[Bug 1686506] Review Request: wireguard-tools - Fast, modern, secure VPN tunnel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686506 --- Comment #23 from Jason A. Donenfeld --- > I have the ability to sponsor him myself if he'd like when the package is > finalized. Is there any reason for this order of operations? Can we get Joe sponsored and ready to serve as soon as possible rather than waiting for the completion of something he's already involved in? He's played an integral part of WireGuard on Fedora thus far, so it seems like a good thing to keep him in the game moving. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1678623] Review Request: strip-nondeterminism - File non-deterministic information stripper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678623 --- Comment #8 from Sergio Monteiro Basto --- Dridi, you need update strip-nondeterminism.spec according to above mentioned, to continue the review , until Peter approve this package . -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1684934] Review Request: golang-github-roaringbitmap-roaring - Go version of the Roaring bitmap data structure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684934 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-github-RoaringBitmap |golang-github-roaringbitmap |-roaring - Go version of|-roaring - Go version of |the Roaring bitmap data |the Roaring bitmap data |structure |structure --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Thank you: Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/rclone1.45/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00867094-golang-github-roaringbitmap-roaring/golang-github-roaringbitmap-roaring.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/rclone1.45/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00867094-golang-github-roaringbitmap-roaring/golang-github-roaringbitmap-roaring-0.4.16-1.fc31.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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1673125] Review Request: mozilla-iot-gateway - Web of Things gateway
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673125 --- Comment #9 from Troy Dawson --- Spec URL: https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/gateway/mozilla-iot-gateway.spec SRPM URL: https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/gateway/mozilla-iot-gateway-0.7.0-2.fc30.src.rpm I cleaned up more empty files, directories, and permissions. When doing a fedora-review you will see the following, but they need to be in there - hidden-file-or-dir that ends with .bin -- This is a nodejs thing, and they need to be there. - zero-length file that is in a test directory -- These need to be there for tests - zero-length file that is not in a test directory -- I have trimmed out all the zero length files that are not being called by something. -- The ones that are left appear that things would break if they are removed. - useless-provides bundled(...) -- I have a "Provides: bundled() = " for each bundled nodejs module. For some, there is more than one version of a nodejs module. fedora-review strips the version off of each of these, and then complains that there is more than one entry for . -- I can either not have a version on each entry, or I can make it so fedora-review doesn't complain. I was told to keep the version on each entry, and so your fedora-review will have these errors. I believe this package is ready. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687442] Review Request: rust-plugin - Lazily evaluated, order-independent plugins for extensible types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687442 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 --- - add examples/ as %doc - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1531950] Review Request: rust-modifier - Fluid chaining APIs for both mutable ownership types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1531950 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- *** Bug 1687443 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687443] Review Request: rust-modifier - Fluid chaining APIs for both mutable ownership types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687443 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Last Closed||2019-03-12 03:07:32 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Already packaged. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-modifier/ *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1531950 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687440] Review Request: rust-typemap - Typesafe store for many value types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687440 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 --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687402] Review Request: rust-futf - Handling fragments of UTF-8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687402 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 --- - License ok - Latest version packaged Build error: DEBUG util.py:556: Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:02 ago on Tue Mar 12 03:11:18 2019. DEBUG util.py:556: Package rust-mac+default-devel-0.1.1-1.fc31.noarch is already installed. DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: No matching package to install: '(crate(new_debug_unreachable/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(new_debug_unreachable/default) < 2.0.0)' After you send a Review request for new_debug_unreachable: - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687427] Review Request: rust-ammonia - HTML Sanitization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687427 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 --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - Rpmlint errors: fix the end of line encoding: rust-ammonia-devel.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/rust-ammonia-devel/CHANGELOG.md rust-ammonia-devel.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/rust-ammonia-devel/README.md - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687404] Review Request: rust-tendril - Compact buffer/string type for zero-copy parsing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687404 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 --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687411] Review Request: rust-html5ever - High-performance browser-grade HTML5 parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687411 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 --- - add examples/ as %doc - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687287] Review Request: rust-notify - Cross-platform filesystem notification library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687287
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 #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
Test failure:
failures:
create_directory_watch_subdirectories stdout
thread 'create_directory_watch_subdirectories' panicked at 'assertion failed:
`(left == right)`
left: `[("/tmp/temp_dir.BpkuB7S8KNQg/dir1", CREATE, None),
("/tmp/temp_dir.BpkuB7S8KNQg/dir1/dir2", CREATE, None),
("/tmp/temp_dir.BpkuB7S8KNQg/dir1/dir2/file1", CREATE, None),
("/tmp/temp_dir.BpkuB7S8KNQg/dir1/dir2/file1", CLOSE_WRITE, None)]`,
right: `[("/tmp/temp_dir.BpkuB7S8KNQg/dir1", CREATE, None),
("/tmp/temp_dir.BpkuB7S8KNQg/dir1/dir2/file1", CREATE, None),
("/tmp/temp_dir.BpkuB7S8KNQg/dir1/dir2/file1", CLOSE_WRITE, None)]`',
tests/notify.rs:507:9
note: Run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace.
failures:
create_directory_watch_subdirectories
test result: FAILED. 18 passed; 1 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687407] Review Request: rust-markup5ever - Common code for xml5ever and html5ever
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687407 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 --- - Nitpick: dot at the end: %global _description \ Common code for xml5ever and html5ever. - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687386] Review Request: rust-string_cache_shared - Code share between string_cache and string_cache_codegen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687386 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 --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687283] Review Request: rust-inotify-sys - Inotify bindings for the Rust programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687283 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 --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687390] Review Request: rust-precomputed-hash - Library intending to be a base dependency to expose a precomputed hash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687390 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 --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687394] Review Request: rust-string_cache - String interning library for Rust, developed as part of the Servo project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687394 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 --- - License ok - Latest version packaged Build error: DEBUG util.py:556: Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:02 ago on Tue Mar 12 03:01:57 2019. DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: No matching package to install: '(crate(new_debug_unreachable/default) >= 1.0.0 with crate(new_debug_unreachable/default) < 2.0.0)' After you send a Review request for new_debug_unreachable: - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687396] Review Request: rust-mac - Collection of great and ubiqutitous macros
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687396 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 --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - Rpmlint errors, actual spelling mistake: rust-mac.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ubiqutitous -> ubiquitous, iniquitous rust-mac.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ubiqutitous -> ubiquitous, iniquitous - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687387] Review Request: rust-string_cache_codegen - Codegen library for string-cache, developed as part of the Servo project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687387 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 --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687284] Review Request: rust-inotify - Idiomatic wrapper for inotify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687284 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 --- - Nitpick: dot at the end %global _description \ Idiomatic wrapper for inotify. - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1663348] Review Request: blogilo - Blogging Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348 --- Comment #10 from Kevin Kofler --- Thanks! I filed https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8207 to request unretirement. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687624] Review Request: R-udunits2 - Udunits-2 Bindings for R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687624
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 ---
- ask upstream for a license
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION
- Package requires R-core.
= 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/R-udunits2/review-R-
udunits2/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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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
R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
= 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
[Bug 1687624] Review Request: R-udunits2 - Udunits-2 Bindings for R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687624 --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412177 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687620] Review Request: python-biscuits - Fast and tasty cookies handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687620 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1663348] Review Request: blogilo - Blogging Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com | |) | --- Comment #9 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687178] Review Request: python-apprise - Push Notifications that work with just about every platform!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687178 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(fed...@svgames.pl ||) --- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin --- I'll let Artur finish if he wishes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1534052] Review Request: golang-github-mdlayher-netlink - Package netlink provides low-level access to Linux netlink sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1534052 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687620] Review Request: python-biscuits - Fast and tasty cookies handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687620
--- Comment #3 from Eli Young ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2)
> - add a comment explaining what the patch is for
>
> - use a better name for your archive:
>
> Source0:%url/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Comments addressed.
This package built on koji:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33413255
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1663348] Review Request: blogilo - Blogging Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348 Kevin Kofler changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) --- Comment #8 from Kevin Kofler --- Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/kkofler/kannolo/blogilo.git/plain/blogilo.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kkofler/kannolo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00867025-blogilo/blogilo-17.08.3-11.fc31.src.rpm * Tue Mar 12 2019 Kevin Kofler - 17.08.3-11 - Remove obsolete ldconfig scriptlets - Add missing Requires: hicolor-icon-theme - Add missing BuildRequires: gcc-c++ and (explicit) BuildRequires: cmake - Remove duplicate mention of the HTML documentation from the file list Changes: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/kkofler/kannolo/blogilo.git/commit/?id=c4116c63af3963e2ee03f1f687518a84bf40d71c Is this good now? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687335] Review Request: optimizer - Find out what's eating up your system resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687335
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use a better name for your archive:
Source0:%{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Nitpick:
BuildRequires: libappstream-glib
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
- This should not be here:
%exclude %dir %{_prefix}/lib/debug
- There's a rpmlint warning you should probably report upstream:
optimizer.x86_64: W: executable-stack
/usr/bin/com.github.hannesschulze.optimizer
executable-stack:
The binary declares the stack as executable. Executable stack is usually an
error as it is only needed if the code contains GCC trampolines or similar
constructs which uses code on the stack. One common source for needlessly
executable stack cases are object files built from assembler files which don't
define a proper .note.GNU-stack section.
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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16@2/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24@2/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2, /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16@2,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24@2,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2/apps, /usr/share/locale/mo
[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a
[Bug 1687620] Review Request: python-biscuits - Fast and tasty cookies handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687620
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- add a comment explaining what the patch is for
- use a better name for your archive:
Source0:%url/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[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.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
biscuits/review-python-biscuits/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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager
[Bug 1215261] Review Request: pytimeparse - Time expression parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215261 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||elysc...@gmail.com --- Comment #14 from Robert-André Mauchin --- *** Bug 1687619 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687619] Review Request: python-pytimeparse - Time expression parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687619
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2019-03-12 01:05:13
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Source0:
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
→ Source0:%{pypi_source}
- Remove the Python shebang in %prep:
python3-pytimeparse.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pytimeparse/__init__.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-pytimeparse.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pytimeparse/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
python3-pytimeparse.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pytimeparse/tests/__init__.py /usr/bin/env
python
python3-pytimeparse.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pytimeparse/tests/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
python3-pytimeparse.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pytimeparse/tests/testtimeparse.py
/usr/bin/env python
python3-pytimeparse.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pytimeparse/tests/testtimeparse.py 644
/usr/bin/env python
python3-pytimeparse.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pytimeparse/timeparse.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-pytimeparse.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pytimeparse/timeparse.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
The package already exists:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pytimeparse
See if you could do a PR with your SPEC as a basis as it is better than the
current one (%{python3_sitelib}/* is verbotten now for example)
Ask if you could comaintain it maybe.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1215261 ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687178] Review Request: python-apprise - Push Notifications that work with just about every platform!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687178 --- Comment #10 from Chris Caron --- Robert, thanks for your patients, round 4 is a lucky one perhaps? :) SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lead2gold/apprise/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00867003-python-apprise/python-apprise.spec COPR (all building): https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/867003/ epel7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412869 f28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412871 f29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412873 f30: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412875 rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412877 Chris -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687178] Review Request: python-apprise - Push Notifications that work with just about every platform!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687178
--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- In that case you can remove:
%if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} > 7
# This package is not included with EPEL7
# glibc-all-langpacks used for LANG= line in %test reference
# https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_glibc-langpacks-\
# all_from_buildroot#Remove_glibc-all-langpacks_from_buildroot
BuildRequires: glibc-all-langpacks
%endif
- Also drop
Group: Development/Languages
and:
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
like Artur said.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687507] Review Request: python-crayons - Python module for writing colored text to terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687507
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- You should use the Release instead of a dev snapshot equal to the latest
release anyway:
Remove:
%global commit 49bf63188f8d150d9651e562e1a2806e6e196c42
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
Use
Source0:
https://github.com/kennethreitz/crayons/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Add a %changelog
- There is no test provided, remove:
%check
%{__python3} setup.py test
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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-crayons/review-python-
crayons/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[Bug 1687178] Review Request: python-apprise - Push Notifications that work with just about every platform!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687178 --- Comment #8 from Chris Caron --- @Robert, I dropped the .nuxref and changed the LANG= line to reflect your suggestion and there doesn't appear to be any issues. SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lead2gold/apprise/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00866987-python-apprise/python-apprise.spec Koji: epel7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412539 f28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412541 f29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412543 f30: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412545 rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412547 COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lead2gold/apprise/build/866987/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1187030] Review Request: giza - scientific plotting library for C/Fortran
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187030
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 #19 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Assuming:
Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/frieben/giza/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00866796-giza/giza.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/frieben/giza/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00866796-giza/giza-1.1.0-1.fc31.src.rpm
- No need for the non useful macros like this
%{__rm} → rm
- In order to avoid unintentional SONAME bump, please do not glob the major
soname version:
%{_libdir}/*.so.0*
- This is not needed anymore:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets#Upgrade.2Fcompatibility_impact
- add gcc as a BR
- add docs to %doc
- make setup quiet with "%setup -qn %{name}-%{version}" or just "%autosetup"
- I didn't get any issue with parallel building, did you deactivate it because
of race conditions? If not remove:
%global _smp_mflags -j1
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in giza
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Expat License",
"FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License",
"FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "GNU General Public
License". 71 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/giza/review-
giza/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.
[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.
[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 194560 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]:
[Bug 1687624] New: Review Request: R-udunits2 - Udunits-2 Bindings for R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687624 Bug ID: 1687624 Summary: Review Request: R-udunits2 - Udunits-2 Bindings for R Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-udunits2.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-udunits2-0.13-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Provides simple bindings to Unidata's udunits library. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687363] Review Request: python-xlsxwriter - a Python module for writing files in the Excel 2007+ XLSX file format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687363
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Source0:
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/X/%{src_name}/%{src_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
→ Source0: %{pypi_source %src_name}
- Please do not mix tabs and spaces in your SPEC. Use one or another.
- add docs/ and examples/ to %doc
- escape the % in the description:
100%% compatible Excel XLSX files.
(notice the double %)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
"*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (unspecified)". 125 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-xlsxwriter/review-python-
xlsxwriter/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: python3-xlsxwriter (description)
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[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
[Bug 1687352] Review Request: R-dtplyr - Data Table Back-End for 'dplyr'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687352
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 ---
- ask upstream for a license file
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION
= 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/R-dtplyr/review-
R-dtplyr/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
[x]: Package requires R-core.
= 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.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[Bug 1687178] Review Request: python-apprise - Push Notifications that work with just about every platform!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687178 --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Also remove .nuxref in Release: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687178] Review Request: python-apprise - Push Notifications that work with just about every platform!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687178 --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Is LANG=en_US.utf8 mandatory? What happens with LANG=C.UTF-8? I'll let Artur finish the review if he wishes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687620] Review Request: python-biscuits - Fast and tasty cookies handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687620 --- Comment #1 from Eli Young --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33411770 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687178] Review Request: python-apprise - Push Notifications that work with just about every platform!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687178 --- Comment #5 from Chris Caron --- Thank you guys for all your feedback. It was also suggested on the mailing lists to not use flake8 as it's to harsh to fail a %test because of a pep8 issue. I couldn't agree with this more, so i dropped this to just be py.test references instead. I'll satisfy my own PEP8 OCD with travisCI and not with RPMS. I should add that i'm also the developer of this product. So yes i realize i pushed a new version out but supplied you with the last one. It was kind of happening at the same time. I addressed all of the comments you identified above (including the new version reference): Updated Spec: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lead2gold/apprise/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00866973-python-apprise/python-apprise.spec Here is the Koji output: epel7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33411608 f28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33411610 f29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33411612 f30: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33411614 rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33411616 Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lead2gold/apprise/build/866973/ On a side note; the license was recently changed (About a month or so ago) from GPLv3 to MIT. I didn't realize i didn't update this on the header of my SPEC file. I'll update this on the next build. Thank you guys again for all of your feedback! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687620] New: Review Request: python-biscuits - Fast and tasty cookies handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687620 Bug ID: 1687620 Summary: Review Request: python-biscuits - Fast and tasty cookies handling Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: elysc...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://elyscape.fedorapeople.org/pkg-requests/python-biscuits.spec SRPM URL: http://elyscape.fedorapeople.org/pkg-requests/python-biscuits-0.2.1-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Low level API for handling cookies. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687619] Review Request: python-pytimeparse - Time expression parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687619 --- Comment #1 from Eli Young --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33411747 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687619] New: Review Request: python-pytimeparse - Time expression parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687619 Bug ID: 1687619 Summary: Review Request: python-pytimeparse - Time expression parser Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: elysc...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://elyscape.fedorapeople.org/pkg-requests/python-pytimeparse.spec SRPM URL: http://elyscape.fedorapeople.org/pkg-requests/python-pytimeparse-1.1.8-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: A small Python module to parse various kinds of time expressions. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1686506] Review Request: wireguard-tools - Fast, modern, secure VPN tunnel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686506 --- Comment #22 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/wireguard-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/wireguard-tools-0.0.20190227-2.fc31.src.rpm (In reply to Joe Doss from comment #20) > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #18) > > I would not mind some help but currently Joe Doss is not a member of the > > Packager group and would need to be sponsored. He, if he'd like to do so, > > would need to grok the Packaging Guidelines. Currently some minor issues in > > his COPR package make it not pass the Guidelines. (Group: not to be used, > > %defattr(-,root,root,-) %attr(0755, root, root) %clean neither, lack of the > > macros to use parallel building, lack of SystemD macros) > > Getting sponsored shouldn't be an issue. I have been putting it off for some > time now as I was actually going to use wireguard-tools as the package to > get me sponsored. As for the Packaging Guidlines I am well aware of them. I > have been putting off cleaning up the jdoss/wireguard wireguard-tools spec > file to meet the guidelines until I was ready to get this package into > Fedora when WireGuard went into the mainline kernel. You just beat me too > it. :) > > > (In reply to Joe Doss from comment #17) > > > Your response doesn't really address my questions, so let me rephrase: > > > > > > We should make the needed changes between these two packages so we have > > > some > > > sort of path to migrate people to the Fedora package instead of using the > > > one in copr. There are a ton of people using my repo and I want to make > > > sure > > > they have a good experience moving over to this package if this makes it > > > into Fedora. If there are specific changes that need to happen to my > > > spec, I > > > am willing to do so in order to move them off of the wireguard-tools in > > > the > > > copr repo. What changes are needed to ensure end users are taken care of > > > here? > > > > > There's two main problems I'm not sure how to solve: > > > > - your package uses DKMS and requires the DKMS package. Fedora don't accept > > DKMS. Kmods are relegated to RPMFusion. > > I am aware of this Fedora policy. I am simply talking about the > wireguard-tools package. We are going to have to maintain the wireguard-dkms > and wireguard-tools package in copr for the foreseeable future for older > versions of CentOS and RHEL. I can modify my spec to match with yours which > should make it easier to maintain for both userbases. > I intend to provide this for EPEL7 too. > > In providing wireguard-tools in Fedora, before mainlining I plan to soft > > depend on the kmod from RPMFusion. People upgrading from your COPR to Fedora > > would need to remove the DKMS and activate RPMFusion to install the kmod. I > > don't know how many of your users don't have also RPMFusion activated. > > After mainlining, I drop the soft depend. After that point your users would > > probably need to remove the DKMS anyway. > > We shouldn't make switching to the kmod from RPMFusion a requirement, soft > or hard, here at all. Having to enable RPMFusion just for WireGuard is > overkill. That's why I created the copr repo from the start. It's just > WireGuard nothing more. > > If users are fine with using DKMS until WireGuard goes into mainline, we > should just let them stick with it until that time comes and not force the > choice on them. Can we make a soft require for the kmod or wireguard-dkms > here? I would argue that not having any depends makes the upgrade easier on > everyone. It is less than ideal to have to install any third party repo to > install a Fedora package because of an enforced soft/hard requirement. > We could add a boolean dependency but that won't work for RHEL/EPEL/CentOS. > Maybe it is just better to wait until WireGuard goes into the mainline > kernel and Fedora picks it up so we don't need to make any choices here? > That's what I intended to do initially. But it seems Lubomir wants it in early? It would be easier otherwise. > > Or you push an update that de-install itself and remove your COPR in a > > post-upgrade script? I have no idea if this is feasible or how. > > I wouldn't want to make that kind of choice for a user in an RPM. We should > work with Upstream WireGuard to communicate to the Fedora endusers when the > time to make these changes comes. > > > > Also, to be more to the point. Upstream very much enjoys the swiftness of > > > new package bumps and thorough testing, when they're making new releases. > > > Are you available to do these as diligently and quickly as the large > > > userbase has grown to expect? If not, do you want help? I have maintained > > > this my copr repo as the official Fedora for the WireGuard project since > > > 2016 and I am thrilled that someone else has taken the time to push it > > > into > > > Fedora proper. I don't mind continuing to do so if you want
[Bug 1658199] Review Request: netatalk - Open Source Apple Filing Protocol(AFP) File Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1658199 --- Comment #48 from Fedora Update System --- netatalk-3.1.12-4.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-2019-075ee1a840 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1686506] Review Request: wireguard-tools - Fast, modern, secure VPN tunnel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686506 Dusty Mabe changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dustym...@redhat.com --- Comment #21 from Dusty Mabe --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #18) > > I would not mind some help but currently Joe Doss is not a member of the > Packager group and would need to be sponsored. Once this package is past review we can get him added to the packager group pretty easy. Robert-André you'll need to open a ticket against the packager sponsors pagure instance [1] stating that you are a package owner who would jdoss to co-maintain your package. Then he will get sponsored as a packer. This was pulled from [2]. [1] https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/ [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Become_a_co-maintainer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1686506] Review Request: wireguard-tools - Fast, modern, secure VPN tunnel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686506 --- Comment #20 from Joe Doss --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #18) > I would not mind some help but currently Joe Doss is not a member of the > Packager group and would need to be sponsored. He, if he'd like to do so, > would need to grok the Packaging Guidelines. Currently some minor issues in > his COPR package make it not pass the Guidelines. (Group: not to be used, > %defattr(-,root,root,-) %attr(0755, root, root) %clean neither, lack of the > macros to use parallel building, lack of SystemD macros) Getting sponsored shouldn't be an issue. I have been putting it off for some time now as I was actually going to use wireguard-tools as the package to get me sponsored. As for the Packaging Guidlines I am well aware of them. I have been putting off cleaning up the jdoss/wireguard wireguard-tools spec file to meet the guidelines until I was ready to get this package into Fedora when WireGuard went into the mainline kernel. You just beat me too it. :) > (In reply to Joe Doss from comment #17) > > Your response doesn't really address my questions, so let me rephrase: > > > > We should make the needed changes between these two packages so we have some > > sort of path to migrate people to the Fedora package instead of using the > > one in copr. There are a ton of people using my repo and I want to make sure > > they have a good experience moving over to this package if this makes it > > into Fedora. If there are specific changes that need to happen to my spec, I > > am willing to do so in order to move them off of the wireguard-tools in the > > copr repo. What changes are needed to ensure end users are taken care of > > here? > > > There's two main problems I'm not sure how to solve: > > - your package uses DKMS and requires the DKMS package. Fedora don't accept > DKMS. Kmods are relegated to RPMFusion. I am aware of this Fedora policy. I am simply talking about the wireguard-tools package. We are going to have to maintain the wireguard-dkms and wireguard-tools package in copr for the foreseeable future for older versions of CentOS and RHEL. I can modify my spec to match with yours which should make it easier to maintain for both userbases. > In providing wireguard-tools in Fedora, before mainlining I plan to soft > depend on the kmod from RPMFusion. People upgrading from your COPR to Fedora > would need to remove the DKMS and activate RPMFusion to install the kmod. I > don't know how many of your users don't have also RPMFusion activated. > After mainlining, I drop the soft depend. After that point your users would > probably need to remove the DKMS anyway. We shouldn't make switching to the kmod from RPMFusion a requirement, soft or hard, here at all. Having to enable RPMFusion just for WireGuard is overkill. That's why I created the copr repo from the start. It's just WireGuard nothing more. If users are fine with using DKMS until WireGuard goes into mainline, we should just let them stick with it until that time comes and not force the choice on them. Can we make a soft require for the kmod or wireguard-dkms here? I would argue that not having any depends makes the upgrade easier on everyone. It is less than ideal to have to install any third party repo to install a Fedora package because of an enforced soft/hard requirement. Maybe it is just better to wait until WireGuard goes into the mainline kernel and Fedora picks it up so we don't need to make any choices here? > Or you push an update that de-install itself and remove your COPR in a > post-upgrade script? I have no idea if this is feasible or how. I wouldn't want to make that kind of choice for a user in an RPM. We should work with Upstream WireGuard to communicate to the Fedora endusers when the time to make these changes comes. > > Also, to be more to the point. Upstream very much enjoys the swiftness of > > new package bumps and thorough testing, when they're making new releases. > > Are you available to do these as diligently and quickly as the large > > userbase has grown to expect? If not, do you want help? I have maintained > > this my copr repo as the official Fedora for the WireGuard project since > > 2016 and I am thrilled that someone else has taken the time to push it into > > Fedora proper. I don't mind continuing to do so if you want to collaborate > > on it together. > > I keep up daily except for January: > https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/wireguard.git/ > I follow the ML so I get the release on the day or morning after. Of course > more eyes and maintainers are always appreciated. Sounds good. I will get my Packager status sorted out and we can figure out the best path for this stuff together. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list --
[Bug 1686418] Review Request: R-ncdf4 - Interface to Unidata netCDF (Version 4 or Earlier) Format Data Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686418 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- R-ncdf4-1.16.1-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-44c5b5301f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1686418] Review Request: R-ncdf4 - Interface to Unidata netCDF (Version 4 or Earlier) Format Data Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686418 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- R-ncdf4-1.16.1-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-21647cf3b9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687343] Review Request: R-dbplyr - A 'dplyr' Back End for Databases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687343
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
Issues:
===
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :doc, DESCRIPTION
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 165 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/R-dbplyr/review-R-dbplyr/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
[x]: Package requires R-core.
= 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.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file
[Bug 1686506] Review Request: wireguard-tools - Fast, modern, secure VPN tunnel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686506 --- Comment #19 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Tibbs on IRC set me this guideline: Epochs from Third Party Repositories If a package to be imported is or previously was present in a publicly accessible repository, the packager can optionally include an Epoch tag equal to that of the most recent version of the third-party package. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_epochs_from_third_party_repositories So Epoch it is. Still need to tell your users to use RPMFusion somehow. It would be nice to test if the DKMS is automatically removed to. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1686506] Review Request: wireguard-tools - Fast, modern, secure VPN tunnel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686506 --- Comment #18 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to Jason A. Donenfeld from comment #16) > > - or keeping wireguard as a meta package > > If you'd like to have a "wireguard" meta package, *in addition to the > wireguard-tools package*, that's totally fine with me. There might indeed at > some point be other things that get included in there. kmod(wireguard.ko) > seems like it'd make sense, for example. > I'll see what I can do. > > > > From Joe: > > You beat me to it. If you want someone to help co-maintain this package, > > please let me know. > > I'd actually strongly recommend adding Joe as a co-maintainer. He > understands the project extremely well, has been with us packaging it from > the beginning, and is pretty much an ideal maintainer. We've got a good > working relationship, so as weird quirks upstream come up, I'm pretty > confident Joe can roll with doing the right thing on the packaging side. I would not mind some help but currently Joe Doss is not a member of the Packager group and would need to be sponsored. He, if he'd like to do so, would need to grok the Packaging Guidelines. Currently some minor issues in his COPR package make it not pass the Guidelines. (Group: not to be used, %defattr(-,root,root,-) %attr(0755, root, root) %clean neither, lack of the macros to use parallel building, lack of SystemD macros) (In reply to Joe Doss from comment #17) > Your response doesn't really address my questions, so let me rephrase: > > We should make the needed changes between these two packages so we have some > sort of path to migrate people to the Fedora package instead of using the > one in copr. There are a ton of people using my repo and I want to make sure > they have a good experience moving over to this package if this makes it > into Fedora. If there are specific changes that need to happen to my spec, I > am willing to do so in order to move them off of the wireguard-tools in the > copr repo. What changes are needed to ensure end users are taken care of > here? > There's two main problems I'm not sure how to solve: - your package uses DKMS and requires the DKMS package. Fedora don't accept DKMS. Kmods are relegated to RPMFusion. In providing wireguard-tools in Fedora, before mainlining I plan to soft depend on the kmod from RPMFusion. People upgrading from your COPR to Fedora would need to remove the DKMS and activate RPMFusion to install the kmod. I don't know how many of your users don't have also RPMFusion activated. After mainlining, I drop the soft depend. After that point your users would probably need to remove the DKMS anyway. - the Epoch thing: this prevents any transition from your COPR to the Fedora package. I don't want to set an Epoch: 2 on a new package. I don't know if removing it from your end would do something? If you remove your Epoch a dnf update would not pick up the new package because it would be considered lower than the current one. AFAIK only a distro-sync could bypass that I think but I don't see how you could communicate with all your users to tell them to do a distro-sync. And if you could, best would be to tell them to remove the package, deactivate your COPR, and install the one from Fedora. See the conundrum? I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed. Or you push an update that de-install itself and remove your COPR in a post-upgrade script? I have no idea if this is feasible or how. > Also, to be more to the point. Upstream very much enjoys the swiftness of > new package bumps and thorough testing, when they're making new releases. > Are you available to do these as diligently and quickly as the large > userbase has grown to expect? If not, do you want help? I have maintained > this my copr repo as the official Fedora for the WireGuard project since > 2016 and I am thrilled that someone else has taken the time to push it into > Fedora proper. I don't mind continuing to do so if you want to collaborate > on it together. I keep up daily except for January: https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/wireguard.git/ I follow the ML so I get the release on the day or morning after. Of course more eyes and maintainers are always appreciated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 866265] Review Request: opentrep - C++ API for parsing travel-focused requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866265 --- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System --- opentrep-0.07.1-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1685068] Review Request: libxls - Read binary Excel files from C/C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1685068 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- libxls-1.5.0-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-129e28c44d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1658199] Review Request: netatalk - Open Source Apple Filing Protocol(AFP) File Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1658199 --- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System --- netatalk-3.1.12-4.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-21582c2da7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687274] Review Request: R-measurements - Tools for Units of Measurement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687274
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 ---
- ask upstream for a license
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION, NEWS
= 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/R-measurements/review-R-
measurements/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
[x]: Package requires R-core.
= 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[Bug 1686506] Review Request: wireguard-tools - Fast, modern, secure VPN tunnel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686506 --- Comment #17 from Joe Doss --- Your response doesn't really address my questions, so let me rephrase: We should make the needed changes between these two packages so we have some sort of path to migrate people to the Fedora package instead of using the one in copr. There are a ton of people using my repo and I want to make sure they have a good experience moving over to this package if this makes it into Fedora. If there are specific changes that need to happen to my spec, I am willing to do so in order to move them off of the wireguard-tools in the copr repo. What changes are needed to ensure end users are taken care of here? Also, to be more to the point. Upstream very much enjoys the swiftness of new package bumps and thorough testing, when they're making new releases. Are you available to do these as diligently and quickly as the large userbase has grown to expect? If not, do you want help? I have maintained this my copr repo as the official Fedora for the WireGuard project since 2016 and I am thrilled that someone else has taken the time to push it into Fedora proper. I don't mind continuing to do so if you want to collaborate on it together. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1686506] Review Request: wireguard-tools - Fast, modern, secure VPN tunnel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686506 --- Comment #16 from Jason A. Donenfeld --- > - or keeping wireguard as a meta package If you'd like to have a "wireguard" meta package, *in addition to the wireguard-tools package*, that's totally fine with me. There might indeed at some point be other things that get included in there. kmod(wireguard.ko) seems like it'd make sense, for example. > We can do "Recommends: kmod(wireguard.ko)" until it is mainlined, which will > hopefully be soon. > @Jason, has there been any progress on getting WireGuard mainlined? Yes, working on it! From Joe: > You beat me to it. If you want someone to help co-maintain this package, > please let me know. I'd actually strongly recommend adding Joe as a co-maintainer. He understands the project extremely well, has been with us packaging it from the beginning, and is pretty much an ideal maintainer. We've got a good working relationship, so as weird quirks upstream come up, I'm pretty confident Joe can roll with doing the right thing on the packaging side. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1658199] Review Request: netatalk - Open Source Apple Filing Protocol(AFP) File Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1658199 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System --- netatalk-3.1.12-4.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2019-3309bc7797 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687178] Review Request: python-apprise - Push Notifications that work with just about every platform!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687178 --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Also 0.7.4 was released this past day. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687178] Review Request: python-apprise - Push Notifications that work with just about every platform!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687178 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Also LICENSE files must be included with %license not %doc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687260] Review Request: R-NISTunits - Fundamental Physical Constants and Unit Conversions from NIST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687260
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 ---
- ask upstream for a license file
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION
= 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 921 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/R-NISTunits/review-R-
NISTunits/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
[x]: Package requires R-core.
= 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]:
[Bug 1687235] Review Request: R-qpdf - Split, Combine and Compress PDF Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687235
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 ---
- ask upstream for a license file
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION, NEWS
- Package requires R-core.
= 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated".
13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/R-qpdf/review-R-qpdf/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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
= 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} =
[Bug 1686506] Review Request: wireguard-tools - Fast, modern, secure VPN tunnel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686506 --- Comment #15 from Robert-André Mauchin --- The problem with your package is that it set Epoch: to 1 so it will always be picked up over the Fedora package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1686506] Review Request: wireguard-tools - Fast, modern, secure VPN tunnel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686506 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: wireguard - |Review Request: |Fast, modern, secure VPN|wireguard-tools - Fast, |tunnel |modern, secure VPN tunnel Flags|needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com | |) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687216] Review Request: R-readxl - Read Excel Files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687216
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 ---
- ask upstream for a license file
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :doc, DESCRIPTION
- Package requires R-core.
= 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License".
159 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/R-readxl/review-R-readxl/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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
= 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.
[Bug 1686506] Review Request: wireguard - Fast, modern, secure VPN tunnel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686506 Joe Doss changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com Flags|needinfo?(j...@solidadmin.co |needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com |m) |) |needinfo?(ja...@zx2c4.com) | --- Comment #14 from Joe Doss --- @Robert-André Mauchin thanks for pushing this forward. You beat me to it. If you want someone to help co-maintain this package, please let me know. Also, how will this package handle users that have installed wireguard-tools from my copr repo? Is there something we can do either in this spec file or in mine that would ensure that we don't have any conflicts between the two? I rather not have users get any errors when this goes upstream into Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1667661] Review Request: python-astunparse - An AST unparser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667661 --- Comment #11 from Miro Hrončok --- Don't worry about it, this is not time critical. I'll bump the upstream issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1659556] Review Request: cockpit-composer - Composer GUI for use with Cockpit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1659556 --- Comment #27 from Martin Pitt --- Anthony, the first push needs to happen manually. From then on, the cockpituous bot will do releases automatically. Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1667661] Review Request: python-astunparse - An AST unparser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667661 --- Comment #10 from Patrik Kopkan --- It is quite while since posting issue on github. From my understanding python-gast need python-astunparse for tests right ? If so is there option that to drop tests ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1659556] Review Request: cockpit-composer - Composer GUI for use with Cockpit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1659556 --- Comment #26 from Anthony McInerney --- I've added martinpitt as admin and cockpit as commit access. Is the package going to be pushed automagically, or do i grab the srpm and commit it? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1659556] Review Request: cockpit-composer - Composer GUI for use with Cockpit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1659556 --- Comment #25 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cockpit-composer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687217] Review Request: ttyd - is a simple command-line tool for sharing terminal over the web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687217
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Simplify the Source0:
Source0:
https://github.com/tsl0922/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- The LICENSE file must be included with %license not %doc
- Split the description to stay under 80 characters per line:
ttyd.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C ttyd is a simple command-line tool
for sharing terminal over the web, inspired by GoTTY.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "Apache License
(v2.0)", "GNU General Public License (v2)". 48 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/ttyd/review-ttyd/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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
[Bug 1687507] New: Review Request: python-crayons - Python module for writing colored text to terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687507 Bug ID: 1687507 Summary: Review Request: python-crayons - Python module for writing colored text to terminal Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pkop...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/python-vistir/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00866817-python-crayons/python-crayons.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/python-vistir/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00866817-python-crayons/python-crayons-0.2.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: This module provides a simple and elegant wrapper for colorama. Fedora Account System Username: pkopkan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1659556] Review Request: cockpit-composer - Composer GUI for use with Cockpit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1659556 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Assignee|msu...@redhat.com |zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #24 from Miro Hrončok --- Yes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1665303] Review Request: rtv - A simple terminal viewer for Reddit (Reddit Terminal Viewer)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665303 --- Comment #12 from Ben Rosser --- Yes, sorry. The Rawhide build was still failing the last time I looked at this (about a week ago)-- I think because even though praw 3.6.2 had been built, there were compose failures. Anyway, it's working now! Here's a version of rtv with praw unbundled (and also with rtv updated to the latest release). Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tc01/rtv/fedora-29-x86_64/00866833-rtv/rtv.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tc01/rtv/fedora-29-x86_64/00866833-rtv/rtv-1.26.0-1.fc29.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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1659556] Review Request: cockpit-composer - Composer GUI for use with Cockpit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1659556 --- Comment #23 from Anthony McInerney --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10279#comment-559461 The review is not approved by the assignee of the Bugzilla bug Metadata Update from @limb: - Issue close_status updated to: Invalid - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open) 2 hours ago bofh80 commented an hour ago Status: NEW → POST Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org → zebo...@gmail.com Flags: fedora-review+ It was assigned to zebob.m to approve the package. It was then assigned to miroslav to approve me the packager. What's best here. to reassign to zebob.m? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1671790] Review Request: python-vistir - python library including utility functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671790 --- Comment #20 from Miro Hrončok --- > Interesting difference could be bumped version of setuptools because of that > it won't be build successfully in fedora 29. The version in Fedora 29 is too low? See https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-0bf6b7eaf9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687217] Review Request: ttyd - is a simple command-line tool for sharing terminal over the web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687217 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- This is your first package, you'll need to find a sponsor. Blocking 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687122] Review Request: gap-pkg-jupyterkernel - Jupyter kernel written in GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687122
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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 69
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/gap-pkg-jupyterkernel/review-gap-pkg-
jupyterkernel/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.
[x]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gap-pkg-
jupyterkernel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages
[Bug 1671790] Review Request: python-vistir - python library including utility functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671790 --- Comment #19 from Patrik Kopkan --- Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/python-vistir/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00866815-python-vistir/python-vistir.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkopkan/python-vistir/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00866815-python-vistir/python-vistir-0.3.1-1.fc31.src.rpm Test passed. I deleted patch0 and build require for python-cursor. Interesting difference could be bumped version of setuptools because of that it won't be build successfully in fedora 29. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687062] Review Request: rust-heatseeker - Fast, robust, and portable fuzzy finder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687062 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-03-11 14:46:29 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1187030] Review Request: giza - scientific plotting library for C/Fortran
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187030 --- Comment #18 from Joachim Frieben --- Updated packages for the current release giza-1.1.0 are now available at COPR via 'dnf copr enable frieben/giza'. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1653209] Review Request: deepin-clone - Disk and partition backup/restore tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653209 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- deepin-clone-1.1.0-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-26a91c6899 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1685270] Review request: git-secret - A bash-tool to store your private data inside a git repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1685270 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- git-secret-0.2.5-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-7845890e44 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1685068] Review Request: libxls - Read binary Excel files from C/C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1685068 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- libxls-1.5.0-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-9c37a50dbd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1686788] Review Request: perl-GIS-Distance - Calculate geographic distances
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686788 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-GIS-Distance-0.11-1.fc |perl-GIS-Distance-0.11-2.fc |31 |31 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar --- Bootstrap finished in perl-GIS-Distance-0.11-2.fc31. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1686841] Review Request: perl-GIS-Distance-Fast - C implementation of GIS::Distance formulas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686841 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-GIS-Distance-Fast-0.10 ||-1.fc31 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-03-11 14:29:49 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687450] Review Request: perl-FFI-Platypus - Write Perl bindings to non-Perl libraries with FFI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687450 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jples...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1686788] Review Request: perl-GIS-Distance - Calculate geographic distances
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686788 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-GIS-Distance-0.11-1.fc ||31 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-03-11 14:17:05 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1686841] Review Request: perl-GIS-Distance-Fast - C implementation of GIS::Distance formulas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686841 Bug 1686841 depends on bug 1686788, which changed state. Bug 1686788 Summary: Review Request: perl-GIS-Distance - Calculate geographic distances https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686788 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1686788] Review Request: perl-GIS-Distance - Calculate geographic distances
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686788 Bug 1686788 depends on bug 1686753, which changed state. Bug 1686753 Summary: Review Request: perl-Class-Measure - Create, compare and convert units of measurement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686753 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1686753] Review Request: perl-Class-Measure - Create, compare and convert units of measurement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686753 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Class-Measure-0.06-1.f ||c31 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-03-11 14:03:02 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687450] New: Review Request: perl-FFI-Platypus - Write Perl bindings to non-Perl libraries with FFI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687450 Bug ID: 1687450 Summary: Review Request: perl-FFI-Platypus - Write Perl bindings to non-Perl libraries with FFI Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW 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 Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-FFI-Platypus/perl-FFI-Platypus.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-FFI-Platypus/perl-FFI-Platypus-0.86-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Platypus is a Perl library for creating interfaces to machine code libraries written in languages like C, C++, Fortran, Rust, Pascal. Essentially anything that gets compiled into machine code. This implementation uses libffi to accomplish this task. libffi is battle tested by a number of other scripting and virtual machine languages, such as Python and Ruby to serve a similar role. There are a number of reasons why you might want to write an extension with Platypus instead of XS. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
