[Bug 1327424] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-reflection - Reflection library to do Static Analysis for PHP Projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327424 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- php-phpdocumentor-reflection-1.0.7-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-809705d469 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1327424] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-reflection - Reflection library to do Static Analysis for PHP Projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327424 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- php-phpdocumentor-reflection-1.0.7-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-a6cb7e35c8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1327424] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-reflection - Reflection library to do Static Analysis for PHP Projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327424 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1327424] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-reflection - Reflection library to do Static Analysis for PHP Projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327424 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- php-phpdocumentor-reflection-1.0.7-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c95d3fb968 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1326875] Review Request: keepassx2 - Cross-platform password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326875 --- Comment #5 from srakitnican --- If I understood correctly, fedora would get 2.0 by default from now on, and no 0.4 version. I am ok with that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1332344] Review Request: phototonic - Image viewer and organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332344 --- Comment #10 from Michael Cullen --- I only see one issue - the desktop database one. The other thing on the issues list actually goes against the guidance in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B did I miss one? Spec URL: https://cullen-online.com/rpm-review/phototonic.spec SRPM URL: https://cullen-online.com/rpm-review/phototonic-1.7.20-2.fc24.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1309792] Review Request: fedora-motd - Generate dynamic MOTD for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309792 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|ERRATA |--- --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- fedora-motd-0.1.3-1.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-c8948356b9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1329852] Review Request: erlang-setup - Generic setup utility for Erlang-based systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329852 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- erlang-setup-1.7-1.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-2016-60984c635a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1329847] Review Request: erlang-kvc - Key Value Coding for Erlang data structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329847 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- erlang-kvc-1.7.0-1.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-2016-09ab1b9d77 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1329845] Review Request: erlang-eflame - Flame Graph profiler for Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329845 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- erlang-eflame-0-0.1.gita085181.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-2016-9257f22c99 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1329848] Review Request: erlang-parse_trans - Parse transform utilities for Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329848 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- erlang-parse_trans-2.9.2-1.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-2016-88f7e9c2e7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1315486] Review Request: nudoku - Ncurses based sudoku game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315486 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- nudoku-0.2.4-2.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-af70854c6a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1304467] Review Request: python-aodhclient - Python client for Aodh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304467 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- python-aodhclient-0.4.0-2.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-2016-92e8cc8cae -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1264715] Review Request: flacon - Audio File Encoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264715 --- Comment #11 from Ilya Gradina --- Hi Jiri, thx! libfishsound for opusenc. (https://www.xiph.org/fishsound/ ). I removed libfishsound from requires, and had changed appdata xml file. xml file: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/flacon/flacon.appdata.xml * new SPEC file: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/flacon/flacon.spec * new SRPM file: https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/flacon/flacon-2.0.1-4.fc24.src.rpm * -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1315486] Review Request: nudoku - Ncurses based sudoku game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315486 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- nudoku-0.2.4-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-beaf1b0a49 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1269964] Rebase clufter component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269964 errata-xmlrpc changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-05-10 15:28:14 --- Comment #15 from errata-xmlrpc --- Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2016-0740.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1315486] Review Request: nudoku - Ncurses based sudoku game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315486 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- nudoku-0.2.4-2.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-2016-91d70b1a02 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334059] Review Request: openclonk - Multiplayer action, tactics and skill game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334059 --- Comment #14 from MartinKG --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #13) > > We can maintain it together, but it should be retired by RPM Fusion. filled bug report on rpmfusion: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4052 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1315486] Review Request: nudoku - Ncurses based sudoku game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315486 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- nudoku-0.2.4-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-8fd2586ddd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334894] New: Review Request: python-sync2jira - Sync pagure and github issues to jira, via fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334894 Bug ID: 1334894 Summary: Review Request: python-sync2jira - Sync pagure and github issues to jira, via fedmsg Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rb...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-sync2jira.spec SRPM URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-sync2jira-0.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: This is a process that listens to activity on upstream repos on pagure and github via fedmsg, and syncs new issues there to a Jira instance elsewhere. Configuration is in /etc/fedmsg.d/. You can maintain a mapping there that allows you to match one upstream repo (say, 'pungi' on pagure) to a downstream project/component pair in Jira (say, 'COMPOSE', and 'Pungi'). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1083941] Review Request: giac - Computer Algebra System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1083941 --- Comment #37 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to Han Frederic from comment #36) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #35) > > You need a sponsor; do you still want become an official packager? If yes, > > please update your package, i can review again, but i can't sponsor you yet. > > Thank you for this proposition. I need to think if I still have time for > this because we both worked alot on this 2 years ago. May be it would be > better for the package if an official packager could take the job. > I will try to help with an updated version. I'm going to complete this packaging in this case. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334887] Review Request: python-sockjs-tornado - SockJS python server implementation on top of Tornado framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334887 Ben Rosser changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1334888 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334888 [Bug 1334888] Review Request: python-seesaw - ArchiveTeam seesaw kit -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1327929] Review Request: gimpfx-foundry - Additional plugins for GIMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327929 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- gimpfx-foundry-2.6.1-5.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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334888] Review Request: python-seesaw - ArchiveTeam seesaw kit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334888 Ben Rosser changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1334887 --- Comment #1 from Ben Rosser --- Depends on python-sockjs-tornado (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334887). Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334887 [Bug 1334887] Review Request: python-sockjs-tornado - SockJS python server implementation on top of Tornado framework -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334888] New: Review Request: python-seesaw - ArchiveTeam seesaw kit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334888 Bug ID: 1334888 Summary: Review Request: python-seesaw - ArchiveTeam seesaw kit Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rosser@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/seesaw/python-seesaw.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/seesaw/python-seesaw-0.9.2-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: An asynchronous toolkit for distributed web processing. Written in Python and named after its behavior, it supports concurrent downloads, uploads, etc. This toolkit is well-known for Archive Team projects. It also powers the ArchiveTeam warrior. Fedora Account System Username: tc01 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334887] New: Review Request: python-sockjs-tornado - SockJS python server implementation on top of Tornado framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334887 Bug ID: 1334887 Summary: Review Request: python-sockjs-tornado - SockJS python server implementation on top of Tornado framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rosser@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org NOTE: this is a re-review of a retired package. The package was retired because it was orphaned and not picked up. Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/seesaw/python-sockjs-tornado.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/seesaw/python-sockjs-tornado-1.0.3-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: SockJS-tornado is a Python server side counterpart of SockJS-client browser library running on top of Tornado framework. Fedora Account System Username: tc01 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1329807] Review Request: libraqm - Complex Textlayout Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329807 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- libraqm-0.1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1327929] Review Request: gimpfx-foundry - Additional plugins for GIMP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327929 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- gimpfx-foundry-2.6.1-5.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1313477] Review Request: ceph-ansible - Ansible playbooks for Ceph
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313477 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- ceph-ansible-1.0.5-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a7e2d35421 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1313477] Review Request: ceph-ansible - Ansible playbooks for Ceph
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313477 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1333235] Review Request: gap-pkg-crisp - Computing subgroups of finite soluble groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333235 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||loganje...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #1 from James Hogarth --- License is not correct in spec, see below. Please update the spec as appropriate. Otherwise this is fine. Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: === * According to the LICENSE file this is 2 clause BSD, not GPL2+ - Please clarify where you got gpl2+ from or change to BSD - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD?rd=Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD * Documentation in /usr/lib/gap - Acceptable as normal behaviour for GAP due to runtime browser requirements * Assuming it runs as described as %check passes = 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/james/workspace /fedora-scm/1333235-gap-pkg-crisp/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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: [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the pack
[Bug 1252812] Review Request: python-gabbi - Declarative HTTP testing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1252812 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1252812] Review Request: python-gabbi - Declarative HTTP testing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1252812 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- python-gabbi-1.19.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6323cc7eb1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1333204] Review Request: gap-pkg-utils - Utility functions for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333204 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from James Hogarth --- Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated * The documentation is in /usr/lib - Accepting this as a standard GAP practice due to the runtime documentation browser * Requires is missing GAPDoc which is strictly listed as a dependency in PkgInfo * Assuming package functions as described as %check passes * Manually validated the URL for Source was good. Network here being weird. = 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/james/workspace/fedora-scm/1333204-gap-pkg- utils/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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]: 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_
[Bug 1332764] Review Request: gap-pkg-factint - Advanced methods for factoring integers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332764 --- Comment #1 from James Hogarth --- Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated = Issues = * License not included in tarball - Checking the tarball reveals licensing details in factint.tex - Please request upstream issue an update with a specific license file in the tarball * Documentation in /usr - Accepted as a GAP practice due to the runtime doc browser * The PackageInfo specifies GAPDoc as required - GAPDoc-latex a BR but no GAPDoc as a require * Assuming package functions as described since %check passes * Some non utf-8 files found, please include these in your iconv in %prep * Since you do use iconv please include it in your BR to prevent issues should it be dropped from the generic build environment in future. = 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. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2196 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/james/workspace/fedora- scm/1332764-gap-pkg-factint/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroo
[Bug 1329668] Review Request: nodejs-rhea -reactive AMQP 1.0 library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329668 Alan Conway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||g...@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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1326875] Review Request: keepassx2 - Cross-platform password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326875 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Sorry, see: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1569 This will likely end up being EPEL-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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1332607] Review Request: gap-pkg-scscp - Symbolic Computation Software Composability Protocol in GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332607 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||loganje...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #1 from James Hogarth --- Can you please clarify the points raised in Issues in the review below? Since some of these will be common across your others in the review swap I'll hold off the formal review of them until this is satisfied. Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated = Issues = * License field in spec - The GPL file included only seems to specify GPL2 not GPL2+ - Please fix this in the spec or clarify where the + comes from - Incorrect fsf address found in license - please report upstream * Documentation in %{_gap_dir} which is /usr/lib/gap - As per comments on bz1332605#c2 docs are here for runtime documentation browser - Accepted as per previous packages, perhaps draft gap guildelines to FPC useful? * The PackageInfo.g fiel (and upstream website) specifies GAPDoc as a requirement - GAPDoc-latex is a BR but no GAPDoc in requires? * There are %config files in %{_gap_dir} - Are these files marked as %config meant to be user editable? - If they are can GAP packages be built with them in /etc ? - If they need to be in /usr/lib/gap/%{pkgname} can that be a symlink to etc? - Seems to highlight the need for a GAP packaging draft guideline. * Assuming functional based on %check passing * Latest version is hard to check - The upstream URL shows 2.1.2, the download on that page it 2.1.0 and this is 2.1.4 - How can we verify the latest version accurately? = 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: "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/james/workspace/fedora-scm/1332607 -gap-pkg-scscp/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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. [!]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already
[Bug 1264715] Review Request: flacon - Audio File Encoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264715 --- Comment #10 from Jiri Eischmann --- So I tried to add libfishsoup to BuildRequires and RMPlint stopped complaining, looks like optional build-time dependency. If it gets pulled in (I couldn't find any clue in cmake scripts) it's statically linked. That should be properly marked: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries I don't know what functionality libfishsoup gives to Flacon, best to ask the upstream devels. But Russian Fedora is building Flacon without it, so I think the best approach for now is to leave it out. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1329849] Review Request: erlang-riak_dt - Convergent replicated data types in Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329849 --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/erlang-riak_dt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334059] Review Request: openclonk - Multiplayer action, tactics and skill game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334059 --- Comment #13 from Antonio Trande --- Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/openclonk/openclonk.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/openclonk/openclonk-7.0-3.fc23.src.rpm - Made sub-package for documentation > The license status was not clear at this time, now it is time that it is > taken up by Fedora. We can maintain it together, but it should be retired by RPM Fusion. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334711] New: Review Request: python-colander - A serialization/deserialization/validation library for strings, mappings and lists
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334711 Bug ID: 1334711 Summary: Review Request: python-colander - A serialization/deserialization/validation library for strings, mappings and lists Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ignate...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-colander.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-colander-1.2-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: An extensible package which can be used to: * deserialize and validate a data structure composed of strings, mappings, and lists. * serialize an arbitrary data structure to a data structure composed of strings, mappings, and lists. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1307200] Review Request: kjots - KDE Notes application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307200 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- kjots-5.0.1-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1307200] Review Request: kjots - KDE Notes application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307200 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2016-03-30 19:39:00 |2016-05-10 07:47:10 -- 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1321455] Review Request: knot-resolver - Caching full DNS Resolver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321455 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- knot-resolver-1.0.0-0.3.4f463d7.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1083941] Review Request: giac - Computer Algebra System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1083941 --- Comment #36 from Han Frederic --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #35) > You need a sponsor; do you still want become an official packager? If yes, > please update your package, i can review again, but i can't sponsor you yet. Thank you for this proposition. I need to think if I still have time for this because we both worked alot on this 2 years ago. May be it would be better for the package if an official packager could take the job. I will try to help with an updated version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1294078] Review Request: nodejs-json-diff - JSON diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294078 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Flags|needinfo?(jsmith.fedora@gma | |il.com) | Last Closed||2016-05-10 05:50:44 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1331952] Review Request: openstack-mistral-ui - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952 Marcos changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ape...@redhat.com Flags|needinfo?(marcos.fermin.lob |needinfo?(ape...@redhat.com |o...@cern.ch) |) --- Comment #3 from Marcos --- Package renamed, please follow SPEC: http://mferminl.web.cern.ch/mferminl/fedorapkg/openstack-mistral-ui/2.0.0/openstack-mistral-ui.spec SRPM: http://mferminl.web.cern.ch/mferminl/fedorapkg/openstack-mistral-ui/2.0.0/openstack-mistral-ui-2.0.0-1.fc25.src.rpm Successful scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13992437 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1323442] Review Request: xtreemfs - distributed file system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323442 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334657] New: Review Request: python-schema - Simple data validation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334657 Bug ID: 1334657 Summary: Review Request: python-schema - Simple data validation library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ignate...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-schema.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-schema-0.5.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: schema is a library for validating Python data structures, such as those obtained from config-files, forms, external services or command-line parsing, converted from JSON/YAML (or something else) to Python data-types. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334657] Review Request: python-schema - Simple data validation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334657 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||python-schema -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1304467] Review Request: python-aodhclient - Python client for Aodh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304467 Alan Pevec changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ape...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Alan Pevec --- ^ this and few more review nitpicks: https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/q/project:openstack/aodhclient-distgit+branch:rpm-master+topic:aodhclient-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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1333916] Review Request: gap-pkg-polenta - Polycyclic presentations for matrix groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333916 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||loganje...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #1 from James Hogarth --- Jerry you're missing the spec file in the comment above. Although I can get it from the SRPM I'd appreciate it if you could add a fresh comment with both spec and srpm as per usual fedora 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635 Marcos changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #2 from Marcos --- Problem with python-oslo-config was solved. Now, the unsuccessful scratch is due to "Sorry: TabError: inconsistent use of tabs and spaces in indentation" http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13992067 -> build.log -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1331952] Review Request: openstack-mistral-ui - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952 Alan Pevec changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marcos.fermin.l...@cern.ch Flags||needinfo?(marcos.fermin.lob ||o...@cern.ch) --- Comment #2 from Alan Pevec --- Please rename package to openstack-*-ui to keep it consistent with current OpenStack UI Horizon plugins we have in RDO: openstack-sahara-ui openstack-manila-ui openstack-trove-ui openstack-app-catalog-ui Upstream project names vary, there are both *-dashboard and *-ui -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1333235] Review Request: gap-pkg-crisp - Computing subgroups of finite soluble groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333235 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||james.hoga...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|james.hoga...@gmail.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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1332764] Review Request: gap-pkg-factint - Advanced methods for factoring integers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332764 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||james.hoga...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|james.hoga...@gmail.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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1333916] Review Request: gap-pkg-polenta - Polycyclic presentations for matrix groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333916 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||james.hoga...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|james.hoga...@gmail.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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1332607] Review Request: gap-pkg-scscp - Symbolic Computation Software Composability Protocol in GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332607 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||james.hoga...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|james.hoga...@gmail.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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1333204] Review Request: gap-pkg-utils - Utility functions for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333204 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||james.hoga...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|james.hoga...@gmail.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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1331952] Review Request: openstack-mistral-ui - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952 Alan Pevec changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |mistral-dashboard - |openstack-mistral-ui - |OpenStack Mistral Dashboard |OpenStack Mistral Dashboard |for Horizo | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1331952] Review Request: mistral-dashboard - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard for Horizo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952 Alan Pevec changed: What|Removed |Added Target Release|--- |trunk Component|Package Review |Package Review Version|rawhide |trunk Product|Fedora |RDO Target Milestone|--- |Milestone1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1331952] Review Request: mistral-dashboard - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard for Horizo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952 Alan Pevec changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(hgue...@redhat.co | |m) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1331952] Review Request: mistral-dashboard - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard for Horizo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952 Alan Pevec changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|hgue...@redhat.com |ape...@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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1036130] Review request: plv8 - javascript language extension for postgresql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036130 --- Comment #27 from Pavel Kajaba --- I tried to work a bit on plv8 yesterday. However there is problem since latest released version supports just v8 up to version 4.10 and in rawhide there is something like 5.*. Current master branch supports latest v8, but it's just in development since they have lot of issues to solve [1]. I have contacted upstream [2]. Is there anyone who could help with JavaScript? I will try to help them, but I have just basic knowledge of JS. [1] https://github.com/plv8/plv8/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%222.0+Release%22 [2] https://github.com/plv8/plv8/issues/178 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1323442] Review Request: xtreemfs - distributed file system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323442 Yaozhong Ge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2016-05-10 04:16:16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334611] Review request: python-cvss CVSS2/3 library with interactive calculator for Python v2 & v3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334611 pjp changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://github.com/skontar/ ||cvss CC||skon...@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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334611] New: Review request: python-cvss CVSS2/3 library with interactive calculator for Python v2 & v3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334611 Bug ID: 1334611 Summary: Review request: python-cvss CVSS2/3 library with interactive calculator for Python v2 & v3 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pj.pan...@yahoo.co.in QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Hello, Please see: SPEC: https://pjp.fedorapeople.org/python-cvss.spec SRPM: https://pjp.fedorapeople.org/python-cvss.spec Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13991143 It is a python package that provides utilities to calculate CVSS v2/v3 scores for security vulnerabilities. It caters to both Python v2 and v3. Cvss -> https://www.first.org/cvss Could someone please review 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334611] Review request: python-cvss CVSS2/3 library with interactive calculator for Python v2 & v3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334611 pjp 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org