[Bug 1544899] Review Request: golang-github-muesli-smartcrop - Finds good image crops for arbitrary crop sizes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544899

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Packaqe 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1440971] Review Request: python-pyclipper - Cython wrapper for the C++ translation of the Angus Johnson 's Clipper library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440971

Elliott Sales de Andrade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
 Whiteboard|NotReady|
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #22 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* BSL", "Unknown or
 generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in review/1440971-python-pyclipper/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/debug stuff
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(

[Bug 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #42 from digimer  ---
Speaking to Fabio, and given the way the comment around 'pkgconfig()' was
framed, I rolled back the BuildRequires for bzip2.

New .spec and srpm:
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.0-8
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet-1.0-8.fc27.src.rpm

f26:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25084124

f27:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25084134

rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25084142

epel7:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25084066


Diff from 1.0-7:

--- kronosnet.spec.1.0-72018-02-15 19:18:05.854232031 -0500
+++ kronosnet.spec.1.0-82018-02-16 00:04:45.452029189 -0500
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@
 Name: kronosnet
 Summary: Multipoint-to-Multipoint VPN daemon
 Version: 1.0
-Release: 7%{?dist}
+Release: 8%{?dist}
 License: GPLv2+
 URL: http://www.kronosnet.org
 Source0: http://www.kronosnet.org/releases/kronosnet-%{version}.tar.gz
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@
 BuildRequires: pkgconfig(liblzma)
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildcompressbzip2}
-BuildRequires: pkgconfig(bzip2)
+BuildRequires: bzip2-devel
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildkronosnetd}
 BuildRequires: pam-devel
@@ -460,6 +460,9 @@
 %endif

 %changelog
+* Fri Feb 16 2018 Madison Kelly  - 1.0-8
+- Reverted to 'BuildRequires: bzip2-devel' to fix EPEL7 builds.
+
 * Thu Feb 15 2018 Madison Kelly  - 1.0-7
 - Added missing 1.0-6 changelog.
 - Added kronosnetd postun.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #41 from digimer  ---
This is the change that breaks EPEL7;

-BuildRequires: bzip2-devel
+BuildRequires: pkgconfig(bzip2)

If I roll that back, it builds fine on RHEL 7. With the 'pkgconfig(bzip2)', I
get this:


[root@el7-builder-t1 ~]# yum install bzip2-devel
Loaded plugins: kabi, product-id, search-disabled-repos, subscription-manager
Loading support for Red Hat kernel ABI
Package bzip2-devel-1.0.6-13.el7.x86_64 already installed and latest version
Nothing to do

[root@el7-builder-t1 ~]# su - digimer
Last login: Thu Feb 15 19:30:30 EST 2018 on pts/0
[digimer@el7-builder-t1 ~]$ cd rpmbuild/SPECS/

[digimer@el7-builder-t1 SPECS]$ rpmbuild -ba kronosnet.spec 
error: Failed build dependencies:
pkgconfig(bzip2) is needed by kronosnet-1.0-7.el7.x86_64


Any insight? Or shall I just revert that one BuildRequires?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1440971] Review Request: python-pyclipper - Cython wrapper for the C++ translation of the Angus Johnson 's Clipper library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440971



--- Comment #21 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25083275

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1440971] Review Request: python-pyclipper - Cython wrapper for the C++ translation of the Angus Johnson 's Clipper library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440971



--- Comment #20 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Hi Elliot,

Sorry for the stall on this bug!

New sources below. Since one of the patches was merged upstream, I removed it
from the package.

Spec URL: https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/python-pyclipper.spec
SRPM URL:
https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/python-pyclipper-1.1.0-1.fc27.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545830] Review Request: gawk-redis - Redis client library for gawk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545830

Andrew Schorr  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-02-15 22:40:48



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545831] Review Request: gawk-abort - Abort library for gawk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545831

Andrew Schorr  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-02-15 22:41:11



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #40 from digimer  ---
> You've forgot to update changelog

Doh! Added (for 1.0-6 and -7)

> As was noted in previous comment, please add postun

Added, but please verify I added in the correct location.

> Please fix the "%preun -n kronosnetd" section...

Being an if/else, with 'if [ "$1" -eq 0 ]; ...' being in the 'else', I removed
that as well. Was that correct?

> Add %{?systemd_requires} as described in ...

Done. 

> License - ...

Done.

> Idea of using pkgconfig(foo) seems to be quite nice, could you please give it 
> a try?

Done. Question though; I wasn't able to find a clear explanation about what
this change does (see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Pkgconfig_Files_.28foo.pc.29).
Why would we not also wrap, say, libxml2-devel, lksctp-tools-devel, etc in a
similar manner?

NOTE: It would seem that one of these changes breaks epel7 build. I will dig
into this and post a new .spec if I can sort it out. For now, this one is up
for you to review as it currently stands.

New .spec and srpm:
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.0-7
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet-1.0-7.fc27.src.rpm

f26:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25080933

f27:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25080940

rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25080948

epel7: *Failed*
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25080956

Here is the diff in .spec from 1.0-5;


--- kronosnet.spec.1.0-62018-02-15 00:25:25.797016016 -0500
+++ kronosnet.spec.1.0-72018-02-15 19:18:05.854232031 -0500
@@ -70,40 +70,42 @@
 Name: kronosnet
 Summary: Multipoint-to-Multipoint VPN daemon
 Version: 1.0
-Release: 6%{?dist}
-License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
+Release: 7%{?dist}
+License: GPLv2+
 URL: http://www.kronosnet.org
 Source0: http://www.kronosnet.org/releases/kronosnet-%{version}.tar.gz
 Patch0: gcc8-fixes.patch

 # Build dependencies
 BuildRequires: gcc
+%{?systemd_requires}
 BuildRequires: systemd
 # required to build man pages
-BuildRequires: libqb-devel libxml2-devel doxygen
+BuildRequires: libxml2-devel doxygen
+BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libqb)
 %if %{defined buildsctp}
 BuildRequires: lksctp-tools-devel
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildcryptonss}
-BuildRequires: nss-devel nspr-devel
+BuildRequires: pkgconfig(nss)
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildcryptoopenssl}
-BuildRequires: openssl-devel
+BuildRequires: pkgconfig(openssl)
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildcompresszlib}
-BuildRequires: zlib-devel
+BuildRequires: pkgconfig(zlib)
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildcompresslz4}
-BuildRequires: lz4-devel
+BuildRequires: pkgconfig(liblz4)
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildcompresslzo2}
 BuildRequires: lzo-devel
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildcompresslzma}
-BuildRequires: xz-devel
+BuildRequires: pkgconfig(liblzma)
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildcompressbzip2}
-BuildRequires: bzip2-devel
+BuildRequires: pkgconfig(bzip2)
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildkronosnetd}
 BuildRequires: pam-devel
@@ -199,7 +201,7 @@
 ## Runtime and subpackages section
 %package -n kronosnetd
 Summary: Multipoint-to-Multipoint VPN daemon
-License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
+License: GPLv2+
 Requires(post): shadow-utils
 Requires: pam, /etc/pam.d/passwd

@@ -218,15 +220,11 @@
 %systemd_post kronosnetd.service
 getent group kronosnetadm >/dev/null || groupadd --force kronosnetadm

+%postun -n kronosnetd
+%systemd_postun kronosnetd.service
+
 %preun -n kronosnetd
-%if 0%{?systemd_preun:1}
-  %systemd_preun kronosnetd.service
-%else
-if [ "$1" -eq 0 ]; then
-/bin/systemctl --no-reload disable kronosnetd.service
-/bin/systemctl stop kronosnetd.service >/dev/null 2>&1
-fi
-%endif
+%systemd_preun kronosnetd.service

 %files -n kronosnetd
 %license COPYING.* COPYRIGHT 
@@ -243,7 +241,7 @@
 %if %{defined buildlibtap}
 %package -n libtap1
 Summary: Simple userland wrapper around kernel tap devices
-License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
+License: LGPLv2+

 %description -n libtap1
  This is an over-engineered commodity library to manage a pool
@@ -260,7 +258,7 @@

 %package -n libtap1-devel
 Summary: Simple userland wrapper around kernel tap devices (developer files)
-License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
+License: LGPLv2+
 Requires: libtap1%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
 Requires: pkgconfig

@@ -278,7 +276,7 @@

 %package -n libknet1
 Summary: Kronosnet core switching implementation
-License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
+License: LGPLv2+

 %description -n libknet1
  Kronosnet, often referred to as knet, is a network abstraction layer 
@@ -300,7 +298,7 @@

 %package -n libknet1-devel
 Summary: Kronosnet core switching implementation (developer files)
-License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
+License: LGPLv2+
 Requires: libknet1%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
 Requires: pkgconfig

@@ -319,7 +317,7 @@
 %if %{defined buildcryptonss}
 %package -n libknet1-crypto-nss-plugin
 Summary: Libknet1 nss support
-License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
+License: LGPLv2+
 Requires:

[Bug 1544899] Review Request: golang-github-muesli-smartcrop - Finds good image crops for arbitrary crop sizes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544899



--- Comment #2 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Hi Robert,

Thanks for the review!!!

I fixed the Release tag (nice catch, I let that one slip) and added creative
commons to the license tag.

Spec URL:
https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/golang-github-muesli-smartcrop.spec
SRPM URL:
https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/golang-github-muesli-smartcrop-0.2.0-2.fc27.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545831] Review Request: gawk-abort - Abort library for gawk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545831



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gawk-abort

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545830] Review Request: gawk-redis - Redis client library for gawk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545830



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gawk-redis

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545941] Review Request: vim-jellybeans - A colorful, dark color scheme for Vim

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545941



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vim-jellybeans

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545969] Review Request: python-certbot-dns-digitalocean - DigitalOcean DNS Authenticator plugin for Certbot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545969

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package approved.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
 (v2.0)". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-certbot-dns-
 digitalocean/review-python-certbot-dns-digitalocean/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2
 -certbot-dns-digitalocean , python3-certbot-dns-digitalocean
[?]: 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

[Bug 1545951] Review Request: python-tldextract - Accurately separate the TLD from the registered domain and subdomains of a URL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545951



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-tldextract-2.2.0-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b1ea0b6fe9

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545951] Review Request: python-tldextract - Accurately separate the TLD from the registered domain and subdomains of a URL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545951



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-tldextract-2.2.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-16e075e225

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545951] Review Request: python-tldextract - Accurately separate the TLD from the registered domain and subdomains of a URL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545951

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545951] Review Request: python-tldextract - Accurately separate the TLD from the registered domain and subdomains of a URL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545951



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-tldextract-2.2.0-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-39c6f5f35e

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545830] Review Request: gawk-redis - Redis client library for gawk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545830



--- Comment #3 from Andrew Schorr  ---
Thanks for the feedback and approval. I included the _hardened_build setting
because my initial package reviewer requested that this be present, although we
were already on Fedora 24. I'm not sure why, but I think possibly to be safe in
case the package is ever included in RHEL. It seems to me that it shouldn't do
any harm, so I leave it in. Please let me know if you disagree.

Regards,
Andy

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545969] Review Request: python-certbot-dns-digitalocean - DigitalOcean DNS Authenticator plugin for Certbot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545969



--- Comment #1 from Eli Young  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25081006

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545969] New: Review Request: python-certbot-dns-digitalocean - DigitalOcean DNS Authenticator plugin for Certbot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545969

Bug ID: 1545969
   Summary: Review Request: python-certbot-dns-digitalocean -
DigitalOcean DNS Authenticator plugin for Certbot
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: elysc...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL:
http://elyscape.fedorapeople.org//python-certbot-dns-digitalocean.spec
SRPM URL:
http://elyscape.fedorapeople.org//python-certbot-dns-digitalocean-0.21.1-1.fc28.src.rpm

Description:
This certbot plugin automates the process of completing an ACME
dns-01 challenge by creating, and subsequently removing, TXT
records using DigitalOcean DNS.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545951] Review Request: python-tldextract - Accurately separate the TLD from the registered domain and subdomains of a URL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545951



--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-tldextract

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1433657] Review Request: vncpwd - VNC Password Decrypter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
vncpwd-0.0-3.20170607git596854c.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-bbbd526e2e

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1433657] Review Request: vncpwd - VNC Password Decrypter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
vncpwd-0.0-3.20170607git596854c.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-391af85d0a

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1433657] Review Request: vncpwd - VNC Password Decrypter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433657

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545951] Review Request: python-tldextract - Accurately separate the TLD from the registered domain and subdomains of a URL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545951

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545951] Review Request: python-tldextract - Accurately separate the TLD from the registered domain and subdomains of a URL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545951



--- Comment #3 from Eli Young  ---
Oops! 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545951] Review Request: python-tldextract - Accurately separate the TLD from the registered domain and subdomains of a URL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545951

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - The license is BSD, not ASL 2.0:

https://github.com/john-kurkowski/tldextract/blob/master/LICENSE



Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (unspecified)". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-tldextract/review-
 python-tldextract/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-tldextract , python3-tldextract
[?]: 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 t

[Bug 1545919] Review Request: typelib-srpm-macros - gobject-introspection typelib sub-package generator macros

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545919

Yanko Kaneti  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-02-15 18:22:31



--- Comment #3 from Yanko Kaneti  ---
Thanks for the review and the suggestions. I've adopted them with the exception
of the macro rename, I still like %typelib somewhat better for now

Package built for rawhide. Closing

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545951] New: Review Request: python-tldextract - Accurately separate the TLD from the registered domain and subdomains of a URL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545951

Bug ID: 1545951
   Summary: Review Request: python-tldextract - Accurately
separate the TLD from the registered domain and
subdomains of a URL
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: elysc...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://elyscape.fedorapeople.org//python-tldextract.spec
SRPM URL:
http://elyscape.fedorapeople.org//python-tldextract-2.2.0-1.fc28.src.rpm

Description:
Accurately separate the TLD from the registered domain and
subdomains of a URL, using the Public Suffix List. By default,
this includes the public ICANN TLDs and their exceptions. You can
optionally support the Public Suffix List's private domains as
well.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545951] Review Request: python-tldextract - Accurately separate the TLD from the registered domain and subdomains of a URL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545951



--- Comment #1 from Eli Young  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25080408

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545941] Review Request: vim-jellybeans - A colorful, dark color scheme for Vim

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545941

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Quick review because it's a really simple packge:

 - Latest version packaged: ok
 - License: ok
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors

Package is approved.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545919] Review Request: typelib-srpm-macros - gobject-introspection typelib sub-package generator macros

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545919



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/typelib-srpm-macros

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545816] Review Request: perl-CryptX - Cryptographic toolkit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545816

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Add the following missing BR:

BuildRequires:  libtomcrypt-devel
BuildRequires:  libtommath-devel


URL and Source addresses are Ok.
Source archive (SHA-256:
26236ecb4e82995a8e3fdf5d61ce2ea24ba6388511f62cb8cfb6f38cfd48f052) is original.
Ok.
Summary verified from lib/CryptX.pm. Ok.
Description verified from lib/CryptX.pm. Ok.
License verified from lib/CryptX.pm and README.md. Ok.

All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-CryptX.spec
review-perl-CryptX/results/perl-CryptX-0.053-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
review-perl-CryptX/results/perl-CryptX-0.053-1.fc28.src.rpm 
perl-CryptX.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Cryptographic ->
Cryptography, Cryptographer, Crystallographic
perl-CryptX.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Cryptographic ->
Cryptography, Cryptographer, Crystallographic
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

$ rpm -q -lv -p perl-CryptX-0.053-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 févr. 15 23:42
/usr/lib/.build-id
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 févr. 15 23:42
/usr/lib/.build-id/73
lrwxrwxrwx1 rootroot   61 févr. 15 23:42
/usr/lib/.build-id/73/924109cf0aa200e6407e3faa24c380b648c300 ->
../../../../usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/CryptX/CryptX.so
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 févr. 15 23:42
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 févr. 15 23:42
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/AuthEnc
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  181 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/AuthEnc.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2957 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/AuthEnc/CCM.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4558 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/AuthEnc/ChaCha20Poly1305.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4769 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/AuthEnc/EAX.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4699 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/AuthEnc/GCM.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4698 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/AuthEnc/OCB.pm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 févr. 15 23:42
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Checksum
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 5567 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Checksum.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2335 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Checksum/Adler32.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2334 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Checksum/CRC32.pm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 févr. 15 23:42
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Cipher
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 5709 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Cipher.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2689 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Cipher/AES.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2701 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Cipher/Anubis.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2742 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Cipher/Blowfish.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2682 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Cipher/CAST5.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2747 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Cipher/Camellia.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2661 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Cipher/DES.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2735 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Cipher/DES_EDE.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2709 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Cipher/KASUMI.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2679 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Cipher/Khazad.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2679 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Cipher/MULTI2.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2700 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Cipher/Noekeon.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2620 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Cipher/RC2.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2620 sept. 15 14:25
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/Cipher/RC5.pm
-rw-

[Bug 1544468] Review Request: fapolicyd - Application Whitelisting Daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468



--- Comment #16 from Steve Grubb  ---
The guidelines say we can use the variables as long as we are self consistent.
There are no uses of %{buildroot}, so it is self consistent. However, its not
worth discussing. I changed it and updated the FSF address. New spec file and
SRPM are posted.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1310434] Review Request: python-wxpython4 - new implementation of wxPython (Phoenix)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310434



--- Comment #19 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-wxpython4. You may commit to the
branch "f27" in about 10 minutes.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545941] New: Review Request: vim-jellybeans - A colorful, dark color scheme for Vim

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545941

Bug ID: 1545941
   Summary: Review Request: vim-jellybeans - A colorful, dark
color scheme for Vim
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: carl@george.computer
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://carlwgeorge.fedorapeople.org/vim-jellybeans.spec
SRPM URL:
https://carlwgeorge.fedorapeople.org/vim-jellybeans-1.6-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description: A colorful, dark color scheme for Vim.
Fedora Account System Username: carlwgeorge

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545831] Review Request: gawk-abort - Abort library for gawk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545831

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Same as before, remove since unneeded.

# This is the default as of Fedora 23:
%global _hardened_build 1


   Package 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]: 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "FSF All Permissive", "GPL (v2 or
 later)", "Unknown or generated". 58 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gawk-
 abort/review-gawk-abort/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not 

[Bug 1545919] Review Request: typelib-srpm-macros - gobject-introspection typelib sub-package generator macros

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545919

Jason Tibbitts  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts  ---
There's basically nothing in this package, so not much to review here.  And
nothing really wrong with the package.

The URL might confuse some, but this mirrors what other *-srpm-macros packages
do (and some of those still reference old pkgs.fp.org cgit URLs).

You can just use %_rpmmacrodir instead of %_rpmconfigdir/macros.d if you like. 
There's also %rpmmacrodir (which exists in EPEL, tool) but those were added
before RPM grew its own macro.

You don't need %build at all, but I guess if you omit it then rpmlint will
complain (needlessly).

I haven't done an in-depth evaluation of the whole set of typelib-related
changes you're proposing, but I have taken a look at the macros and they seem
pretty much OK to me.  The only concern I have is that "%typelib" is rather
generic, and doesn't give any indication that it creates a whole package.  It
seems to me that "%typelib_package" would be a bit more descriptive.  But
really, that's just bikeshedding, and there is much more that needs to happen
before these macros are actually available and usable (including
redhat-rpm-config updates, acceptance of the related stuff into
gobject-introspection, and related packaging guidelines).

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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545830] Review Request: gawk-redis - Redis client library for gawk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545830

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---

 - Fedora 23 has been EOL for  along time, you might want to remove this:

# This is the default as of Fedora 23:
%global _hardened_build 1


   Package 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]: 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "FSF All Permissive", "Unknown or
 generated". 58 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gawk-redis/review-gawk-
 redis/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 153600 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Pack

[Bug 1545919] Review Request: typelib-srpm-macros - gobject-introspection typelib sub-package generator macros

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545919

Jason Tibbitts  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu
  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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545701] Review Request: rust-crossbeam-epoch - Epoch-based garbage collection

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545701
Bug 1545701 depends on bug 1545692, which changed state.

Bug 1545692 Summary: Review Request: rust-memoffset - C-like offset_of 
functionality for Rust structs.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545692

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545688] Review Request: rust-crossbeam-utils - Utilities for concurrent programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545688

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-02-15 15:34:10



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545692] Review Request: rust-memoffset - C-like offset_of functionality for Rust structs.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545692

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-02-15 15:34:04



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545704] Review Request: rust-crossbeam-deque - Concurrent work-stealing deque

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545704
Bug 1545704 depends on bug 1545688, which changed state.

Bug 1545688 Summary: Review Request: rust-crossbeam-utils - Utilities for 
concurrent programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545688

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545701] Review Request: rust-crossbeam-epoch - Epoch-based garbage collection

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545701
Bug 1545701 depends on bug 1545688, which changed state.

Bug 1545688 Summary: Review Request: rust-crossbeam-utils - Utilities for 
concurrent programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545688

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545919] New: Review Request: typelib-srpm-macros - gobject-introspection typelib sub-package generator macros

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545919

Bug ID: 1545919
   Summary: Review Request: typelib-srpm-macros -
gobject-introspection typelib sub-package generator
macros
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: yan...@declera.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://declera.com/~yaneti/typelib-srpm-macros/typelib-srpm-macros.spec
SRPM URL:
http://declera.com/~yaneti/typelib-srpm-macros/typelib-srpm-macros-1-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description: RPM macros for generating typelib sub-packages for
gobject-introspection enabled library packages
Fedora Account System Username: yaneti

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1532023] Review Request: ddupdate - A Dynamic DNS Updater

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532023

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||projects...@smart.ms



--- Comment #11 from Raphael Groner  ---
Thanks for the package.

Can you also build for EPEL7? Scratch build was successful:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25076894

Be aware of our special guidelines for EPEL:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging

Should I open a new bug for this RFE?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1310434] Review Request: python-wxpython4 - new implementation of wxPython (Phoenix)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310434

Miro Hrončok  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #18 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Thanks. Ship it (also known as: the package is APPROVED).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544865] Review Request: rubygem-guard-livereload - Guard plugin for livereload

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544865

Jaroslav Prokop  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||rubygem-guard-livereload-2.
   ||5.2-1.fc28
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-02-15 12:39:44



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544865] Review Request: rubygem-guard-livereload - Guard plugin for livereload

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544865



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-guard-livereload

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1536782] Review Request: golang-github-cryptix-wav - golang wav reader and writer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536782



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-cryptix-wav

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1516117] Review Request: python-hexdump - Dump binary data to hex format and restore from there

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1516117



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-hexdump-3.4-0.2.20160818hg66325cb5fed8.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora
EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in
this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-eb03b4ac26

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545347] Review Request: microdns - Minimal mDNS resolver and announcer library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545347



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
microdns-0.0.8-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-0b2cfbc4a9

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544865] Review Request: rubygem-guard-livereload - Guard plugin for livereload

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544865



--- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Prokop  ---
Thanks for 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1310434] Review Request: python-wxpython4 - new implementation of wxPython (Phoenix)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310434



--- Comment #17 from Scott Talbert  ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #16)
> spec diff shows no changes.

My bad, I failed to copy into public_html on my server.  Fixed now.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544468] Review Request: fapolicyd - Application Whitelisting Daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468



--- Comment #15 from Daniel Kopeček  ---
(In reply to Steve Grubb from comment #14)
> >In %build section you are using macro style and in %install you are 
> > using variable style. Choose one.
> 
> To make sure we are looking at the same thing, this is what I see in the
> spec file:
> 
> %build
> %configure --with-audit
> make CFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{?_smp_mflags}
> 
> %install
> make DESTDIR="${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}" INSTALL='install -p' install

I think the point is to use "%{buildroot}" instead of "${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}" so
that macros are used everywhere instead of mixing them with usage of variables.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544562] Review Request: python-certbot-dns-route53 - Route53 DNS Authenticator plugin for Certbot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544562



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-certbot-dns-route53-0.21.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544555] Review Request: python-certbot-dns-google - Google Cloud DNS Authenticator plugin for Certbot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544555



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-certbot-dns-google-0.21.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544605] Review Request: python-digitalocean - Easy access to Digital Ocean APIs to deploy droplets , images and more

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544605



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-digitalocean-1.13.2-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1526717] Review Request: python-giacpy - Python binding for Giac

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526717



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
giac-1.4.9.45-2.fc27, python-giacpy-0.6.5-3.fc27, qcas-0.5.3-5.fc27 has been
pushed to the Fedora 27 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545816] Review Request: perl-CryptX - Cryptographic toolkit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545816



--- Comment #3 from Paul Howarth  ---
Looks to be missing BR: libtomcrypt-devel

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544468] Review Request: fapolicyd - Application Whitelisting Daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468



--- Comment #14 from Steve Grubb  ---
>In %build section you are using macro style and in %install you are 
> using variable style. Choose one.

To make sure we are looking at the same thing, this is what I see in the spec
file:

%build
%configure --with-audit
make CFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{?_smp_mflags}

%install
make DESTDIR="${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}" INSTALL='install -p' install

There is no %{buildroot} anywhere. It only uses ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}. Will check
on the fsf address. But if we can close the above issue, then I can do a respin
with updated fsf address.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545704] Review Request: rust-crossbeam-deque - Concurrent work-stealing deque

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545704



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-crossbeam-deque

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545701] Review Request: rust-crossbeam-epoch - Epoch-based garbage collection

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545701



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-crossbeam-epoch

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545688] Review Request: rust-crossbeam-utils - Utilities for concurrent programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545688



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-crossbeam-utils

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545692] Review Request: rust-memoffset - C-like offset_of functionality for Rust structs.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545692



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-memoffset

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544562] Review Request: python-certbot-dns-route53 - Route53 DNS Authenticator plugin for Certbot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544562



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-certbot-dns-route53-0.21.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544605] Review Request: python-digitalocean - Easy access to Digital Ocean APIs to deploy droplets , images and more

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544605



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-digitalocean-1.13.2-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544555] Review Request: python-certbot-dns-google - Google Cloud DNS Authenticator plugin for Certbot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544555



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-certbot-dns-google-0.21.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545816] Review Request: perl-CryptX - Cryptographic toolkit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545816



--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar  ---
A different spec file.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544605] Review Request: python-digitalocean - Easy access to Digital Ocean APIs to deploy droplets , images and more

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544605

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-02-15 11:18:31



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-digitalocean-1.13.2-1.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544562] Review Request: python-certbot-dns-route53 - Route53 DNS Authenticator plugin for Certbot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544562

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-02-15 11:18:25



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-certbot-dns-route53-0.21.1-1.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544555] Review Request: python-certbot-dns-google - Google Cloud DNS Authenticator plugin for Certbot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544555

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-02-15 11:18:28



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-certbot-dns-google-0.21.1-1.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545831] Review Request: gawk-abort - Abort library for gawk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545831



--- Comment #1 from Andrew Schorr  ---
This package passes rpmlint, licensecheck, and fedora-review.
A koji build is here:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25047264

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545831] New: Review Request: gawk-abort - Abort library for gawk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545831

Bug ID: 1545831
   Summary: Review Request: gawk-abort - Abort library for gawk
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ajsch...@alumni.princeton.edu
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/rpm-specs/gawk-abort.spec
SRPM URL:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/srpms/gawk-abort-1.0.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description: The gawk-abort module provides a gawk extension library
implementing the abort function.
Fedora Account System Username: ajschorr

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545830] Review Request: gawk-redis - Redis client library for gawk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545830



--- Comment #1 from Andrew Schorr  ---
I have already run rpmlint, licensecheck, and fedora-review on this package,
and I don't see any issues. A koji build is here:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25047703

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545830] New: Review Request: gawk-redis - Redis client library for gawk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545830

Bug ID: 1545830
   Summary: Review Request: gawk-redis - Redis client library for
gawk
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ajsch...@alumni.princeton.edu
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/rpm-specs/gawk-redis.spec
SRPM URL:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/srpms/gawk-redis-1.7.4-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description: The gawk-redis module provides a gawk extension library for
accessing Redis database servers using the hiredis C library API.
Fedora Account System Username: ajschorr

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545816] Review Request: perl-CryptX - Cryptographic toolkit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545816

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||p...@city-fan.org



--- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth  ---
Use of weak deps and EU::MM > 6.75 features makes the spec incompatible with
EPEL-7. Would you want to conditionalize the spec or just maintain a different
spec in an epel7 branch?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1539161] Review Request: moby-engine - The open-source application container engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539161

Lokesh Mandvekar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
   ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1545820



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545816] Review Request: perl-CryptX - Cryptographic toolkit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545816

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
   ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1543336



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545816] New: Review Request: perl-CryptX - Cryptographic toolkit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545816

Bug ID: 1545816
   Summary: Review Request: perl-CryptX - Cryptographic toolkit
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-CryptX/perl-CryptX.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-CryptX/perl-CryptX-0.053-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description:
This Perl library provides a cryptography based on LibTomCrypt library.

ECC support is disabled because it's not yet fully supported by LibTomCrypt.

Fedora Account System Username: ppisar


Please note this package intentionally packages older CryptX release. The
reason is CryptX upstream develops and releases CryptX against developmental
(and forked) LibCryptTom library. LibCryptTom upstream merges the patches more
slowly than CryptX releases new versions. See
 for more details.

Once LibCryptTom merges required changes, I will upgrade perl-CryptX.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1310434] Review Request: python-wxpython4 - new implementation of wxPython (Phoenix)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310434



--- Comment #16 from Miro Hrončok  ---
spec diff shows no changes.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1516117] Review Request: python-hexdump - Dump binary data to hex format and restore from there

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1516117

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-hexdump-3.4-0.2.20160818hg66325cb5fed8.fc27 has been pushed to the
Fedora 27 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-2018-6fccd3a086

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545347] Review Request: microdns - Minimal mDNS resolver and announcer library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545347



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
microdns-0.0.8-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-1a15d7bad0

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1428202] Review Request: sirikali - GUI front end to encfs,cryfs, gocryptfs and securefs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428202

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System  ---
sirikali-1.3.3-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-4e325158b8

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1519323] Review request: qesteidutil - Estonian ID card utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519323

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
qesteidutil-3.12.10-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-54c7a5b01b

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544468] Review Request: fapolicyd - Application Whitelisting Daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468

Marek Tamaskovic  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Comment #13 is|1   |0
private||



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545614] Review Request: golang-github-justinas-alice - Painless middleware chaining for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545614

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Same as before, when you package dev snapshot you need to add the commit
date to the Release field:

%global commit  03f45bd4b7dad4734bc4620e46a35789349abb20
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
%global commitdate  20171023

Name:   golang-%{provider}-%{project}-%{repo}
Version:0
Release:0.1.%{commitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

And in %changelog:

* Tue Feb 13 2018 Kaushal  - 0-0.1.20171023git03f45bd




Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/golang-github-justinas-alice/review-golang-
 github-justinas-alice/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: 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).
[?]: 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

[Bug 1545347] Review Request: microdns - Minimal mDNS resolver and announcer library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545347

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
microdns-0.0.8-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2018-90b401026b

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #39 from Jan Friesse  ---
@digimer:
- You've forgot to update changelog

- For kronosnetd:
  * As was noted in previous comment, please add postun
```
%postun -n kronosnetd
%systemd_postun kronosnetd.service
```
  * Please fix the "%preun -n kronosnetd" section similar way as postun (= no
need to check 0%{?systemd_preun:1})
  * Add %{?systemd_requires} as described in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Systemd

That's all from me.

Some of the @poki comments are still not solved and may be useful:
- License - It took me a while to parse what poki meant, and I can agree with
him that License field may be more specific. So main idea is:
  * License of kronosnetd should be GPLv2+, because it is application
  * License of libknet* should be LGPLv2+, simply because they are libraries

  But let's quickly check with Fabio what he thinks about it.

- Idea of using pkgconfig(foo) seems to be quite nice, could you please give it
a try? (just to recap):
 libqb-devel -> pkgconfig(libqb)
 xz-devel-> pkgconfig(liblzma)
 zlib-devel  -> pkgconfig(zlib)
 bzip2-devel -> pkgconfig(bzip2)
 lz4-devel -> pkgconfig(liblz4)
 nss-devel -> pkgconfig(nss) # We don't need to require on nspr-devel then
 openssl-devel -> pkgconfig(openssl)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544468] Review Request: fapolicyd - Application Whitelisting Daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468



--- Comment #12 from Steve Grubb  ---
(In reply to Marek Tamaskovic from comment #11)
> If the daemon is not required during boot or recovery it is supposed to go
> to /usr/sbin.[1]

This was already moved in last respin. :-) Is there something else wrong?

> And change RPM_BUILD_ROOT variable to macro `%{buildroot}`. It should be
> consistent. Don't mix macros and variables.

I'm not mixing styles. %{buildroot} is not used anywhere, and RPM_BUILD_ROOT is
used once. I prefer using RPM_BUILD_ROOT. The rule is about using both in the
same spec file.

So...are we done? I think everything has been 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545621] Review Request: golang-github-rasky-go-xdr - Implements the XDR standard as specified in RFC 4506 in pure Google Go (Golang)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545621

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - When you package dev snapshot you need to add the commit date to the Release
field:

%global commit  1a41d1a06c93bf8a0e0385be3847a277bb793187
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
%global commitdate  20150914

Name:   golang-%{provider}-%{project}-%{repo}
Version:0
Release:0.1.%{commitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

And in %changelog:

* Tue Feb 13 2018 Kaushal  - 0-0.1.20150914git1a41d1a


Rest of the package is fine.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "ISC", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/golang-
 github-rasky-go-xdr/review-golang-github-rasky-go-xdr/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: 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).
[?]: 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 conta

[Bug 1545611] Review Request: golang-github-spaolacci-murmur3 - Native MurmurHash3 Go implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545611

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1544468] Review Request: fapolicyd - Application Whitelisting Daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544468



--- Comment #11 from Marek Tamaskovic  ---
If the daemon is not required during boot or recovery it is supposed to go to
/usr/sbin.[1]

And change RPM_BUILD_ROOT variable to macro `%{buildroot}`. It should be
consistent. Don't mix macros and variables.


[1] - http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SBINSYSTEMBINARIES

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1540553] Review Request: glusterd2- new management daemon for GlusterFS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540553

Robert-André Mauchin  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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545610] Review Request: golang-github-cespare-xxhash - A Go implementation of the 64-bit xxHash algorithm (XXH64)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545610

Robert-André Mauchin  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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545611] Review Request: golang-github-spaolacci-murmur3 - Native MurmurHash3 Go implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545611

Robert-André Mauchin  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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545611] Review Request: golang-github-spaolacci-murmur3 - Native MurmurHash3 Go implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545611



--- Comment #4 from M. Scherer  ---
Done, I sponsored kaushal.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1545610] Review Request: golang-github-cespare-xxhash - A Go implementation of the 64-bit xxHash algorithm (XXH64)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545610

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package approved.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/golang-github-cespare-xxhash/review-golang-
 github-cespare-xxhash/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: 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).
[?]: 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 tags s