[Bug 1874138] Mass Review Request: deaggregate xorg-x11-server-utils

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874138



--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin   ---
# xhost

 - Bump to 1.0.8

 - Install the license file with %license in files. Add the docs too.

%files
%license COPYING
%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog README
%{_bindir}/xhost
%{_mandir}/man1/xhost.1*

 - Please add a proper description:

xhost.x86_64: E: no-description-tag
xhost.src: E: no-description-tag


Package not yet approved. Send an updated SPEC.



Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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.
[!]: 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", "ICU License", "FSF All Permissive
 License", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)
 [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
 [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF
 Unlimited License [generated file]", "Expat License [generated file]".
 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/xhost/review-xhost/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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

= 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.
[!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
 publishes signatures.
 

[Bug 1874412] Review Request: perl-PDF-API2-XS - Optional PDF::API2 add-on using XS to speed up expensive operations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874412



--- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
Updated

Spec URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-PDF-API2-XS/perl-PDF-API2-XS.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-PDF-API2-XS/perl-PDF-API2-XS-1.001-2.fc34.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1872867] Review Request: stalld - thread stall detector

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872867



--- Comment #16 from Clark Williams  ---
Done. Pushed new spec/srpm to fedorapeople.org and have PR out on main source
repo


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1826355] Review Request: python-dicttoxml - Simple library to convert a Python dictionary or other native data type into a valid XML string.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826355

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch
  Flags||needinfo?(siddharthvipul1@g
   ||mail.com)



--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter  ---
Can you please build this package? 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1815429] Review Request: python-readability - Measure the readability of a given text using surface characteristics

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815429



--- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter  ---
This package was never build.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1874138] Mass Review Request: deaggregate xorg-x11-server-utils

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874138



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin   ---
# xgamma

 - Install the license file with %license in files. Add the docs too.

%files
%license COPYING
%doc ChangeLog README
%{_bindir}/xgamma
%{_mandir}/man1/xgamma.1*

Package not yet approved. Send an updated SPEC.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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.
[!]: 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: "NTP License (legal disclaimer) Expat License", "Unknown or
 generated", "FSF All Permissive License", "NTP License (legal
 disclaimer)", "NTP License (legal disclaimer) [generated file]", "FSF
 Unlimited License (with Retention) [generated file]", "GNU General
 Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public
 License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]",
 "Expat License [generated file]", "Expat License", "[generated file]".
 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/xgamma/review-xgamma/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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

= 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.
[!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
 

[Bug 1720860] Review Request: haystack - A process heap analysis framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1720860



--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter  ---
There is not much action from upstream visible. Looks like that upstream is
dead.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1874138] Mass Review Request: deaggregate xorg-x11-server-utils

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874138



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin   ---
# sessreg

 - Install the license file with %license in files. Add the docs too.

%files
%license COPYING
%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog README.md
%{_bindir}/sessreg
%{_mandir}/man1/sessreg.1*

 - Fix the changelog entry:

sessreg.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.0-1 ['1.1.2-1.fc34',
'1.1.2-1']

* Thu Aug 27 2020 Adam Jackson  - 1.1.2-1


Package not yet approved. Send an updated SPEC.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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.
[!]: 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", "FSF All Permissive License", "NTP
 License (legal disclaimer)", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)
 [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General
 Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public
 License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License
 v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Expat
 License [generated file]", "[generated file]". 10 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/sessreg/review-sessreg/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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.
[-]: 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

= 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.

[Bug 1874450] New: Review Request: golang-github-brocaar-chirpstack-api - Chirpstack Go API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874450

Bug ID: 1874450
   Summary: Review Request: golang-github-brocaar-chirpstack-api -
Chirpstack Go API
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-brocaar-chirpstack-api.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-brocaar-chirpstack-api-3.7.7-1.fc32.src.rpm

Project URL: https://github.com/brocaar/chirpstack-api

Description:
ChirpStack gRPC API message and service wrappers for Go.

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50559215

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint golang-github-brocaar-chirpstack-api-3.7.7-1.fc32.src.rpm 
golang-github-brocaar-chirpstack-api.src: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US gRPC -> grep
golang-github-brocaar-chirpstack-api.src: W: no-%build-section
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

$ rpmlint golang-github-brocaar-chirpstack-api-devel-3.7.7-1.fc32.noarch.rpm 
golang-github-brocaar-chirpstack-api-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error
%description -l en_US gRPC -> grep
golang-github-brocaar-chirpstack-api-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/brocaar/chirpstack-api/.goipath
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1874443] Review Request: python-chirpstack-api - Chirpstack Python API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874443

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1269538 (IoT)
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value



Spec URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-chirpstack-api.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-chirpstack-api-3.7.7-1.fc32.src.rpm

Project URL: https://github.com/brocaar/chirpstack-api

Description:
ChirpStack gRPC API message and service wrappers for Python.

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50557381

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint python-chirpstack-api-3.7.7-1.fc32.src.rpm 
python-chirpstack-api.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gRPC -> grep
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint python3-chirpstack-api-3.7.7-1.fc32.noarch.rpm 
python3-chirpstack-api.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gRPC ->
grep
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1874058] Review Request: logiops - Unofficial driver for Logitech mice and keyboard

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874058



--- Comment #4 from Nicolas De Amicis  ---
Thanks Robert-André, I modified the spec file as requested.

Could you review again :-) ?


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1874138] Mass Review Request: deaggregate xorg-x11-server-utils

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874138



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin   ---
# rgb

 - Install the license file with %license in files. Add the docs too.

%files
%license COPYING
%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog README
%{_bindir}/showrgb
%{_datadir}/X11/rgb.txt
%{_mandir}/man1/showrgb.1*

Package not yet approved. Send an updated SPEC.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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.
[!]: 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", "FSF All Permissive License",
 "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) [generated
 file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]",
 "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License
 [generated file]", "Expat License [generated file]". 17 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/rgb/review-rgb/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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

= 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.
[!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
 publishes signatures.
 Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 

[Bug 1874412] Review Request: perl-PDF-API2-XS - Optional PDF::API2 add-on using XS to speed up expensive operations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874412



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
URL and Source0 addresses are usable. Ok.
Source0 archive (SHA-256:
2d3ff090899f7ea348e616581508f692a664bca84ff1eb59e409c67f851a9db2) is original.
Ok.
Summary verified from lib/PDF/API2/XS.pm. Ok.
Description verified from lib/PDF/API2/XS.pm. Ok.

FIX: The license tag (LGPLv2+) not accurate. These files declare a license:

lib/PDF/API2/XS.pm: LGPLv2+
LICENSE:LGPLv2
Makefile.PL:LGPLv2
README: LGPLv2

Thus the license tag should be 'LGPLv2+ and LGPLv2'. I believe it's a
upstream's mistake , but
until clarified, please use the more complicated license tag.

TODO: Build-require 'coreutils' (perl-PDF-API2-XS.spec:40).

Test::Perl::Critic, and Test::Pod are not used. Ok.
All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-PDF-API2-XS.spec ../SRPMS/perl-PDF-API2-XS-1.001-1.fc34.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/perl-PDF-API2-XS-*
sh: /usr/bin/python2: No such file or directory
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-PDF-API2-XS-1.001-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep  1 13:32
/usr/lib/.build-id
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep  1 13:32
/usr/lib/.build-id/56
lrwxrwxrwx1 root root   77 Sep  1 13:32
/usr/lib/.build-id/56/7b3010baf7fde1cec604803fbbf9caa104f307 ->
../../../../usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/PDF/API2/XS/ImagePNG/ImagePNG.so
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep  1 13:32
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/PDF
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep  1 13:32
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/PDF/API2
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep  1 13:32
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/PDF/API2/XS
-rw-r--r--1 root root 1012 Aug 31 17:39
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/PDF/API2/XS.pm
-rw-r--r--1 root root  216 Aug 31 17:39
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/PDF/API2/XS/ImagePNG.pm
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep  1 13:32
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/PDF
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep  1 13:32
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/PDF/API2
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep  1 13:32
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/PDF/API2/XS
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep  1 13:32
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/PDF/API2/XS/ImagePNG
-rwxr-xr-x1 root root15264 Sep  1 13:32
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/PDF/API2/XS/ImagePNG/ImagePNG.so
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep  1 13:32
/usr/share/doc/perl-PDF-API2-XS
-rw-r--r--1 root root  252 Aug 31 17:39
/usr/share/doc/perl-PDF-API2-XS/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 root root  372 Aug 31 17:39
/usr/share/doc/perl-PDF-API2-XS/README
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep  1 13:32
/usr/share/licenses/perl-PDF-API2-XS
-rw-r--r--1 root root24656 Aug 31 17:39
/usr/share/licenses/perl-PDF-API2-XS/LICENSE
-rw-r--r--1 root root 1588 Sep  1 13:32
/usr/share/man/man3/PDF::API2::XS.3pm.gz
File layout and permissions are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-PDF-API2-XS-1.001-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
| sort -f | uniq -c
  1 libc.so.6()(64bit)
  1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
  1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
  1 libperl.so.5.32()(64bit)
  1 libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.32.0)
  1 perl(Exporter)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 perl(XSLoader)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
  1 rtld(GNU_HASH)
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-PDF-API2-XS-1.001-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
| sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(PDF::API2::XS) = 1.001
  1 perl(PDF::API2::XS::ImagePNG) = 1.001
  1 perl-PDF-API2-XS = 1.001-1.fc34
  1 perl-PDF-API2-XS(x86-64) = 1.001-1.fc34
Binary provides are Ok.

$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-PDF-API2-XS-1.001-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 
Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok.

The package builds in Fedora 34
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50558120). Ok.

Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.
Please correct the 'FIX' item, consider fixing the 'TODO' item, and provide a
new spec file.
Resolution: NOT 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 

[Bug 1874138] Mass Review Request: deaggregate xorg-x11-server-utils

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874138



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

Package approved.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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]: 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", "FSF All Permissive License", "NTP
 License (legal disclaimer)", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)
 [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General
 Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public
 License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License
 v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Expat
 License [generated file]", "[generated file]". 9 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/iceauth/review-iceauth/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: 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

= 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.
[!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
 publishes signatures.
 Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if 

[Bug 1874443] New: Review Request: python-chirpstack-api - Chirpstack Python API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874443

Bug ID: 1874443
   Summary: Review Request: python-chirpstack-api - Chirpstack
Python API
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1874412] Review Request: perl-PDF-API2-XS - Optional PDF::API2 add-on using XS to speed up expensive operations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874412

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ppi...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1874058] Review Request: logiops - Unofficial driver for Logitech mice and keyboard

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874058



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin   ---
 - BR systemd-rpm-macros

 - %{_exec_prefix}/lib/systemd/system/logid.service → %{_unitdir}/logid.service

 - Add the systemd scriptlets. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd

%post
%systemd_post logid.service

%preun
%systemd_preun logid.service

%postun
%systemd_postun_with_restart logid.service

 - License: GPL v3 → License: GPLv3

 - %{cmake} call should be at the beginning of %build, not in %prep

 - Use a more specific name for your archive. Also we usually work with tar.gz
in Linux

Source0: https://github.com/PixlOne/logiops/archive/v%{version}.zip

→

Source0:
https://github.com/PixlOne/logiops/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

 - Please add your email to your changelog entry:

* Mon Aug 31 2020 Nicolas De Amicis  - 0.2.2-1


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1874058] Review Request: logiops - Unofficial driver for Logitech mice and keyboard

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874058



--- Comment #2 from Nicolas De Amicis  ---
Thanks for the review.

I made the changes. Could you please review the package again?


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1874149] Review Request: golang-github-openprinting-goipp - Implementation of IPP in Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874149



--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
Thanks for the 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1874412] New: Review Request: perl-PDF-API2-XS - Optional PDF::API2 add-on using XS to speed up expensive operations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874412

Bug ID: 1874412
   Summary: Review Request: perl-PDF-API2-XS - Optional PDF::API2
add-on using XS to speed up expensive operations
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jples...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-PDF-API2-XS/perl-PDF-API2-XS.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-PDF-API2-XS/perl-PDF-API2-XS-1.001-1.fc34.src.rpm

Description:
PDF::API2 will make use of this distribution, if it's installed, to speed
up some operations that are significantly faster in C than in Perl.

Fedora Account System Username: jples...@redhat.com


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 810049] Review Request: netbeans-ide - Netbeans Integrated Development Environment (IDE)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049

Neha Sharma  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||extras...@fedoraproject.org
   ||, nehaservic...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(extras-qa@fedorap
   ||roject.org)
   ||needinfo?(nehaservice29@gma
   ||il.com)
   ||needinfo?(oma...@redhat.com
   ||)



--- Comment #171 from Neha Sharma  ---
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>Escorts In Gurgaon
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>delhi russian escorts
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>aerocity escort
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>delhi model escorts
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>russian escorts
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>escorts in aerocity
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>mahipalpur escorts
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>independent escort in gurgaon
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>female escort in gurgaon
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>russian escorts in gurgaon
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>escort service in gurgaon
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>escort girls in gurgaon
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>gurgaon-call-girls/
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>call-girls-in-delhi/
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>call-girls-in-gurgaon/
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>call-girls-in-noida/
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>gurgaon-escort/
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>gurugram-escorts/
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>gurgaon-escorts-agency/
https://escortgurgaon.in/;>contact-me/


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1874397] New: Review Request: rubygem-rchardet - Character encoding auto-detection in Ruby

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874397

Bug ID: 1874397
   Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rchardet - Character encoding
auto-detection in Ruby
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: steve.tray...@cern.ch
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
http://straylen.web.cern.ch/straylen/rpms/rubygem-rchardet/rubygem-rchardet.spec
SRPM URL:
http://straylen.web.cern.ch/straylen/rpms/rubygem-rchardet/rubygem-rchardet-1.8.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
Description: Character encoding auto-detection in Ruby
Fedora Account System Username: stevetraylen


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1874397] Review Request: rubygem-rchardet - Character encoding auto-detection in Ruby

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874397

Steve Traylen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1871620





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871620
[Bug 1871620] F34FailsToInstall: rubygem-git
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1873772] Review Request: R-waldo - Find Differences Between R Objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873772



--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
Thank you for the review

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/28167


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1874381] New: Review Request: ghc-openssl-streams - OpenSSL network support for io-streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874381

Bug ID: 1874381
   Summary: Review Request: ghc-openssl-streams - OpenSSL network
support for io-streams
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: peter...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-openssl-streams/ghc-openssl-streams.spec
SRPM URL:
https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-openssl-streams/ghc-openssl-streams-1.2.2.0-1.fc33.src.rpm

Description:
The openssl-streams library contains io-streams routines for secure networking
using OpenSSL (by way of HsOpenSSL).


Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50545495


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1874376] New: Review Request: ghc-http-common - Common types for HTTP clients and servers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874376

Bug ID: 1874376
   Summary: Review Request: ghc-http-common - Common types for
HTTP clients and servers
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: peter...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-http-common/ghc-http-common.spec
SRPM URL:
https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-http-common/ghc-http-common-0.8.2.1-1.fc33.src.rpm

Description:
/Overview/

Base types used by a variety of HTTP clients and servers. See http-streams
"Network.Http.Client" or pipes-http "Pipes.Http.Client" for full documentation.
You can import 'Network.Http.Types' if you like, but both http-streams and
pipes-http re-export this package's types and functions.


Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50544982


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1872867] Review Request: stalld - thread stall detector

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872867

Jaroslav Škarvada  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #15 from Jaroslav Škarvada  ---
Thanks, there are two more minor things, please fix them before including the
package, but I am approving the package now:

- %config(noreplace) /etc/sysconfig/stalld
You should use macro, e.g.:
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/stalld

- it seems you used commas instead of periods in the changelog, e.g.
(redhat,com, instad of redhat.com):
* Mon Aug 31 2020 williams@redhat,com - 1.0-2
- use _docdir macro for README.md
- use _mandir macro for stalld.8 manpage
- use tabs for spacing
- added push Makefile target to copy latest to upstream URL

* Tue Aug 25 2020 williams@redhat,com - 1.0-1
- rename project to stalld
- set version to 1.0
- clean up rpmlint complaints


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1874274] Review Request: perl-Alien-Build-MB - Alien::Build installer class for Module::Build

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874274

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
URL and Source0 addresses are usable. Ok.
TODO: Remove the trailing slash form the URL value.

Source0 archive (SHA-256:
9a64e5f23a8bc109393aaea5855df7a032eb054d241df2422211e2253d9028a5) is original.
Ok.
Summary verified from lib/Alien/Build/MB.pm. Ok.
Description verified from lib/Alien/Build/MB.pm. Ok.
License verified from README, Makefile.PL, LICENSE, and lib/Alien/Build/MB.pm.
Ok.

TODO: Constrain 'perl(Alien::Build) with '>= 1.14' (META.json:49).

All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Alien-Build-MB.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Alien-Build-MB-0.07-1.fc34.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Alien-Build-MB-0.07-1.fc34.noarch.rpm 
sh: /usr/bin/python2: No such file or directory
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q -lv -p  ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Alien-Build-MB-0.07-1.fc34.noarch.rpm 
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep  1 09:48
/usr/share/doc/perl-Alien-Build-MB
-rw-r--r--1 root root  732 Feb  6  2020
/usr/share/doc/perl-Alien-Build-MB/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 root root 2155 Feb  6  2020
/usr/share/doc/perl-Alien-Build-MB/README
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep  1 09:48
/usr/share/licenses/perl-Alien-Build-MB
-rw-r--r--1 root root18349 Feb  6  2020
/usr/share/licenses/perl-Alien-Build-MB/LICENSE
-rw-r--r--1 root root 2197 Sep  1 09:48
/usr/share/man/man3/Alien::Build::MB.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep  1 09:48
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Alien
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep  1 09:48
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Alien/Build
-rw-r--r--1 root root 6967 Feb  6  2020
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Alien/Build/MB.pm
File layout and permissions are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p 
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Alien-Build-MB-0.07-1.fc34.noarch.rpm |sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.32.0)
  1 perl(Alien::Build)
  1 perl(base)
  1 perl(Module::Build)
  1 perl(Path::Tiny)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
TODO: Constrain 'perl(Alien::Build) with '>= 1.14' (META.json:49).

$ rpm -q --provides -p 
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Alien-Build-MB-0.07-1.fc34.noarch.rpm |sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(Alien::Build::MB) = 0.07
  1 perl-Alien-Build-MB = 0.07-1.fc34
Binary provides are Ok.

$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Alien-Build-MB-0.07-1.fc34.noarch.rpm 
Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok.

The package builds in Fedora 34
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50543199). Ok.

Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.
Please consider fixing the 'TODO' items before building this package.
Resolution: 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1872669] Review Request: python3-ldap - API to access LDAP directory servers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872669



--- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen  ---
Robert, thanks for the 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1874274] Review Request: perl-Alien-Build-MB - Alien::Build installer class for Module::Build

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874274

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ppi...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org