[Bug 1167175] Review Request: CheMPS2 - spin-adapted DMRG for ab initio quantum chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167175 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|susi.leht...@iki.fi Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Susi Lehtola --- Next time, please post separate links to the spec and the srpm, so that the reviewer doesn't have to download the potentially huge srpm and decompress it to have a look at the spec file. Please clean up the spec file from commented out junk. E.g. #BuildRequires: atlas-devel atlas texlive-braket cmake hdf5-devel coreutils gsl gsl-devel doxygen python python-devel numpy Cython BuildRequires: atlas-devel atlas cmake hdf5-devel python python-devel numpy Cython and #python build Also, the buildrequires should be split up one per line. ** Please note that it is not necessary to BR the -devel and the base package. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package ** Please note that explicit requires as in Requires: atlas are forbidden https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires ** Please don't replicate hardcoded values in the spec. Source0:https://github.com/SebWouters/CheMPS2/archive/v1.7.zip should be written as Source0:https://github.com/SebWouters/CheMPS2/archive/v%{version}.zip Also, you should use .tar.gz instead of .zip ** export CMAKE_INCLUDE_PATH=%{_includedir}/atlas-x86_64-base is incorrect on most architectures, and should be replaced by export CMAKE_INCLUDE_PATH=%{_includedir}/atlas ** You're mixing macro styles, ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} vs %{buildroot}. Please pick one and stick with it. [Personally, I prefer the latter.] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS ** gzip %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/chemps2.1 mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/ cp -p %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/chemps2.1.gz %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/ You don't need to compress the man pages, rpmbuild will do it for you. Also, referring to %{_builddir} is somewhat bad style. You could rewrite the %install section as make -C build install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install -D -p -m 644 chemps2.1 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/chemps2.1 cd PyCheMPS2 %{__python2} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root %{buildroot} find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';' find %{buildroot} -name '*.a' -exec rm -f {} ';' Also, instead of deleting the static libraries after install you might consider fixing the cmake files to not build them at all, after which you could send the patch upstream. I'd recommend adding a ENABLE_SHARED flag toggling build of a shared library, and linking everything against it if it's enabled. Correspondingly, a ENABLE_STATIC flag would just toggle if a static library is built or not. ** for i in test*[0-9].py; do LD_LIBRARY_PATH=../../build/CheMPS2 PYTHONPATH=`find .. -name lib.*` %{__python2} $i || { echo 'tests failed' ; exit 1; }; done You're allowed to use indentation in spec files. This would be much more readable as for i in test*[0-9].py; do export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=../../build/CheMPS2 export PYTHONPATH=`find .. -name lib.*` %{__python2} $i || { echo 'tests failed' ; exit 1; } done Also, the tests take too much time. Please reduce the set of tests, or otherwise building the package will take ages on the ARM architecture. ** Please don't use wildcards so blatantly in %files %{_libdir}/*.so.* %{_bindir}/chemps2 %{_mandir}/man1/*.gz %files devel %{_includedir}/* %{_libdir}/*.so %files python %{python2_sitearch}/* could be written as %files %{_libdir}/libchemps2.so.* %{_bindir}/chemps2 %{_mandir}/man1/chemps2.1.* %files devel %{_includedir}/chemps2/ %{_libdir}/libchemps2.so %files python %{python2_sitearch}/CheMPS2-python-%{version}-py*.egg-info %{python2_sitearch}/PyCheMPS2.so -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1167175] Review Request: CheMPS2 - spin-adapted DMRG for ab initio quantum chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167175 --- Comment #2 from Matt Chan --- Hi Susi, Here's the srpm on copr. Ignore the el5/6 builds please. We will try to figure out what happened. It's not immediately obvious to me but there's something going with the old versions of cmake/hdf5? https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/talcite/CheMPS2/build/341404/ Thanks! Matt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1302504] Review Request: elog - Logbook system to manage notes through a Web interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302504 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- elog-3.1.1-5.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-2016-323afbeadb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336833] Review Request: python-resultsdb_api - API to resultsdb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336833 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- python-resultsdb_api-1.2.2-3.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1263905] Review Request: ghc-old-time - Time library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263905 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen --- Built for f25-ghc: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=772631 Thanks again -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1263904] Review Request: ghc-old-locale - Locale library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263904 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen --- Built in f25-ghc: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=772630 this will move to rawhide once the rebuilding work in f25-ghc completed. Thank you again! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1346018] Review Request: jmake - Make utility for large Java projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346018 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- hi you must set: javac.source, javac.target, default.javac.source and default.javac.target to 1.6 and you must sure which javadoc.encoding and source.encoding is set to UTF-8 see nbproject/build-impl.xml e.g. ant -DVERSION=%{srcversion} \ -Ddefault.javac.source=1.6 \ -Ddefault.javac.target=1.6 \ ... (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #1) > jmake.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Provides mvn(org.pantsbuild:jmake:pom:) = > %VERSION% %VERSION > jmake.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jmake > 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > > - No idea how to set a value for %VERSION%. sed -i "s/%VERSION%/%version/" jmake.pom ? and sed -i "s/%TAG%/%commit0/" jmake.pom -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1177361] Review Request: sahara-image-elements - Image creation tools for Openstack Sahara
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177361 Ethan Gafford changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #10 from Ethan Gafford --- We dropped this thread forever ago. Necroposting a link to a new spec repository for modern Delorean and current master: https://github.com/egafford/sahara-image-elements_distgit Haïkel, can we import 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1294523] Review Request: purple-skypeweb - Adds support for Skype to libpurple-based clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523 --- Comment #6 from Vitaly Zaitsev --- > This is ok, but please ask upstream to add all proper headers. Otherwise, > since this is a subset of the whole (obsolete) skype4pidgin tarball, just > package in the tarball only the required folders. You can use this guideline > if you want to proceed that way: Yes, I'll add script which will repackage tarball. > Just remove the "theme" at the end of this line in the files section: Done. > Please add some notes to the patch. I don't see why the code in the patch > should be removed, if there is an explanation for it, please add it to the > SPEC file. This patch is no longer needed. > There's a typo in the comment, 's/inplemented/implemented/g'. Fixed. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1342743] Review Request: crawl - Roguelike dungeon exploration game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342743 Ben Rosser changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Ben Rosser --- I see; well, as the test suite cannot be run, the package is APPROVED. Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)". 1507 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/1342743-crawl/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x512/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x512 [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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in crawl-common-data [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 890880 bytes in 32 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local = SHOULD items = Generic: [x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note:
[Bug 1310368] review request: rubygem-jekyll - A simple, blog aware, static site generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310368 John Heidemann 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1310368] review request: rubygem-jekyll - A simple, blog aware, static site generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310368 --- Comment #2 from John Heidemann --- I have bumped the versions of all these packages: rubygem-bibtex-ruby-4.4.0-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-citeproc-1.0.3-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-citeproc-ruby-1.1.2-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-colorator-1.0.0-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-csl-1.4.4-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-csl-styles-1.0.1.7-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-jekyll-3.1.6-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-jekyll-last-modified-at-0.3.4-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-jekyll-redirect-from-0.10.0-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-jekyll-sass-converter-1.4.0-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-jekyll-scholar-5.8.2-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-jekyll-watch-1.4.0-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-latex-decode-0.2.2-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-liquid-3.0.6-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-mercenary-0.3.6-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-namae-0.10.2-1.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-rouge-1.11.0-1.fc23.src.rpm in COPR https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/johnh AFIAK they now rpmlint cleanly. Can we push these packages into extras? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1341283] Review Request: php-lukasreschke-id3parser - ID3 parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341283 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- php-lukasreschke-id3parser-0.0.1-1.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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1344231] Review Request: multilib-rpm-config - packaging helpers for multilib issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344231 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/multilib-rpm-config -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1341815] Review Request: python-zope-testrunner - Zope testrunner script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341815 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-zope-testrunner -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1344231] Review Request: multilib-rpm-config - packaging helpers for multilib issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344231 --- Comment #9 from Pavel Raiskup --- Thanks for the review! SCM request submitted in pkgdb. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1341283] Review Request: php-lukasreschke-id3parser - ID3 parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341283 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-06-13 16:55:41 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1327511] Review Request: php-justinrainbow-json-schema - A library to validate a json schema
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327511 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-06-13 16:56:06 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1327511] Review Request: php-justinrainbow-json-schema - A library to validate a json schema
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327511 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- php-justinrainbow-json-schema-2.0.5-1.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1341283] Review Request: php-lukasreschke-id3parser - ID3 parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341283 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- php-lukasreschke-id3parser-0.0.1-1.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1332267] Review Request: golang-github-heketi-tests - Test utility functions for golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332267 Olivier Lemasle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||o.lema...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Olivier Lemasle --- This package seems ok to me. NB: I'm not yet a maintainer, as I haven't been sponsored, so this comment is unofficial. 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. [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src, /usr/share/gocode, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/heketi(heketi-devel) [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [?]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [?]: 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 4 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local = SHOULD items = Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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]: %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_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright
[Bug 1302504] Review Request: elog - Logbook system to manage notes through a Web interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302504 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- elog-3.1.1-5.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b8a53f56ab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1336773] Review Request: python-Pympler - Measure, monitor and analyze the memory behavior of Python objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336773 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from William Moreno --- Please note than some tests are failing in f23 and f24: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/williamjmorenor/fedora-review-test/build/341248/ Any way I am fine with this packaging so I will aprove 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1346060] New: Review Request: python-pintail-asciidoc - Use AsciiDoc pages in Pintail sites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346060 Bug ID: 1346060 Summary: Review Request: python-pintail-asciidoc - Use AsciiDoc pages in Pintail sites Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dhanvi...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/dhanvi/pintail-asciidoc/python-pintail-asciidoc.git/tree/pintail-asciidoc.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dhanvi/pintail-asciidoc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00341230-python-pintail-asciidoc/python-pintail-asciidoc-0.0.20160527git97c5e94-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: Use AsciiDoc pages in Pintail sites Fedora Account System Username: dhanvi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1341815] Review Request: python-zope-testrunner - Zope testrunner script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341815 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from William Moreno --- Looks good, package aproved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1341839] Review Request: python-flask-oidc - An openID Connect support for Flask.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341839 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from William Moreno --- Looks god for me, package aproved -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1305502] Review Request: python-adal - ADAL for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305502 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2016-06-13 15:44:10 --- Comment #6 from William Moreno --- Looks like the package was build in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/search?type=package&match=glob&terms=python-adal But there is not any update in bodhi: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-adal Please send the updates to bodhi. Any way I will close thie bug as fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1260845] Review Request: sshguard - Protect hosts from brute-force attacks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1260845 --- Comment #17 from William Moreno --- This package is still failing to build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/williamjmorenor/fedora-review-test/build/341237/ checking for gawk... (cached) gawk checking for x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu-gcc... no checking for gcc... gcc checking whether the C compiler works... yes checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out checking for suffix of executables... checking whether we are cross compiling... configure: error: in `/builddir/build/BUILD/sshguard-1.6.1': configure: error: cannot run C compiled programs. If you meant to cross compile, use `--host'. See `config.log' for more details error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.z7oE7A (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.z7oE7A (%build) Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: [Error()] Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line 88, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) File "/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py", line 551, in do raise exception.Error("Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s" % (command,), child.returncode) mockbuild.exception.Error: Command failed. See logs for output. # bash --login -c /usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps /builddir/build/SPECS/sshguard.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1302504] Review Request: elog - Logbook system to manage notes through a Web interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302504 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- elog-3.1.1-5.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d432cbcf44 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1302504] Review Request: elog - Logbook system to manage notes through a Web interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302504 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1302504] Review Request: elog - Logbook system to manage notes through a Web interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302504 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- elog-3.1.1-5.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-323afbeadb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1297852] Review Request: python-azure-sdk - Microsoft Azure SDK for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297852 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(pikachu.2014@gmai ||l.com) --- Comment #4 from William Moreno --- ping -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1346038] Review Request: python-blivet1 - python2/ blivet-1.x compatibility package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346038 --- Comment #1 from David Lehman --- A bit more information: python-blivet-2.x is python3-only. This package contains python-blivet-1.20 packaged for python2 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1206888] Review Request: golang-github-spf13-jWalterWeatherman - Seamless printing to the terminal (stdout) and logging to a io.Writer (file) that’s as easy to use as fmt.Println.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206888 Olivier Lemasle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||o.lema...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Olivier Lemasle --- Isn't it a duplicate from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270061 ? golang-github-spf13-jWalterWeatherman is now in Fedora repositories. I guess this ticket should be closed. NB: I'm not yet a maintainer, as I haven't been sponsored, so this comment is unofficial. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1341642] Review Request: cryptlib - Security library and toolkit for encryption and authentication services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341642 --- Comment #9 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- These Provides shouldn't be necessary: Provides: libcl.so.3 = 3.4.3 Provides: cryptlib_py.so For the first one, it is autogenerated in a standard way that Fedora/EPEL packages use: [spot@localhost SPECS]$ rpm -qp /home/spot/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cryptlib-3.4.3-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm --provides cryptlib = 3.4.3-4.fc24 cryptlib(x86-64) = 3.4.3-4.fc24 libcl.so.3()(64bit) For the python2 subpackage, nothing should depend on "cryptlib_py.so", so that Provides isn't useful. * The %files entry for the -test subpackage is wrong. You're getting everything from the java, perl, and python packages too and duplicating it. rpmlint output: cryptlib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o cryptlib.src:114: W: macro-in-comment %package cryptlib.src:118: W: macro-in-comment %description cryptlib.src:246: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} cryptlib.src:246: W: macro-in-comment %{cryptlibdir} cryptlib.src:297: W: macro-in-comment %files cryptlib.src: W: invalid-url Source5: perlfiles.tar.gz cryptlib.src: W: invalid-url Source4: cryptlib-tests.tar.gz cryptlib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o cryptlib.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/lib64/libcl.so.3.4.3 cryptlib-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib cryptlib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation cryptlib-test.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/cryptlib/stestlib cryptlib-test.x86_64: W: no-documentation cryptlib-test.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/cryptlib/test/filename.h cryptlib-test.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/cryptlib/c/cryptlib-test.c cryptlib-test.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/cryptlib/test/test.h cryptlib-java.x86_64: E: devel-dependency cryptlib-devel cryptlib-java.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib cryptlib-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation cryptlib-javadoc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/javadoc/cryptlib/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF cryptlib-python2.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cryptlib_py.so cryptlib-python2.x86_64: W: no-documentation cryptlib-perl.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/perl5/auto/PerlCryptLib/PerlCryptLib.so cryptlib-perl.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man3 cryptlib-perl.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/perl5/auto/PerlCryptLib/PerlCryptLib.so 555 cryptlib-perl.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/perl5/auto/PerlCryptLib/.packlist cryptlib-perl.x86_64: W: perl-temp-file /usr/lib64/perl5/auto/PerlCryptLib/.packlist To sum that up: * You should add URLs for sources, unless they are not available anywhere online, and if that's the case, you need to add a comment describing how to construct that source tarball. * Are the source files useful in the -test subpackage? * Please fix the end-of-line encoding in the MANIFEST.MF * Delete the perl5 hidden files (they're not useful post-build) * Please remove macros from comments or replace "%" with "%%" to ensure they're not accidentally invoked. This is happening because you have the python3 bits commented out. An easier way to do it is to wrap those sections like this: %if 0 %package python3 Summary: Cryptlib bindings for python3 Group:System Environment/Libraries ... %endif If you want to be fancy, you can do: %global with_python3 0 %if %{with_python3} %package python3 Summary: Cryptlib bindings for python3 Group:System Environment/Libraries ... %endif -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1346038] New: Review Request: python-blivet1 - python2/ blivet-1.x compatibility package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346038 Bug ID: 1346038 Summary: Review Request: python-blivet1 - python2/blivet-1.x compatibility package Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dleh...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://dlehman.fedorapeople.org/python-blivet1/python-blivet1.spec SRPM URL: https://dlehman.fedorapeople.org/python-blivet1/python-blivet1-1.20.4-0.1.20160613171442.fc25.src.rpm Description: The python-blivet package is a python module for examining and modifying storage configuration. This package provides the old 1.20 API for use with python2. Fedora Account System Username: dlehman -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1341310] Review Request: kubernetes-ansible - Playbook and set of roles for seting up a Kubernetes cluster onto machines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341310 --- Comment #1 from Jan Chaloupka --- @gofedbot 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1346018] Review Request: jmake - Make utility for large Java projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346018 --- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner --- Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/jmake/jmake.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/jmake/jmake-1.3.8.8-1.20150716git7761ee3.fc24.src.rpm - fixed version - try to fix rpmlint: $ rpmlint SPECS/jmake.spec SRPMS/jmake-1.3.8.8-1.20150716git7761ee3.fc24.src.rpm RPMS/noarch/jmake-1.3.8.8-1.20150716git7761ee3.fc24.noarch.rpm RPMS/noarch/jmake-javadoc-1.3.8.8-1.20150716git7761ee3.fc24.noarch.rpm jmake.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Provides mvn(org.pantsbuild:jmake:pom:) = %VERSION% %VERSION jmake.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jmake 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. - No idea how to set a value for %VERSION%. - Help output is not compatible with help2man. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1342743] Review Request: crawl - Roguelike dungeon exploration game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342743 --- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande --- Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/sagitter/crawl/crawl.git/plain/crawl.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/crawl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00341180-crawl/crawl-0.18.1-5.fc25.src.rpm - Remove unused/bundled files - License clarification - Compile debugging files and make Crawl tests Note. 'crawl -test' looks not playable at build time because the DATADIR directory is set for run-time use only. Also, I reported a presumed bug: https://crawl.develz.org/mantis/view.php?id=10499 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1321687] Review Request: qpid-java - Apache Qpid Java Components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321687 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||projects...@smart.ms --- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner --- Review swap with bug #1346018? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1346018] Review Request: jmake - Make utility for large Java projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346018 Raphael Groner 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1335278] Review Request: mame - Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335278 --- Comment #9 from Julian Sikorski --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7) > (In reply to Julian Sikorski from comment #6) > > bgfx is not made to be linked to dynamically as per [1]. > > http-parser got dropped from upstream git and will be removed in 0.175 > > lsqlite3 got dropped from upstream git and will be removed in 0.175 > > luafilesystem and lua-zlib have no fedora packages ATM and are very tiny > > luv on anything but rawhide is too old > > lzma is not made to be linked dynamically > > softfloat is not made to be linked dynamically > > > > [1] http://forums.bannister.org/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=104437 > > Please, leave a comment about Provides lines. Will do. > > Just another issue: locale files are not managed by %find_lang. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files This will not work unfortunately, I tried. %find_lang looks for .mo files in %{_datadir}/locale, whereas mame puts them into %{_datadir}/%{name}. (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #8) > For the source, why not use the tarball URL? > > https://github.com/mamedev/%{name}/archive/%{name}0174.tar.gz > > Your %setup invocation will look like this: > > %setup -n %{name}-%{name}0174 The tar.gz is 33 MiB bigger than the .exe (102 vs 69). Having said that, the Source URL needs to be updated to point to github indeed. New packages have been uploaded: Spec URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/mame/mame.spec SRPM URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/mame/mame-0.174-2.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1346015] Review Request: scudcloud - Non official desktop client for Slack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346015 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||scudcloud -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1167076] Review Request: jlibrtp - Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167076 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|jlibrtp | --- Comment #21 from Raphael Groner --- Removing alias to allow general search for bugs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1346018] New: Review Request: jmake - Make utility for large Java projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346018 Bug ID: 1346018 Summary: Review Request: jmake - Make utility for large Java projects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: projects...@smart.ms QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/jmake/jmake.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/jmake/jmake-1.3.8.1-1.20150716git7761ee3.fc24.src.rpm Description: Make utility for large Java projects JMake (formerly Javamake) is a tool for Java programmers to make compiling large projects consisting of many packages and source files easy. It is similar in purpose to the make utility familiar to C programmers, except it requires no user configuration. Fedora Account System Username: raphgro Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14474428 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1346015] New: Review Request: scudcloud - Non official desktop client for Slack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346015 Bug ID: 1346015 Summary: Review Request: scudcloud - Non official desktop client for Slack 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/scudcloud.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/scudcloud-1.24-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: ScudCloud improves the Slack integration with Linux desktops featuring: * multiple teams support * native system notifications * count of unread direct mentions at launcher/sytray icon * alert/wobbling on new messages * optional tray notifications and "Close to Tray" * follow your desktop activity and will stay online while you're logged in 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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1330861] Review Request: numix-icon-theme-circle - Numix Project circle icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330861 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/numix-icon-theme-circle -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1330858] Review Request: numix-icon-theme - Numix Project icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330858 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/numix-icon-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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1330856] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix Gtk Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330856 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/numix-gtk-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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1344231] Review Request: multilib-rpm-config - packaging helpers for multilib issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344231 Kamil Dudka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Kamil Dudka --- Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [X] = Manually Checked = 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". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kdudka/fedora/curl/1344231-multilib- rpm-config/licensecheck.txt [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [X]: Changelog in prescribed format. [X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [X]: Package does not generate any conflict. [X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local = SHOULD items = Generic: [X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [X]: Package functions as described. [X]: Latest version is packaged. [X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [X]: 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_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. = EXTRA items = Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint --- Checking: multilib-rpm-config-1-3.fc24.noarch.rpm multilib-rpm-config-1-3.fc24.src.rpm multilib-rpm-config.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib multilib-rpm-config.src: W: strange-permission multilib-fix 755 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) multilib-rpm-config.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires multilib-rpm-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh redhat-rpm-config Provides multilib-rpm-config: multilib-rpm-config Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1344231 Buildroot used:
[Bug 1344673] Review Request: perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare - Syntax keywords for Test2::Tools::Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344673 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDecla ||re-0.03-1.fc25 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2016-06-13 10:35:50 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 475823] Review Request: menu-cache - Caching mechanism for freedesktop.org compilant menus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475823 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ke...@scrye.com) | --- Comment #15 from Kevin Fenzi --- Clearing needinfo. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1330861] Review Request: numix-icon-theme-circle - Numix Project circle icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330861 --- Comment #8 from Sascha Spreitzer --- Updated spec at spec 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1330858] Review Request: numix-icon-theme - Numix Project icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330858 --- Comment #11 from Sascha Spreitzer --- Updated spec at spec 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1330861] Review Request: numix-icon-theme-circle - Numix Project circle icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330861 Simone Caronni changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Simone Caronni --- Just noticed, "filesystem" is missing as requirement as specified in comment #3. Just add it after committing in the repository. All other requests have been satisfied, package 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1330858] Review Request: numix-icon-theme - Numix Project icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330858 --- Comment #10 from Simone Caronni --- Sorry, just noticed, "filesystem" is missing as requirement as specified in comment #3. Just add it after committing in the repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1330858] Review Request: numix-icon-theme - Numix Project icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330858 Simone Caronni changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Simone Caronni --- All requests have been satisfied, package 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1330856] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix Gtk Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330856 Simone Caronni changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Simone Caronni --- All requests have been satisfied, package 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1330861] Review Request: numix-icon-theme-circle - Numix Project circle icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330861 --- Comment #6 from Sascha Spreitzer --- Updates based on sponsor guidance Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sspreitzer/numix-specs/development/numix-icon-theme-circle.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3099/14473099/numix-icon-theme-circle-0.1.0-8.git475d649.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1330858] Review Request: numix-icon-theme - Numix Project icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330858 --- Comment #8 from Sascha Spreitzer --- Updates based on sponsor guidance Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sspreitzer/numix-specs/development/numix-icon-theme.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3074/14473074/numix-icon-theme-0.1.0-10.git101307f.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1330856] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix Gtk Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330856 --- Comment #10 from Sascha Spreitzer --- Updates based on sponsor guidance Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sspreitzer/numix-specs/development/numix-gtk-theme.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3072/14473072/numix-gtk-theme-2.5.1-4.gitbde0a73.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1344673] Review Request: perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare - Syntax keywords for Test2::Tools::Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344673 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1344415] Review Request: v8-314 - JavaScript Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344415 --- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Whoops. Here are the correct URLs: Spec URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/v8-314.spec SRPM URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/v8-314-3.14.5.10-1.fc24.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1153724] Review Request: golang-github-mitchellh-mapstructure - Go library for decoding generic map values into native Go structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153724 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jeffschroe...@computer.org --- Comment #11 from Jan Chaloupka --- *** Bug 1060503 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1060503] Review Request: golang-github-mitchellh-mapstructure - A Go library for decoding generic map values to structures and vice versa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060503 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||jchal...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2016-06-13 09:51:40 --- Comment #5 from Jan Chaloupka --- Thanks Olivier for pointing this out. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1153724 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1343580] Review Request: perl-rdapper - Command-line RDAP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343580 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-rdapper-0.08-1.fc25 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2016-06-13 09:51:08 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1344673] Review Request: perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare - Syntax keywords for Test2::Tools::Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344673 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Source file is ok Summary is ok License is ok Description is ok URL and Source0 are ok All tests passed BuildRequires are ok $ rpm -qp --requires perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare-0.03-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c i 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0) 1 perl(B::Hooks::EndOfScope) >= 0.08 1 perl(Carp) 1 perl(Devel::Declare) >= 0.006011 1 perl(Test2::Bundle::Extended) >= 0.30 1 perl(Test2::IPC) >= 1.302022 1 perl(Test2::Plugin::SpecDeclare) 1 perl(Test2::Tools::Spec) 1 perl(Test2::Workflow) >= 0.08 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-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare-0.03-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(Test2::Bundle::SpecDeclare) 1 perl(Test2::Plugin::SpecDeclare) = 0.03 1 perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare = 0.03-1.fc25 Binary provides are Ok. $ rpmlint ./perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare* 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint is ok The package looks good. 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1343580] Review Request: perl-rdapper - Command-line RDAP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343580 --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-rdapper -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1330858] Review Request: numix-icon-theme - Numix Project icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330858 Simone Caronni 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1330861] Review Request: numix-icon-theme-circle - Numix Project circle icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330861 Simone Caronni 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1330856] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix Gtk Theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330856 Simone Caronni 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1263904] Review Request: ghc-old-locale - Locale library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263904 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/ghc-old-locale -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1263905] Review Request: ghc-old-time - Time library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263905 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/ghc-old-time -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1294523] Review Request: purple-skypeweb - Adds support for Skype to libpurple-based clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523 --- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni --- > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1294523-purple-skypeweb/diff.txt > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL This is ok, the tarball is renamed according to packaging guidelines. > - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: These BR are not needed: gcc > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 This is ok as no longer true, BR can now be excplicitly required. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", > "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output > of licensecheck in /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1294523-purple- > skypeweb/licensecheck.txt This is ok, but please ask upstream to add all proper headers. Otherwise, since this is a subset of the whole (obsolete) skype4pidgin tarball, just package in the tarball only the required folders. You can use this guideline if you want to proceed that way: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: > /usr/share/pixmaps/pidgin/emotes/skype Just remove the "theme" at the end of this line in the files section: %{_datadir}/pixmaps/pidgin/emotes/skype/theme > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. Please add some notes to the patch. I don't see why the code in the patch should be removed, if there is an explanation for it, please add it to the SPEC file. Also, please remove the "%if 0%{?fedora}/%endif" part around Patch0. If I'm downloading the source rpm for some rebuild on (whatever) unreleased distribution (let's say a beta RHEL that has everything included) I won't get the patch file from the Koji build, and I would need to download it from the SCM. It's perfectly acceptable to have patches shipped and just applied conditionally. > pidgin-skypeweb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inplemented > -> implemented, supplemented, complemented There's a typo in the comment, 's/inplemented/implemented/g'. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1302504] Review Request: elog - Logbook system to manage notes through a Web interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302504 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/elog -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1294523] Review Request: purple-skypeweb - Adds support for Skype to libpurple-based clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523 --- Comment #3 from Simone Caronni --- Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1294523-purple-skypeweb/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1294523-purple- skypeweb/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/pixmaps/pidgin/emotes/skype [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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 30720 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pidgin- skypeweb , purple
[Bug 1344673] Review Request: perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare - Syntax keywords for Test2::Tools::Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344673 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1343580] Review Request: perl-rdapper - Command-line RDAP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343580 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Source file is ok Summary is ok License is ok Description is ok URL and Source0 are ok No test defined BuildRequires are ok $ rpm -qp --requires perl-rdapper-0.08-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 /usr/bin/perl 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0) 1 perl(Getopt::Long) 1 perl(HTTP::Request::Common) 1 perl(IO::Socket::SSL) 1 perl(JSON) 1 perl(JSON::Path) 1 perl(LWP) >= 6.00 1 perl(LWP::Protocol::https) 1 perl(MIME::Base64) 1 perl(MIME::Type) 1 perl(Mozilla::CA) 1 perl(POSIX) 1 perl(Pod::Usage) 1 perl(URI) 1 perl(strict) 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-rdapper-0.08-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl-rdapper = 0.08-1.fc25 Binary provides are Ok. $ rpmlint ./perl-rdapper* perl-rdapper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP perl-rdapper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ietf -> diet perl-rdapper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wg -> w, g, wig perl-rdapper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weirds -> wards, weird, weirs perl-rdapper.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/perl-rdapper/COPYING perl-rdapper.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP perl-rdapper.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ietf -> diet perl-rdapper.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wg -> w, g, wig perl-rdapper.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weirds -> wards, weird, weirs 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. The incorrect FSF address was reported to the upstream. The package looks good. 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1298652] Review Request: python-django-redis - Full featured redis cache backend for Django
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298652 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2016-06-13 08:32:25 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1343580] Review Request: perl-rdapper - Command-line RDAP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343580 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1345887] Review Request: golang-github-yosssi-ace - HTML template engine for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1345887 Olivier Lemasle 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1345887] New: Review Request: golang-github-yosssi-ace - HTML template engine for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1345887 Bug ID: 1345887 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-yosssi-ace - HTML template engine for Go Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: o.lema...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-yosssi-ace.spec SRPM URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-yosssi-ace-0.0.4-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: HTML template engine for Go Fedora Account System Username: olem Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14471912 NB: I need a sponsor, as I'm not in maintainer group. I've already proposed an other package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344936 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1344415] Review Request: v8-314 - JavaScript Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344415 Jeroen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jeroeno...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jeroen --- +1 for a v8-314 package. The 3.14 API is the de-facto standard for building software that links against libv8. The 4.x and 5.x series have a completely different API. As a maintainer of software that uses V8, breaking compatibility by upgrading v8 on Fedora/EPEL would be devastating to us. We would basically have to rewrite all software from scratch. We really appreciate the effort to provide a v8-314 package. PS: I think the URL needs to point to fedorapeople.org instead of 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1060503] Review Request: golang-github-mitchellh-mapstructure - A Go library for decoding generic map values to structures and vice versa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060503 Olivier Lemasle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||o.lema...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Olivier Lemasle --- This package is now in Fedora repositories: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/golang-github-mitchellh-mapstructure/ I guess this ticket should be closed. NB: I'm not yet a maintainer, as I haven't been sponsored. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1344231] Review Request: multilib-rpm-config - packaging helpers for multilib issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344231 Kamil Dudka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||kdu...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kdu...@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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1263904] Review Request: ghc-old-locale - Locale library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263904 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen --- Thank you very much - most helpful! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1263905] Review Request: ghc-old-time - Time library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263905 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen --- Thank you very for the speedy review! :-) Good point about the url - let me fix that when importing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1263904] Review Request: ghc-old-locale - Locale library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263904 Jan Synacek changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jan Synacek --- Since this is a very simply package and the spec is generated by cabal-rpm, I'm not going to post the output from fedora-review here. All looks fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1263905] Review Request: ghc-old-time - Time library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263905 Jan Synacek changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jan Synacek --- Since this is a very simply package and the spec is generated by cabal-rpm, I'm not going to post the output from fedora-review here. All looks fine. One thing I would do, though, is change the package link in the description in the spec file to something human friendlier. It looks like it was taken straight from the markup. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1338553] Review Request: nitroshare - Transfer files from one device to another made extremely simple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1338553 --- Comment #26 from Raphael Groner --- Nathan, thanks for your support. We'll get a notification from Anitya when v0.3.2 gets in the game. That's the reason I chose to use 0.3.1-3 instead of 0.3.2-0.1 to not confuse upstream monitoring cause of a bug with pre-releases. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1263904] Review Request: ghc-old-locale - Locale library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263904 Jan Synacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jsyna...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsyna...@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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1263905] Review Request: ghc-old-time - Time library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263905 Jan Synacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jsyna...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsyna...@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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1338553] Review Request: nitroshare - Transfer files from one device to another made extremely simple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1338553 --- Comment #25 from Nathan Osman --- I installed nitroshare-0.3.1-3.20160612git930c9b7.fc23 on my Fedora 23 Workstation VM and tested sending and receiving files. Everything seems to work perfectly and the icons/images display without any problem. I am hoping to have version 0.3.2 released around the end of the month or the beginning of July, depending on how things go. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1341099] Review Request: taskotron-trigger - Triggering Taskotron jobs on fedmsgs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341099 --- Comment #1 from Martin Krizek --- Found some issues, updated version: Spec URL: https://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/specs/taskotron-trigger.spec SRPM URL: https://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/srpms/taskotron-trigger-0.3.16-3.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 965431] Review Request: gedit-editorconfig - EditorConfig plugin for Gedit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965431 Bug 965431 depends on bug 965417, which changed state. Bug 965417 Summary: Review Request: editorconfig-core-python - Clone of EditorConfig core written in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965417 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENT_DATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 965417] Review Request: editorconfig-core-python - Clone of EditorConfig core written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965417 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENT_DATA Last Closed||2016-06-13 03:02:10 --- Comment #7 from Matthias Runge --- Please re-open, when there's more time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org