requires it (in this case -devel requires the base package)
>
> OK, I put this because rpmlint give-me "no-documentation" :)
Yes, it's just warning you, since upstream doesn't provide any that's OK.
> > 3c. Since a readme file is provided it should be included in the base
> > package with %doc.
>
> There's no README.md, only license.txt...
I just noticed that, I was looking at it in github where there is one. Has
there just not been a release since it was added?
> Can I leave rpmlint with these warnings? My output:
>
> [paulohrpinheiro@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint unqlite.spec
> ../RPMS/x86_64/unqlite-*
> unqlite.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> unqlite-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Yes, that's OK.
Also, just playing around a bit with the Makefile, after removing the strip
command I added a symbolic link to the library to go in the -devel package:
ln -rs $(LIBDIR)/$(LIBNAME) $(LIBDIR)/libunqlite.so
Then added to the spec:
%files devel
%{_includedir}/unqlite.h
%{_libdir}/libunqlite.so
This is typically needed as a project using this for a dependency wouldn't
necessarily know about the soversion.
--
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 1310463] Review Request: nodejs-package-json - Get the package.json of a package from the npm registry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310463 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes --- That looks much better - the tests pass fine now ;-) -- 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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793
--- Comment #3 from Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #2)
> A quick spec review on my lunch break...
>
> 1. rpmbuild doesn't care but typically %{pre,post,postun,etc} would be after
> %install
OK
> 2. In %build, why is the debug package being disabled? Typically this is
> only permitted for noarch packages where it doesn't produce anything useful.
I followed the directions of the documentation* to see if it was a recurring
problem, but could not make the debug package be generated.
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo?rd=Packaging/Debuginfo
After this, to "silent" rpmlint, I put a strip in make install.
> 3a. A license file only needs to be included in one package assuming the
> other requires it (in this case -devel requires the base package)
OK, I put this because rpmlint give-me "no-documentation" :)
> 3b. License files should use the %license macro rather than %doc.
>
> 3c. Since a readme file is provided it should be included in the base
> package with %doc.
There's no README.md, only license.txt...
> So all that to say the base package should be updated to:
> %license license.txt
> %doc README.md
Can I leave rpmlint with these warnings? My output:
[paulohrpinheiro@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint unqlite.spec
../RPMS/x86_64/unqlite-*
unqlite.x86_64: W: no-documentation
unqlite-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
> 4. Typo in the description at the beginning of the -devel package.
OK
Thank you. The files are updated in original links:
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paulohrpinheiro/fedora-rpm-unqlite/master/unqlite.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/paulohrpinheiro/fedora-rpm-unqlite/raw/master/unqlite-1.1.6-1.fc23.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 1282063] Review Request: xxhsum - Extremely fast hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282063 --- Comment #18 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- gil's scratch build of xxhsum-0.5.0-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13096674 -- 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 1268716] Review Request: cjdns - IP6 VPN with crypto address allocation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268716
--- Comment #31 from Jared Smith ---
The package is coming along nicely, but isn't yet ready for approval. Here's
my running list of things that should be addressed:
- Fix the license tag to be "GPLv3"
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: make
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
- 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: Cannot find bencode.py.LICENSE.txt in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- The main package should own the %{_libdir}/cjdns directory
- Do you need FPC exception approval for bundled nacl and libuv libraries?
--
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 1309703] Review Request: libratbag - a library to configure programmable mice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703 --- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- bentiss's scratch build of libratbag-0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23-candidate completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13096326 -- 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 1309703] Review Request: libratbag - a library to configure programmable mice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Tissoires ---
Updating the bug with my latest changes, I will need more upstream first before
actually have a Fedora-ready package.
Spec URL:
https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/libratbag-rpm-v2/libratbag.spec
SRPM URL:
https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/libratbag-rpm-v2/libratbag-0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm
(In reply to Peter Hutterer from comment #1)
> summary should be capitalized correctly, it's currently a mix of upper and
> lowercase
done
> no blank line after Summary
removed
> That Source0 is a bit odd, looks like
> https://github.com/libratbag/libratbag/archive/v0.2.tar.gz is sufficient?
I used the ps2emu rename Lyude is making, but the way I do it in hid-replay is
actually simpler:
https://github.com/libratbag/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> BuildRequires: mtdev-devel?
oops, removed
> IMO we should package libratbag/liblur as separate packages
OK. I tried to make it in this version:
liblur gets its own package (-n in %package). It feels weird to not have a
separate package for it, so I'd like some input here.
An other solution is to not use the '-n' which gives libratbag-liblur as
package name, which is less than optimal.
> Typo in the last changelog msg, but best to compress them into a single
> "Initial package" with a -1 release anyway.
OK, done.
> rpmlint says:
> libratbag.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0:
> 0001-tools-remove-no-install-flag-for-lur-command.patch
That's because I use the "git am %{patches}" snippet :(
Anyway, I think I'll just release a new version of libratbag when upstream adds
proper versioning for liblur and documentation of the 2 tools we provide
(lur-command and ratbag-command).
Also, should I also build and ship the documentation we generate? (in a -doc
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 1270317] Review Request: lz4-java - LZ4 compression for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317 --- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo --- FPC ticket was closed: Resolution: nothingtodo " Comment: FPC no longer has anything to do with bundling. Please see the current guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries Please make sure to add the necessary "Provides: bundled(xxHash) = version" to your 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 1310839] Review Request: nodejs-is-valid-glob - Return true if a value is a valid glob pattern or patterns
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310839 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |nodejs-is-valid-glob - |nodejs-is-valid-glob - ||Return true if a value is a ||valid glob pattern or ||patterns -- 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 1286885] Review Request: orthorobot - A perspective based puzzle game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286885 --- Comment #9 from Jeremy Newton --- No worries, the packaging guidelines documentation is pretty large and can be hard to keep track of. Although, it's probably worth noting that manpages and appdata aren't required for all packages, just a "nice to have" (hence the word "SHOULD" instead of "MUST" in the packaging guidelines). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Manpages https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData#AppData_files Also, note that it's fine to check appdata in either %install or %check, although I'm unsure if there's an appdata equivalent to desktop-file-install. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData#app-data-validate_usage Updated, with no more rpmlint output: Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42480493/orthorobot.spec SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42480493/orthorobot-1.1-3.fc23.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 1310839] Review Request: nodejs-is-valid-glob -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310839 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker -- 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 1310839] New: Review Request: nodejs-is-valid-glob -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310839 Bug ID: 1310839 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-is-valid-glob - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-is-valid-glob/nodejs-is-valid-glob.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-is-valid-glob/nodejs-is-valid-glob-0.3.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Return true if a value is a valid glob pattern or patterns Fedora Account System Username: jsmith -- 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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793
Richard Shaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Richard Shaw ---
A quick spec review on my lunch break...
1. rpmbuild doesn't care but typically %{pre,post,postun,etc} would be after
%install
2. In %build, why is the debug package being disabled? Typically this is only
permitted for noarch packages where it doesn't produce anything useful.
3a. A license file only needs to be included in one package assuming the other
requires it (in this case -devel requires the base package)
3b. License files should use the %license macro rather than %doc.
3c. Since a readme file is provided it should be included in the base package
with %doc.
So all that to say the base package should be updated to:
%license license.txt
%doc README.md
4. Typo in the description at the beginning of the -devel 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 1310838] New: Review Request: nodejs-streamtest - Streams test library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310838 Bug ID: 1310838 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-streamtest - Streams test library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-streamtest/nodejs-streamtest.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-streamtest/nodejs-streamtest-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Streams test library Fedora Account System Username: jsmith -- 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 1310838] Review Request: nodejs-streamtest - Streams test library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310838 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker -- 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 1309782] Review Request: bugyou_plugins - Plugins and Services for Bugyou
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309782 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rb...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean --- Some observations: 1) The licensing here is inconsistent and needs to be resolved upstream. The specfile states: GPLv3. commands/cntrl.py has LGPLv2+. The license file states AGPL. 2) The sites-packages/bugyou/ directory itself is un-owned by the package. The package owns the py files inside, but not the directory. It should own the directory. -- 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 1270317] Review Request: lz4-java - LZ4 compression for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317 --- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to Tomas Repik from comment #10) > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #9) > > see > > https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging: > > No_Bundled_Libraries&oldid=406058#Requirement_if_you_bundle > > But you still need the FPC exception right? The guideline was recently changed ... Open FPC ticket (Bundled Library Exception) https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/603 -- 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 1310375] Review Request: nodejs-qunitjs - An easy-to-use JavaScript Unit Testing framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310375 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes --- Great. Looks good now. -- 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 1310375] Review Request: nodejs-qunitjs - An easy-to-use JavaScript Unit Testing framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310375 --- Comment #5 from Jared Smith --- Yeah -- I forgot that the --build flag existed for that macro. Updated to use the macro instead: Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-qunitjs/nodejs-qunitjs.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-qunitjs/nodejs-qunitjs-1.21.0-3.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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793 --- Comment #1 from Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro --- And, please, this is my first package, and I need a sponsor. Thanks! -- 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 1310463] Review Request: nodejs-package-json - Get the package.json of a package from the npm registry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310463 --- Comment #3 from Jared Smith --- Oops -- you're right -- I had the wrong test.js file in the package. Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-package-json/nodejs-package-json.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-package-json/nodejs-package-json-2.3.1-2.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 1295456] Review Request: python-urwidtrees - Tree Widget Container API for the urwid toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295456 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from William Moreno --- Package Aproved === -- 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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793 Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 1307238] Review Request: gdouros-avdira-fonts - A font based on elements created by Demetrios Damilas (late 15th c.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307238 Fedora Update System 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 1307238] Review Request: gdouros-avdira-fonts - A font based on elements created by Demetrios Damilas (late 15th c.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307238 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- gdouros-avdira-fonts-6.31-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5ab85da278 -- 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 1310796] New: Review Request: python-etcd - a python client for etcd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310796 Bug ID: 1310796 Summary: Review Request: python-etcd - a python client for etcd Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mbar...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/python-etcd/python-etcd.spec SRPM URL: https://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/python-etcd/python-etcd-0.4.3-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: This is a client library for accessing and manipulating etcd contents from Python. Needed by Project Atomic. Fedora Account System Username: mbarnes -- 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 1310793] New: Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793 Bug ID: 1310793 Summary: Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pa...@sysincloud.it QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paulohrpinheiro/fedora-rpm-unqlite/master/unqlite.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/paulohrpinheiro/fedora-rpm-unqlite/raw/master/unqlite-1.1.6-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Hello! I just pack the unqlite library and would like you to execute one review to add it to the Fedora packages. Already there are bindings for rust, perl and python that always include the source code for the library in these packages. From http://unqlite.org: "UnQLite is a self-contained C library without dependency. It requires very minimal support from external libraries or from the operating system. This makes it well suited for use in embedded devices that lack the support infrastructure of a desktop computer. This also makes UnQLite appropriate for use within applications that need to run without modification on a wide variety of computers of varying configurations." Thank you! Fedora Account System Username: paulohrpinheiro -- 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 1306968] Review Request: php-mock - PHP-Mock can mock built-in PHP functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306968 Fedora Update System 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 1306968] Review Request: php-mock - PHP-Mock can mock built-in PHP functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306968 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- php-mock-1.0.1-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e1c6e043cf -- 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 Benjamin Tissoires changed: What|Removed |Added CC||btiss...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(i...@cicku.me) --- Comment #11 from Benjamin Tissoires --- Bumping this. Christopher, Lyude was working with me on this project, and I'd like to see this package in Fedora. Is it OK if I take the review from you and continue doing it ? I will then mentor Lyude for the rest of the Fedora processes. -- 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 1310375] Review Request: nodejs-qunitjs - An easy-to-use JavaScript Unit Testing framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310375 --- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes --- Is there a reason for constructing node_modules manually in %build instead of use "%nodejs_symlink_deps --build" to do 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 1307238] Review Request: gdouros-avdira-fonts - A font based on elements created by Demetrios Damilas (late 15th c.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307238 --- Comment #15 from Alexander Ploumistos --- (In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #13) > Package request has been approved: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/gdouros-avdira-fonts Thanks! -- 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
