[Bug 1317182] Review Request: erlang-fast_xml - Fast Expat based Erlang XML parsing and manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317182



--- Comment #2 from Randy Barlow  ---
Thank you Peter, it's fixed in release 2:

Spec URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-fast_xml.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-fast_xml-1.1.11-2.fc25.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 1316186] Review Request: -

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316186

Dominika Krejčí  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(dkre...@redhat.co |
   |m)  |



--- Comment #2 from Dominika Krejčí  ---
Hi,
everything accept the %check section should be ok. (Tests requires MATLAB
script, which generates input/output data.)

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Krejdom/librosa-specfile/master/python3-librosa.spec

SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dkrejci/librosa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00168686-python3-librosa/python3-librosa-0.4.2-1.fc25.src.rpm

Copr link:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dkrejci/librosa/build/168686/

-- 
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 1281313] Review Request: podget - Podcast aggregator/downloader optimized for cron

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281313



--- Comment #2 from Filip Szymański  ---
Spec URL: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/podget/podget.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/podget/podget-0.7.10-1.fc23.src.rpm

Update to 0.7.10

-- 
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 1315816] Review Request: python-pecan-notario - JSON validation for Pecan with Notario

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315816

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pecan-notario-0.0.3-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-afbc221423

-- 
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 1306575] Review Request: disruptor-thrift-server - Thrift Server implementation backed by LMAX Disruptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306575

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 6 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/gil/1306575-disruptor-thrift-server/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
 Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
 is pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
 subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
 when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
 utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

= 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 

[Bug 1306629] Review Request: metrics-reporter-config - Manages config for Coda Hale’s Metrics-reporter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306629



--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo  ---
Blocking issues:
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 6 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/gil/1306629-metrics-reporter-config/licensecheck.txt

The following source files are without license headers:
metrics-reporter-config-3.0.0/reporter-config2/src/main/java/com/addthis/metrics/reporter/config/MetricPredicateTransformer.java
metrics-reporter-config-3.0.0/reporter-config2/src/test/java/com/addthis/metrics/reporter/config/GraphiteReporterConfigTest.java
metrics-reporter-config-3.0.0/reporter-config3/src/main/java/com/addthis/metrics3/reporter/config/MetricFilterTransformer.java
metrics-reporter-config-3.0.0/reporter-config3/src/test/java/com/addthis/metrics3/reporter/config/GraphiteReporterConfigTest.java

Please, ask to upstream to include license headers where are missing

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification

Non blocking issues: see Comment#1 and comment#2

-- 
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 1311045] Review Request: Avago ECD RoCE User space library (libocrdma)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1311045

ocrdma-dev@broadcom.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(ocrdma-dev.pdl@br |
   |oadcom.com) |



--- Comment #6 from ocrdma-dev@broadcom.com ---
(In reply to Neil Horman from comment #5)
> This is still broken.  The spec file is misnamed:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Spec_File_Naming
> 
> 
> 
> And it doesn't build:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13369378
> 
> please fix those items and resubmit.


We named the spec file as libocrdma-fc.spec to distinguish this spec files from
the spec files for other distros. We plan to use this server for hosting
libocrdma for other distros also.
As per your suggestion, I changed the spec file to libocrdma.spec and uploaded
all the files under a fedora folder

Please use the latest sources and spec files from

http://downloads.openfabrics.org/libocrdma/SRPMS/fedora/1.0.6/

Since i used a Windows system to upload libocrdma.spec file last week, the file
format got changed to DOS and the build failure was due to the same. I
converted the file to unix format using dos2unix. No changes done for the spec
file. So  the library version is not changed.

Let us know if you need more information.

Thanks,
Selvin Xavier

-- 
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 1318988] Review Request: -

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318988



--- Comment #1 from jiri vanek  ---
Hello! 

This package may be ... a bit exceptional. Especially - its going to be killed
and  merged in aprox. an year, and merged with main java-1.8.0-openjdk package.

From that is derivated is shape - I'm intended to keep it in sync with
java-1.8.0-openjdk package as musch as possible. Ideally with changed souerces
only. Current diff may be seen at
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32-jit/init3.patch

Also, this really is arm-32 *only* - by using it you will get aporx double
speed, and double possibility of bug:) The bugs will go down  and speed should
go up intime.

LAst,. but not less important are current sources. Current osurce is based on
solemn tip of aarch32 project (http://hg.openjdk.java.net/aarch32-port/).
Before pushing to fedor arepository, I *will* have this fixed -
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/aarch32-port-dev/2016-March/000154.htmlhttp://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/aarch32-port-dev/2016-March/000154.html
or somehow on my own so the sources will be reproducible.

You can see build package at:
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32-jit/bins/java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32-1.8.0.tip-3.tip.fc24/
(backup of http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13377471)

-- 
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 1317131] Review Request: python-coverage_pth - Coverage PTH file to enable coverage at the virtualenv level

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317131



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-coverage_pth-0.0.1-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-7fbd5e8fd0

-- 
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 1299139] Review Request: astrometry - Tools from Astrometry.net

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299139



--- Comment #24 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
I also made a scratch build in koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13377711. It failed on amd64
arch.

-- 
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 1299139] Review Request: astrometry - Tools from Astrometry.net

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299139



--- Comment #25 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
-Werror strikes again:
Testing swap qsort_r...
((gcc -Werror -o os-features-test-swap-qsort \
 -g -Wall -ffinite-math-only -fno-signaling-nans -pthread -O2 -g -pipe
-Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer -DNDEBUG -fpic -Winline -I../include
-I../include/astrometry -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
-D_GNU_SOURCE -DAN_GIT_REVISION='"0.67"'
-DAN_GIT_DATE='"Mon_Jan_25_11:20:00_2016_-0500"'
-DAN_GIT_URL='"https://github.com/dstndstn/astrometry.net;' -I../util
-I/usr/include/cairo -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib64/glib-2.0/include
-I/usr/include/pixman-1 -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/include/libpng16
-I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/include/libdrm -I/usr/include/libpng16 
-I/usr/include/libpng16 -DWCSLIB_EXISTS  -I../include
-I../include/astrometry  -I/usr/include/wcslib-I../include
-I../include/astrometry  -I/usr/include/wcslib -I. -DTEST_SWAP_QSORT_R
os-features-test.c -Wl,-z,relro -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld
-Wl,-z,relro -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld -g -Wall
-ffinite-math-only -fno-signaling-nans -pthread -O2 -g -pipe -Wall
-Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer -DNDEBUG -fpic -Winline >> os-features.log && \
   ./os-features-test-swap-qsort >> os-features.log && \
   echo "#define NEED_SWAP_QSORT_R 0") \
|| echo "#define NEED_SWAP_QSORT_R 1") >>
../include/astrometry/os-features-config.h.tmp
os-features-test.c: In function 'main':
os-features-test.c:68:36: error: passing argument 4 of 'qsort_r' from
incompatible pointer type [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
 qsort_r(array, N, sizeof(int), , sortfunc);
^
In file included from os-features-test.c:5:0:
/usr/include/stdlib.h:767:13: note: expected '__compar_d_fn_t {aka int
(*)(const void *, const void *, void *)}' but argument is of type 'int *'
 extern void qsort_r (void *__base, size_t __nmemb, size_t __size,
 ^~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors



There's also a bunch of interesting warnings:
kdtree_internal.c: In function 'kdtree_build_2_fff':
kdtree_internal.c:2247:2: warning: statement is indented as if it were guarded
by... [-Wmisleading-indentation]
  kd->lr[0] = N - 1;
  ^~
kdtree_internal.c:2243:5: note: ...this 'if' clause, but it is not
 if (options & KD_BUILD_LINEAR_LR)
 ^~

Might be worth looking into.

-- 
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 1318781] Review Request: python-pygments-markdown-lexer - A Markdown lexer for Pygments to highlight Markdown code snippets.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318781



--- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean  ---
This package built on koji: 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13377831

-- 
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 1316175] Review Request: fasd - A command-line productivity booster

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316175



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
fasd-1.0.1-2.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 1295126] Review Request: python-guzzle_sphinx_theme - Sphinx theme used by Guzzle

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295126

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|anto.tra...@gmail.com   |nob...@fedoraproject.org



-- 
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 1318328] Review Request: python-detox - Distributing activities of the tox tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318328



--- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean  ---
Thanks mulhern!

-- 
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 1292040] Review Request: tng - Trajectory Next Generation binary format manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292040



--- Comment #12 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11)
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
>  Issues 
> 
> - Please, use %{_pkgdocdir} or %doc macro for documentation files.

I don't understand what you mean here. The spec already does this:
%files doc
%{_pkgdocdir}


> - Include zlib license with License tag.

Done.

Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/tng/tng.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/tng/tng-1.7.8-3.fc23.src.rpm

* Wed Mar 15 2016 Dominik Mierzejewski  1.7.8-3
- add zlib to license list

-- 
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 1278081] Review Request: rw - Program that calculates rank-width and rank-decompositions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278081

Paulo Andrade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-03-18 12:23:25



--- Comment #6 from Paulo Andrade  ---
Package is available. Closing bug.

-- 
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 1314974] Review Request: kdepim4 - KDE4 PIM (Personal Information Manager) applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1314974



--- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter  ---
Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kdepim4/kdepim4.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kdepim4/kdepim4-4.14.10-22.fc24.src.rpm

%changelog
* Sat Mar 19 2016 Rex Dieter  - 4.14.10-22
- omit grantleeeditor (to avoid conflicts)

* Sat Mar 19 2016 Rex Dieter  - 4.14.10-21
- adjust Conflicts, drop unused -common subpkg

-- 
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 1318363] Review Request: eclipse-epp-logging - Eclipse Error Reporting tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318363



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo  ---
Issues:
===

- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: Cannot find license.html in rpm(s)
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
 Please, ask to upstream to include license/s file/s

Please, ask to upstream to include license headers in the following files:
./examples/aeri.ide.bundle/src/aeri/ide/DemoServerConnection.java
./examples/aeri.rcp.bundle/src/aeri/rcp/DemoNotificationSupport.java
./examples/aeri.rcp.bundle/src/aeri/rcp/DemoServerConnection.java
./examples/aeri.rcp.bundle/src/aeri/rcp/LogEvent.java
./examples/aeri.rcp.bundle/src/aeri/rcp/handlers/NotifyConfigureSystemHandler.java
./examples/aeri.rcp.bundle/src/aeri/rcp/handlers/NotifyLogEventHandler.java
./examples/aeri.rcp.bundle/src/aeri/rcp/handlers/NotifyServerResponseHandler.java
./examples/aeri.rcp.silent.bundle/src/aeri/rcp/silent/ConsoleLogServerConnection.java
./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.core.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/logging/aeri/core/filters/AcceptFreezeFilterTest.java
./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.core.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/logging/aeri/core/filters/AcceptedPackagesFilterTest.java
./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.core.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/logging/aeri/core/filters/AcceptedPluginsFilterTest.java
./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.core.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/logging/aeri/core/filters/AcceptedProductsFilterTest.java
./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.core.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/logging/aeri/core/filters/NoErrorStatusFilterTest.java
./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.core.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/logging/aeri/core/filters/StatusIgnorePatternFilterTest.java


https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification

./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.ide.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/internal/logging/aeri/ide/actions/ConstantBehaviorCx.java
./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.ide.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/internal/logging/aeri/ide/actions/DemoEndpoint.java
./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.ide.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/internal/logging/aeri/ide/notifications/SetupNewServersNotificationTest.java
./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.ide.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/internal/logging/aeri/ide/server/mars/ErrorAnalyserMessageParserTest.java
./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.ide.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/internal/logging/aeri/ide/server/mars/IoTest.java
./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.ide.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/internal/logging/aeri/ide/server/mars/LocalReportsHistoryTest.java
./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.ide.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/internal/logging/aeri/ide/server/mars/RemoteProblemsHistoryTest.java
./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.ide.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/internal/logging/aeri/ide/server/mars/ServerConnectionTest.java
./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.ide.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/internal/logging/aeri/ide/server/mars/StatusesFingerprintTest.java
./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/logging/aeri/tests/util/TestStatus.java
./tests/org.eclipse.epp.logging.aeri.tests/src/org/eclipse/epp/logging/aeri/tests/util/TestStatuses.java

-- 
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 954148] Review Request: mingw-enet - Thin, simple and robust network layer on top of UDP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954148

Itamar Reis Peixoto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||ita...@ispbrasil.com.br,
   ||m...@satgnu.net
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
  Flags||needinfo?(m...@satgnu.net)
Last Closed||2016-03-19 21:37:59



--- Comment #3 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
please reopen if you're still interested, thank you.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318359] Review Request: python-justbases - precise conversion between arbitrary bases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318359



--- Comment #7 from mulhern  ---
Thanks!

Regarding %check, I'm happier skipping it because:
1. I'm the upstream maintainer and I have good continuous integration. So, I
know the package is well-tested upstream.
2. My tests use the hypothesis testing library which creates a whole database
of tests in a .hypothesis subdirectory. I do not want to make the hypothesis
testing library a BuildRequires, and I don't want to have to worry about the
cleanup afterwards.
3. I can see having some small test, just to make sure that the install hasn't
been a complete failure due to some dependency issue of some sort in %check.
Donning my upstream-maintainer hat, I'll consider how to add that in future,
for the convenience of packagers.

Regarding _isa:
Is it really relevant at all in this case?

Regarding python-six dependency:
I'm the co-maintainer of python-pyudev which is in the same position with six
and just uses Reqires. So, this arrangement works OK.

Regarding spec file typo: Fixed.

Regarding rpm checksum: Fixed.

I uploaded fixed version to prior locations.

-- 
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 1270358] Review Request: nacl-newlib - C library intended for use on embedded systems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270358

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
 Blocks|1270357 |
 Depends On||1270357



--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
OK, nacl-newlib forms a cycle with nacl-gcc. But there's a bootstrap mechanism.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270357
[Bug 1270357] Review Request: nacl-gcc - Various compilers (C, C++) for
nacl
-- 
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 1318359] Review Request: python-justbases - precise conversion between arbitrary bases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318359



--- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean  ---
Hi mulhern, I found a few issues:



- (must fix) Sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.  See: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
  There's a difference between what your package claims is the upstream tarball
and what was actually used to build the srpm.  The diff is attached.

- (must fix) You're going to want to add a BuildRequires on python-six and
python3-six I think, otherwise it will try to pull down that package from pypi
in koji (and the koji builders' network settings will disallow that).

- (must fix) The python_provide line in the python3 package has a typo.  It
reads:

%{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-%{srcname}}

  but should be:

%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}

- (optional fix) The project seems to have a test suite included in the
tarball.  If so, it would be nice to run this in a %check section in the rpm
spec (to detect when things break down the road).  This is not mandatory, but
definitely nice to have.



Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: 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 is not relocatable.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[!]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
 python-six may be a problem here.  Just adding it as a BuildRequires line
 should do it.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: 

[Bug 1318873] Review Request: neurord - Stochastic reaction-diffusion simulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318873



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/neurord.spec
SRPM URL:
http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/neurord-3.0.0-2.20160317gitb17d063.src.rpm
koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13382801

-- 
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 1312963] Review Request: glibc-arm-linux-gnu - Cross Compiled GNU C Library targeted at arm-linux-gnu

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312963



--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Underwood  ---
Created attachment 1137141
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1137141=edit
Build log of failed build on rawhide

-- 
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 1318368] Review Request: perl-IRI - Internationalized Resource Identifiers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318368

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jples...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1306629] Review Request: metrics-reporter-config - Manages config for Coda Hale’s Metrics-reporter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306629

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||punto...@libero.it
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318358] New: Review Request: copr-dist-git - Copr services for Dist Git server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318358

Bug ID: 1318358
   Summary: Review Request: copr-dist-git - Copr services for Dist
Git server
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: msu...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/copr/copr-dist-git.spec
SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/copr/copr-dist-git-0.14-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: COPR is lightweight build system. It allows you to create new
project in WebUI
and submit new builds and COPR will create yum repository from latest builds.
This package contains Copr services for Dist Git server.

Fedora Account System Username: msuchy

rpmlint waives off:
copr-dist-git.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/copr-dist-git copr-service
copr-dist-git.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/copr-dist-git copr-service
copr-dist-git.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/copr-dist-git copr-service
copr-dist-git.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/copr-dist-git copr-service
copr-dist-git.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/copr-dist-git/main.log
copr-service
copr-dist-git.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/copr-dist-git/main.log
copr-service
copr-dist-git.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /etc/copr/copr-dist-git.conf
copr-service
   It must be writeable by service which use identity copr-service:copr-service

copr-dist-git.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/copr/copr-dist-git.conf 640
   There are confidental data.

copr-dist-git.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary importer_runner.py
copr-dist-git.noarch: W: no-documentation
  This is for internal Copr instance. Not actually meant to be run and
installed without additional knowledge. Whole setup is documented on project
page.

-- 
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 1301116] Review Request: libcxl - Coherent accelerator interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301116

Dan Horák  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #21 from Dan Horák  ---
Two minor nitpicks - use an empty line to separate the entries in %changelog
and use "cp -p" when copying the man pages to the man3 dir in %build. Please do
changes before committing the initial version to git.

The libcxl package is APPROVED.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1316982] Review Request: python-pytest-testmon - A py.test plug-in which executes only tests affected by recent changes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316982

Charalampos Stratakis  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|cstra...@redhat.com |dkre...@redhat.com



-- 
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 1317592] Review Request: rubygem-websocket-extensions - Generic extension manager for WebSocket connections

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317592



--- Comment #9 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #8)

Nice.

Once the build is done, don't forget to close the issue with "Rawhide"
resolution and fill in the "Fixed in version" field.

-- 
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 1317131] Review Request: python-coverage_pth - Coverage PTH file to enable coverage at the virtualenv level

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317131



--- Comment #2 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
License should be included. Built and tested, works fine.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318358] Review Request: copr-dist-git - Copr services for Dist Git server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318358



--- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchý  ---
Updated:
Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/copr/copr-dist-git.spec
SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/copr/copr-dist-git-0.15-1.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 914790] Review Request: mingw-libcacard - CAC (Common Access Card) library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914790
Bug 914790 depends on bug 914788, which changed state.

Bug 914788 Summary: Review Request: mingw-libtool - The GNU Portable Library 
Tool for MinGW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914788

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX



-- 
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 914788] Review Request: mingw-libtool - The GNU Portable Library Tool for MinGW

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914788

Marc-Andre Lureau  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2016-03-19 19:57:11



--- Comment #6 from Marc-Andre Lureau  ---
I no longer need it, now that libcacard has been moved to a separate package.
Feel free to reopen whoever want 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 1317592] Review Request: rubygem-websocket-extensions - Generic extension manager for WebSocket connections

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317592



--- Comment #8 from Jun Aruga  ---
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #6)
> Thx. Now just go ahead, import the SRPM into dist-git and build it in Koji.

Yes, I imported the SRPM by "fedpkg import PATH_TO_SRPM".
Also built it by "fedpkg build" right now. [1]

[1]
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13366277

-- 
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] Review Request: python-etcd - a python client for etcd

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310796



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-etcd-0.4.3-1.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 1318363] Review Request: eclipse-epp-logging - Eclipse Error Reporting tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318363



--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Sopot Cela from comment #3)
> Spec
> URL:https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-epp-logging/eclipse-epp-logging.
> spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-epp-logging/eclipse-epp-logging-1.
> 100.0-0.2.gitc6ce9f2.fc23.src.rpm
> 
> I filed an upstream bug regarding the missing license headers
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=489926 . I am not building or
> shipping neither the tests or the examples artifacts. Is it ok to leave them
> in the tarball for now? Once upstream updates them, I'll make sure to update
> the tarball.
Ok. thanks
> About the "Cannot find license.html in rpm(s)" - the license text is
> generated by the "eclipse-license" package and is included at build-time in
> each feature. This is why no license text is included in the git repo. So
> for example, it is included in the binary rpms here:
> /usr/share/eclipse/droplets/epp-logging/eclipse/features/org.eclipse.epp.
> logging.aeri.feature_*/license.html .
For me (and also by the guideline), license file text or hntml format should be
included by upstream and not generated by other system tools
Please, report to upstream the problem

-- 
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 1318359] Review Request: python-justbases - precise conversion between arbitrary bases

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318359



--- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean  ---
Created attachment 1137144
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1137144=edit
Diff between source tarballs

-- 
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 1213065] Review Request: hexer - ncurses-based binary editor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1213065

jiri vanek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #8 from jiri vanek  ---
Hello!

I'm runnign the review now. The apckage is looking more then good.

The most painful issue are remaining the license and code.

Indeed the license in files and in copyright looks like BSD. And they probably
are. Also the tarball provided as source tarball looks like open sources :)
I' would like to see the license more clearly, but from my side, I'm happy with
current state of things. Also I would like to see some publicly accessible
repository... But the open release tarball looks good enough for me.

Have I overlooked something?

I will publish final review soon.

-- 
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 1202063] Review Request: Classified ads - Internet messaging done right

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063



--- Comment #19 from Antti Järvinen  ---
Ok, great.

There is a new upstream release coming in a few weeks, release testing is
ongoing. My suggestion is that as new version is packaged, the problems listed
by Zbigniew are fixed in the process.

--
Antti

-- 
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 1316186] Review Request: python-librosa - a python package for music and audio analysis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316186

Miro Hrončok  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: librosa - a |Review Request:
   |python package for music|python-librosa - a python
   |and audio analysis  |package for music and audio
   ||analysis



--- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok  ---
So my first concerns are (as Tomáš and Antonio already pointed out):

1) Upstream clearly supports both Pythons, see
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/librosa (categories section). In that case, as
this is a Python library, you should package both versions as subpackages of
python-librosa, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file about
an idea how to do it.

2) The shebang manipulation should be done in %prep section, because you are
preparing the sources. As Tomáš pointed out, you also need to do it before
%py3_build - doing it in %prep accomplishes that.

3) There is some documentation in the GitHub repository, you *should* get it in
a separate Source and rebuilt it and package it in %doc. It is also a good idea
to contact upstream about a possibility to include the doc and test in the
source tarball, maybe post a pullrequest with such change. I would say this is
definitly not a *must* thing.

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #14 from Greg Bailey  ---
(In reply to Anoop C S from comment #13)
> (In reply to Greg Bailey from comment #12)
> > I checked out licensecheck against the git-tools README.md file on an Ubuntu
> > machine, and the version there flags README.md as "README.md: *No copyright*
> > UNKNOWN", even with the suggested addition you provided.I think it's
> 
> Really?
> For me(on Fedora 23) when I added the mentioned text in README.md,
> licensecheck(from devscripts v2.15.10) output was clean displaying (GPLv3 or
> later).

You are right, adding the suggested text makes the licensecheck output "clean"
on a Fedora 23 system, but my point was that adding the same suggested text
didn't appear to make the output clean when run on a non-Fedora system...

> 
> LGTM and good to go.
> Thanks.

Thank you for your time reviewing this!

-- 
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 1291558] Review Request: mariadb-java-client - MariaDB connector for java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291558

Tomas Repik  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 1299139] Review Request: astrometry - Tools from Astrometry.net

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299139



--- Comment #27 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Yes, you can. There's probably a bug in the build system, but not every bug has
to be fixed (especially when it's in the build system, so it doesn't affect
users).

-- 
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 1317939] Review Request: dump1090 - Decode ADS-B messages from RTL-SDR

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317939



--- Comment #6 from Benji Wiebe  ---
Corrected permissions on unit file.

Using install -D now.

Using cp -a now.

Switched to %make_build faup1090.

I reworded the first few words of the Description.
Was: dump1090 is software that can utilize an RTL-SDR dongle...
Is:  dump1090 is a daemon that utilizes an RTL-SDR dongle...

Is that better?

As for the sponsoring, thanks for being willing to help me along.
And I updated my bugzilla email address.

-- 
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 794793] Fedora - Review Request: openssl-ibmpkcs11 - An openssl PKCS#11 engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794793



--- Comment #8 from IBM Bug Proxy  ---
--- Comment From hannsj_...@de.ibm.com 2016-03-17 08:39 EDT---
*** Bug 139187 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
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 914788] Review Request: mingw-libtool - The GNU Portable Library Tool for MinGW

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914788



--- Comment #5 from František Dvořák  ---
This review is probably stalled and can be closed within week according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews .

-- 
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 954148] Review Request: mingw-enet - Thin, simple and robust network layer on top of UDP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954148



--- Comment #2 from František Dvořák  ---
This review looks like stalled and can be closed within week according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews .

-- 
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 970427] Review Request: mingw-libsamplerate - Sample rate conversion library for audio data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970427

František Dvořák  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||val...@civ.zcu.cz



--- Comment #1 from František Dvořák  ---
Review of the required package is stalled (mingw-libsnd), this review should be
closed too.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1317939] Review Request: dump1090 - Decode ADS-B messages from RTL-SDR

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317939

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Permissions will be wrong on the unit file, you should add -m644.
(/usr/bin/install is stupid).

Also, if you use -D, you can get rid of the separate mkdir... It's often a bit
nicer this way.

Use 'cp -a', to preserve timestamps on files.

'make faup1090' → %make_build faup1090 to have the -j flag.

%description is much better. But maybe you could add another sentence like "It
provides a daemon that serves ...".

--

I can sponsor you into the packagers group.

Please do two or three reviews of packages from
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html, and paste the links
here. Please pick packages that are in the area you are interested in, and that
other people haven't picked up, so that you can finalize the review after you
get the packager privs. Also don't pick things that are overly complicated, we
don't want to get bogged down in details.

Running fedora-review is a good first step, but please note that the
automatically generated template needs to be filled in in various places, and
trimmed in others. Not everything the tools say is always correct. Sometimes
they are outdated, sometimes they are plain wrong. It's always best to link to
the relevant part of the guidelines. If you have any questions or issues, I'd
always be happy to help (zbyszek at in waw pl, zbyszek on #fedora-devel).

Also, you should update your bugzilla mail to match your FAS info, or the other
way around.


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 1318363] Review Request: eclipse-epp-logging - Eclipse Error Reporting tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318363

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
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 1317306] Review Request: legofy - Make images look as LEGO blocks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306



--- Comment #3 from Omar Berroteran  ---
(In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #1)
> - You can drop Requires: python3-libs since it is installed by default in
> every Fedora install.
> 
> - Use %{name} in the URL tag. It becomes:
> https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/l/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

Listo.

-- 
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 1307129] Review Request: mkdocs-bootstrap - Bootstrap theme for MKDocs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307129



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
mkdocs-bootstrap-0.1.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-f1ad09bc3b

-- 
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 1318059] Review Request: morituri - Accurate CD ripper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318059



--- Comment #3 from Stefan Nuxoll  ---
Updated spec file:

https://snuxoll.fedorapeople.org/packages/morituri.spec


New koji scratch build:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13368364

> - set configure to be more verbose

I am now passing --verbose to the configure script, although there is no
additional output

> - set configure PYTHON variable;

Done, since this project is python2 only I am using the %{__python2} macro,
thanks for catching this.

> - Make command does not use %{?_smp_mflags}

Done

> - please, use %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, not both;

I am using %{buildroot} only now

> - use %license for COPYING file

Done

> - use %{python2_sitelib} macro

Done

> - %changelog is not correct

I assume you are referencing the missing ver-rel tag at the end of the
changelog line, this has been corrected. If there is something else missing
please give me more details.

-- 
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 1316186] Review Request: librosa - a python package for music and audio analysis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316186



--- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande  ---
Is Python2 not supported ?
Documentation ?

-- 
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 794793] Fedora - Review Request: openssl-ibmpkcs11 - An openssl PKCS#11 engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794793

Hanns-Joachim Uhl  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

External Bug ID|IBM Linux Technology Center |IBM Linux Technology Center
   |139187  |87865



-- 
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 1316186] Review Request: librosa - a python package for music and audio analysis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316186

Miro Hrončok  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1305658] Review Request: rubygem-em-spec - BDD for Ruby/EventMachine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305658

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-03-19 17:26:39



-- 
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 1305658] Review Request: rubygem-em-spec - BDD for Ruby/EventMachine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305658



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-em-spec-0.2.7-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 1270357] Review Request: nacl-gcc - Various compilers (C, C++) for nacl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270357

Richard Shaw  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw  ---
Quick spec review while at $DAYJOB...

May not matter but I use this with one of my packages so I can paste in the
full commit but use the short one in the resultant archive.

%global commit caad49c0945065f4b7bfa3ccb96523e4766a9727
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})

As much as I dislike it, and I do, unless the package guidelines have changed
don't we need the checkout date in front of the "git" part of the release in
MMDD format?

Are you intentionally supporting f21 and below? (and later f19?) I think the
conditionals can be dropped at this point.

-- 
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 1292040] Review Request: tng - Trajectory Next Generation binary format manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292040



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
tng-1.7.8-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d5397411e9

-- 
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 1213065] Review Request: hexer - ncurses-based binary editor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1213065

jiri vanek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jva...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jva...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318328] Review Request: python-detox - Distributing activities of the tox tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318328



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-detox-0.10.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-2016-542479c59a

-- 
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 1308367] Review Request: libraknet - Cross platform C++ networking library, primarily for games

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308367



--- Comment #10 from John M. Harris, Jr.  ---
Updated spec file, patched CMake files from upstream for SO versioning.

Spec URL: https://git.openblox.org/raknet.git/plain/libraknet.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/JohnMHarrisJr/RakNet/releases/download/4.081-4/libraknet-4.081-4.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 1318988] Review Request: java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32 - OpenJDK AArch32 porting project preview release

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318988



--- Comment #3 from jiri vanek  ---
Thank you, I was just about to fix it. Sorry.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1317131] Review Request: python-coverage_pth - Coverage PTH file to enable coverage at the virtualenv level

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317131



--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-coverage_pth.spec
SRPM URL:
https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-coverage_pth-0.0.1-2.fc23.src.rpm

Included the license from upstream github repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318328] Review Request: python-detox - Distributing activities of the tox tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318328

mulhern  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



-- 
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 1298665] Review Request: libvma - Dramatically improves performance of socket based applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298665



--- Comment #29 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/libvma

-- 
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 1270357] Review Request: nacl-gcc - Various compilers (C, C++) for nacl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270357

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Some more macros would simplify things a bit:
cd  obj-%{gcc_target_platform}
make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install ...
↓
%make_install -C obj-%{gcc_target_platform}

%autosetup -p1

%license for COPYING*.

Why not parallelized make? E.g. %make_build ?

Summary should be more concrete: C and C++ compilers for nacl
(unless there's something more, but I don't think).

I think the Summary should also have some small explanation what nacl is (just
in case somebody is looking for a normal compiler and they see this package).

The %description seems outdated: "The gcc package contains the GNU Compiler
Collection version 4.4.3. You'll need this package in order to compile C code."

No %check? There seems to be many test cases... I don't know how feasible it
would be to run them.

This all looks very reasonable. Apart from some cleanups I don't see anything
to change.

-- 
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 1319055] Review Request: offlineimap - upgrade upstream to 6.7.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319055

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande  ---
offlineimap is already maintained:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/offlineimap/

You can open a ticket to ask an upgrade to a newer version or become a
co-maintainer: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group

-- 
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 1315022] Review Request: xfpanel-switch - A simple application to manage Xfce panel layouts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315022



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
xfpanel-switch-1.0.3-3.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 1298665] Review Request: libvma - Dramatically improves performance of socket based applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298665

Neil Horman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(al...@mellanox.co |needinfo?(ophirmu@mellanox.
   |m)  |com)



--- Comment #28 from Neil Horman  ---
done, please complete the packaging process here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process

To create the package in dist-git.

-- 
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 1318251] Review Request: perl-Test-Time - Overrides the time() and sleep() core functions for testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318251



--- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman  ---
(In reply to Jitka Plesnikova from comment #1)
> Source file is ok
> Summary is ok
> License is ok
> URL and Source0 are ok
> All tests passed
> 
> $ rpm -qp --requires perl-Test-Time-0.04-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
>   1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.22.1)
>   1 perl(Test::More)
>   1 perl(strict)
>   1 perl(warnings)
>   1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
>   1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
>   1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
>   1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
> Binary requires are Ok.
> 
> $ rpm -qp --provides perl-Test-Time-0.04-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
>   1 perl(Test::Time) = 0.04
>   1 perl-Test-Time = 0.04-1.fc25
> Binary provides are Ok.
> 
> $ rpmlint ./perl-Test-Time*
> 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
> Rpmlint is ok
> 
> BuildRequires 
> FIX:
> * Please add missing BRs
> - perl(Module::Install::Include) - provides auto_include - Makefile.PL:43
> - perl(Module::Install::Metadata) - provides all_from - Makefile.PL:24
> - perl(Module::Install::WriteAll) - provides WriteAll - Makefile.PL:44 
> * Removed BRs
> - perl(Filter::Util::Call) - it is not used

Done.

> TODO: Because you remove all files from repository inc, it could be done
>   easily, e.g.
> rm -r inc
> sed -i -e '/^inc\// d' MANIFEST
> 
> In that case, the 'findutils' could be removed from BRs

Indeed. Done.

> Description is ok
> TODO: Please replace ':' at the end of description with '.'

Done.


Spec URL:
http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Test-Time/perl-Test-Time.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Test-Time/perl-Test-Time-0.04-2.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 1317621] Review Request: erlang-triq - A property-based testing library for Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317621



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
erlang-triq-0-0.1.gitc7306b8.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ca6bf34411

-- 
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 1270357] Review Request: nacl-gcc - Various compilers (C, C++) for nacl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270357

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
 Blocks|1270358 |
 Depends On||1270358




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270358
[Bug 1270358] Review Request: nacl-newlib - C library intended for use on
embedded systems
-- 
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 1318381] New: Review Request: GTEngine - Geometric Tools Engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318381

Bug ID: 1318381
   Summary: Review Request: GTEngine - Geometric Tools Engine
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: anto.tra...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/gtengine/GTEngine.spec
SRPM URL:
https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/gtengine/GTEngine-2.3-1.fc23.src.rpm

Description:
A library of source code for computing in the fields of mathematics,
graphics, image analysis, and physics.
The engine is written in C++ 11 and, as such, has portable access
to standard constructs for multithreading programming on cores.
The engine also supports high-performance computing using general
purpose GPU programming (GPGPU).
SIMD code is also available using Intel Streaming SIMD Extensions (SSE).
This is new version of Wild Magic 5 Engine.

Fedora Account System Username: sagitter

This package is for Fedora only.

-- 
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 1310092] Review Request: cryptobone - Secure Communication Under Your Control

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310092



--- Comment #20 from Ralf Senderek  ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #19)
> Before you post a new spec and SRPM go ahead and remove the chkconfig stuff.
> No need to add it just to silence rpmlint. We have to review all rpmlint
> errors but it is sometimes wrong and we can choose to ignore it.

OK, here is the new (release 6) SRPM and spec file:

Spec URL: https://crypto-bone.com/fedora/cryptobone.spec
SRPM URL: https://crypto-bone.com/fedora/cryptobone-1.0.1-6.fc23.src.rpm

The new KOJI build is here:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13381952

-- 
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 1317939] Review Request: dump1090 - Decode ADS-B messages from RTL-SDR

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317939



--- Comment #4 from Benji Wiebe  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3)
> But %description should be a bit longer: what can you do with this package,
> what is the output, is special hardware required, etc. Doesn't have to be
> exhaustive, one paragraph is enough.

It is a *bit* longer...I hope that's good enough.

> During review it is customary to bump the revision after major changes,
> add stuff to %changelog, and upload the SRPM under a new name. The
> spec file is updated in place.

OK, I'll do that from now on.

> I meant rpm package ownership. Your package creates those directories so it
> should own them.

Aha, I caught on about RPM ownership. I uninstalled dump1090 on my PC, and the
directories are still there. I fixed that now.

> Hm, I don't remember what those were. That's why it's helpful to keep
> old srpms accessible.

They were rtl-sdr and libusb. Both are picked up automatically by 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 1316186] Review Request: python-librosa - a python package for music and audio analysis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316186



--- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok  ---
You also require some packages as BuildRequires, but you don't use them when
not creating the docs and running the tests:

BuildRequires:  python3-numpydoc
BuildRequires:  python3-seaborn
BuildRequires:  python3-sphinx_rtd_theme

-- 
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 1318059] Review Request: morituri - Accurate CD ripper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318059



--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

 Issues 

- morituri ships files under GPLv3+ (morituri/common/*).
  License can be GPLv3+

-  /usr/lib64/morituri is not owned; you can use

%{_libdir}/morituri/

  to include %{_libdir}/morituri directory and its sub-directory.

  However, to what is %{_libdir}/morituri/plugins needed ?

- /etc/bash_completion.d is owned by bash-completion package that is not
  required.
  /etc/bash_completion.d directory can be co-owned:

%dir %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d 
%{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/rip

= 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.
[!]: 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)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in
 /home/sagitter/FedoraReview/1318059-morituri/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/morituri
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/morituri
[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 133120 bytes in 5 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file 

[Bug 1317345] Review Request: erlang-luerl - Lua in Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317345



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/erlang-luerl

-- 
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 1208381] Review Request: gmavenplus-plugin - Integrates Groovy into Maven projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208381



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
gmavenplus-plugin-1.5-1.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 1317131] Review Request: python-coverage_pth - Coverage PTH file to enable coverage at the virtualenv level

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317131



--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-coverage_pth

-- 
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 1300981] Review Request: python-django-rest-framework-braces - Utilities for working with Django-Rest-Framework.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300981



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-django-rest-framework-braces-0.1.6-2.fc24 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5739f5b60e

-- 
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 1312350] Review Request: python-rjsmin - Javascript Minifier

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312350



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-rjsmin-1.0.12-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-2016-1faa4ea804

-- 
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 1281313] Review Request: podget - Podcast aggregator/downloader optimized for cron

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281313



--- Comment #4 from Filip Szymański  ---
Spec URL: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/podget/podget.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/podget/podget-0.7.12-1.fc23.src.rpm

Update to 0.7.12

-- 
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 1318328] Review Request: python-detox - Distributing activities of the tox tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318328

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-detox-0.10.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-c499b8ee96

-- 
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 1317621] Review Request: erlang-triq - A property-based testing library for Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317621



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
erlang-triq-0-0.1.gitc7306b8.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-2016-5741411154

-- 
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 1316772] Review Request: erlang-stringprep - A framework for preparing Unicode strings to help input and comparison

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316772



--- Comment #5 from Randy Barlow  ---
Hello Peter! I have added the debuginfo package:

Spec URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-stringprep.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-stringprep-1.0.3-3.fc25.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 1317178] Review Request: tcllauncher - launcher for Tcl applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317178



--- Comment #3 from Benji Wiebe  ---
OK, I fixed those issues you mentioned. As for the Summary, I'm not sure if the
new wording is better or not. From what I understand, Tcl programs are not
compiled, and not a single file. So the files are copied to /usr/share/tcl8.6
(for noarch) or /usr/lib64/tcl8.6. Tcllauncher provides a way to run
/usr/bin/foo and /usr/lib64/tcl8.6/foo/main.tcl gets called.

-- 
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 1317131] Review Request: python-coverage_pth - Coverage PTH file to enable coverage at the virtualenv level

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317131

Charalampos Stratakis  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review+  |fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1317306] Review Request: legofy - Make images look as LEGO blocks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317306



--- Comment #6 from William Moreno  ---
Please use the format:

Spec URL: 
SRPM URL:

-- 
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 1317131] Review Request: python-coverage_pth - Coverage PTH file to enable coverage at the virtualenv level

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317131



--- Comment #5 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
Posting also the output of fedora-review

= 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.
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages,
 /usr/lib/python3.5
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
 packages, /usr/lib/python3.5
[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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-coverage_pth , python3-coverage_pth
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not 

[Bug 1301116] Review Request: libcxl - Coherent accelerator interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301116



--- Comment #23 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libcxl

-- 
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 1318873] Review Request: neurord - Stochastic reaction-diffusion simulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318873

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro)



--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13379782


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941
[Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug
-- 
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 1294054] Review Request: libiwpm - iWarp Port Mapper userspace daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294054

Honggang LI  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(ho...@redhat.com) |



--- Comment #8 from Honggang LI  ---
Updated spec and src, please review.

http://people.redhat.com/honli/.1a2b94a96fca6431781d71ae9ce255ef/libiwpm.spec
http://people.redhat.com/honli/.1a2b94a96fca6431781d71ae9ce255ef/libiwpm-1.0.3-7.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 1317336] Review Request: erlang-p1_oauth2 - An Oauth2 implementation for Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317336

Jeremy Cline  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Jeremy Cline  ---
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". 4 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jcline/devel
 /fedora-packaging/1317336-erlang-p1_oauth2/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test 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 

[Bug 1317336] Review Request: erlang-p1_oauth2 - An Oauth2 implementation for Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317336

Jeremy Cline  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jer...@jcline.org
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jer...@jcline.org



-- 
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 1317131] Review Request: python-coverage_pth - Coverage PTH file to enable coverage at the virtualenv level

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317131



--- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok  ---
What about the empty [ ] items?

-- 
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