[Bug 1142049] Review Request: nodejs-chainsaw - Build chainable fluent interfaces the easy way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142049 --- Comment #4 from Tomas Hrcka thr...@redhat.com --- sorry wrong bz :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142049] Review Request: nodejs-chainsaw - Build chainable fluent interfaces the easy way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142049
Tomas Hrcka thr...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Tomas Hrcka thr...@redhat.com ---
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. 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/thrcka/1142049-nodejs-chainsaw/licensecheck.txt
[-]: 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 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
[Bug 1155099] Review Request: dbacl - Bayesian text classifier
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155099 Tobias Florek m...@ibotty.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: dbacl - |Review Request: dbacl - ||Bayesian text classifier --- Comment #2 from Tobias Florek m...@ibotty.net --- Spec URL: https://www.math.hu-berlin.de/~florek/dbacl-1.14-1.spec SRPM URL: https://www.math.hu-berlin.de/~florek/dbacl-1.14-1.fc21.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: ibotty Description: dbacl can distill text documents into categories, and then compare other text documents to the learned categories. It can be used to recognize spam, and more generally sort incoming email into any number of categories such as work, play, and so on. As a noise filter, it can be useful during the indexing of personal document collections. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1117025] Review Request: rubygem-joiner - Builds ActiveRecord joins from association paths
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117025 --- Comment #13 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- I hope you enjoyed your vacation and thanks :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155099] Review Request: dbacl - Bayesian text classifier
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155099 --- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- You can remove both of the following lines: BuildRequires: glibc-devel Requires: glibc rpmbuild takes care of creating the necessary Requires and glibc-devel is a requirement for gcc, which has an exception from BRs, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155099] Review Request: dbacl - Bayesian text classifier
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155099 --- Comment #4 from Tobias Florek m...@ibotty.net --- updated spec under https://www.math.hu-berlin.de/~florek/dbacl-1.14-2.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142049] Review Request: nodejs-chainsaw - Build chainable fluent interfaces the easy way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142049 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Thank you for the above package review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-chainsaw Short Description: Build chainable fluent interfaces the easy way Upstream URL: https://github.com/substack/node-chainsaw Owners: pnemade Branches: f20 f21 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141887] Review Request: golang-github-kr-pretty - Provides pretty-printing for go values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141887 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-kr-pretty-0-0.3.gitf31442d.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-kr-pretty-0-0.3.gitf31442d.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141887] Review Request: golang-github-kr-pretty - Provides pretty-printing for go values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141887 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- golang-github-kr-pretty-0-0.3.gitf31442d.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-kr-pretty-0-0.3.gitf31442d.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1095593] Review Request: drupal7-block_class - Block Class allows users to add classes via block configuration interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095593 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||drupal7-block_class-2.1-1.f ||c20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-10-22 04:50:26 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal7-block_class-2.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151843] Review Request: perl-WebService-Dropbox - Perl interface to Dropbox API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151843 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- shutter-0.93-1.fc20, perl-WebService-Dropbox-1.22-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1099267] Review Request: drupal7-addressfield - Address Field defines a new field type to store intl addresses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099267 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||drupal7-addressfield-1.0-0. ||2.beta5.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-10-22 04:51:03 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal7-addressfield-1.0-0.2.beta5.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1117025] Review Request: rubygem-joiner - Builds ActiveRecord joins from association paths
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117025 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- rubygem-joiner-0.3.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094581] Review Request: drupal7-admin_menu - Provides a theme-independent administration interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094581 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||drupal7-admin_menu-3.0-0.4. ||rc4.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-10-22 04:51:44 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal7-admin_menu-3.0-0.4.rc4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1099269] Review Request: drupal7-admin_theme - Allows you to define a different theme for admin pages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099269 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||drupal7-admin_theme-1.0-2.f ||c20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-10-22 04:52:14 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal7-admin_theme-1.0-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1099267] Review Request: drupal7-addressfield - Address Field defines a new field type to store intl addresses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099267 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|drupal7-addressfield-1.0-0. |drupal7-addressfield-1.0-0. |2.beta5.fc20|2.beta5.fc19 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal7-addressfield-1.0-0.2.beta5.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1095593] Review Request: drupal7-block_class - Block Class allows users to add classes via block configuration interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095593 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|drupal7-block_class-2.1-1.f |drupal7-block_class-2.1-1.f |c20 |c19 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal7-block_class-2.1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1099269] Review Request: drupal7-admin_theme - Allows you to define a different theme for admin pages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099269 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|drupal7-admin_theme-1.0-2.f |drupal7-admin_theme-1.0-2.f |c20 |c19 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal7-admin_theme-1.0-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094581] Review Request: drupal7-admin_menu - Provides a theme-independent administration interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094581 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|drupal7-admin_menu-3.0-0.4. |drupal7-admin_menu-3.0-0.4. |rc4.fc20|rc4.fc19 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal7-admin_menu-3.0-0.4.rc4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155495] New: Review Request: python-yappi - Yet Another Python Profiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155495 Bug ID: 1155495 Summary: Review Request: python-yappi - Yet Another Python Profiler Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: smizr...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://smizrahi.fedorapeople.org/yappi/yappi.spec SRPM URL: https://smizrahi.fedorapeople.org/yappi/python-yappi-0.92-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: CPython standard distribution is coming with three profilers. cProfile, Profile and hotshot. cProfile module is implemented as a C module based on lsprof, Profile is in pure Python and the hotshot can be seen as a small subset of a cProfile. The motivation to implement a new profiler is that all of these profilers lacks the support of multi-threaded programs. If you want to profile a multi-threaded application, you must give an entry point to these profilers and then maybe merge the outputs. None of these profilers is designed to work on long-running multi-threaded application. While implementing a game server, it turns out that is is impossible to profile an application retrieve the statistics then stop and then start later on on the fly(without affecting the profiled application). With the experience of implementing a game server in Python, we have identified most of the problems, tricky parts regarding profiler usage and so, we have come up with simple but powerful requirements. Fedora Account System Username: smizrahi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1129224] Review Request: libsearpc - A simple and easy-to-use C language RPC framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129224 --- Comment #5 from Nikos Roussos comzer...@fedoraproject.org --- I have packaged all 4 packages currently needed for Seafile: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/comzeradd/seafile/ I have submitted for review this and ccnet (#1129429) and I'm about to submit the two remaining (seafile, seafile-client). I'm waiting for this to be reviewed :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155240] Review Request: gr-rds - GNU Radio FM RDS Receiver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155240 Jaroslav Škarvada jskar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226209] Merge Review: nut
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226209 Vitezslav Crhonek vcrho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-10-22 05:29:18 --- Comment #13 from Vitezslav Crhonek vcrho...@redhat.com --- Thanks, closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 612768] Review Request: holland - Pluggable Backup Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612768 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 612768] Review Request: holland - Pluggable Backup Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612768 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142049] Review Request: nodejs-chainsaw - Build chainable fluent interfaces the easy way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142049 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142049] Review Request: nodejs-chainsaw - Build chainable fluent interfaces the easy way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142049 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142049] Review Request: nodejs-chainsaw - Build chainable fluent interfaces the easy way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142049 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-chainsaw-0.1.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-chainsaw-0.1.0-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142049] Review Request: nodejs-chainsaw - Build chainable fluent interfaces the easy way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142049 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142049] Review Request: nodejs-chainsaw - Build chainable fluent interfaces the easy way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142049 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-chainsaw-0.1.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-chainsaw-0.1.0-1.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142049] Review Request: nodejs-chainsaw - Build chainable fluent interfaces the easy way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142049 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-chainsaw-0.1.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-chainsaw-0.1.0-1.el7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078368] Review Request: js-jquery - JavaScript DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078368
Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mizde...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mizde...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
[x] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines. (Name of a package follows js-* scheme.)
[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[x] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[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 must be included in %doc.
[x] The spec file must be written in American English.
[x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use
sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once
imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this
package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with
this.
[x] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[x] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the
package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug
number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding
ExcludeArch line.
[x] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
Apply common sense.
[x] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
[x] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[x] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[x] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[x] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a
package which does create that directory.
[x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in
specific situations.)
[x] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example.
[x] Each package must consistently use macros.
[x] The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement,
but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
[x] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[x] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[x] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires:
%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[x] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[x] Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed
with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel
that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file,
you
[Bug 1155099] Review Request: dbacl - Bayesian text classifier
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155099
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
--- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Tobias Florek from comment #4)
updated spec under
https://www.math.hu-berlin.de/~florek/dbacl-1.14-2.spec
I understand, you are a new-comer. Therefore, please also update your src.rpm
each time you change something and use unversioned *.spec files.
Besides this, some remarks on this package:
- You can avoid the move docs from non-standard doc dir stuff by passing
--docdir to configure, i.e.
%configure --docdir=%{_pkgdocdir}
- The sources seem to bundle some really old BSD math-related routines, many of
which nowadays are part of libc/libm. License-wise it's OK to let put them
under a GPL-umbrella, but in general, this technically is not is fairly
error-prone.
My advise would be to contact upstream and ask them to eliminate all those
functions which are supplied by libc/libm.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155495] Review Request: python-yappi - Yet Another Python Profiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155495 --- Comment #1 from Saggi Mizrahi smizr...@redhat.com --- It has come to my attention that it's better to use the tip than the stable release so I modified the specfile. Spec URL: https://smizrahi.fedorapeople.org/yappi/yappi.spec SRPM URL: https://smizrahi.fedorapeople.org/yappi/https://smizrahi.fedorapeople.org/yappi/python-yappi-hg20141022-1.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144659] Review Request: nodejs-text-table - Generate borderless text table strings suitable for printing to stdout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144659 Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- * Rpmlint: o errors * License: MIT * Binaries: None * Spec: Clean == Before cvs Make now summary as a description, and write a 3 word summary ^_ * Content: Clean * %check test: Pass * Node.js package: Noarch * Node.js packaging guideline: checked * CHECKSUM(MD5) this package: 4e595139988957453229d6ccd229f626 CHECKSUM(MD5) upstream package: 4e595139988957453229d6ccd229f626 APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144663] Review Request: nodejs-duplex - Base class for a duplex stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144663 Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||moc...@hotmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|moc...@hotmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144662] Review Request: nodejs-nsp-api - Node.js module wrapper for the Node Security Project API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144662 Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||moc...@hotmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|moc...@hotmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1146931] Review Request: python-freetype - Freetype python bindings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146931 Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||moc...@hotmail.com --- Comment #1 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- Make sure you write Fedora Account System Username: . -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 429081] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Oracle - Parse and format Oracle dates and timestamps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429081 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wf...@worldbroken.com --- Comment #9 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- *** Bug 1155268 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 429081] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Oracle - Parse and format Oracle dates and timestamps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429081 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-DateTime-Format-Oracle New Branches: epel7 Owners: wfp InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 429081] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Oracle - Parse and format Oracle dates and timestamps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429081 --- Comment #11 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- wfp requsted the branch for himself in bug #1155268. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 429081] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Oracle - Parse and format Oracle dates and timestamps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429081 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 429081] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Oracle - Parse and format Oracle dates and timestamps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429081 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Comments from primary maintainers? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 429081] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Oracle - Parse and format Oracle dates and timestamps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429081 --- Comment #13 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Primary maintainer is out of order now (vacation). I thought that anybody with approveacls permission is equaled to the primary contact. But nevertheless, I hope wfp can wait till Friday. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 429081] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Oracle - Parse and format Oracle dates and timestamps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429081 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(psab...@redhat.co ||m) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144660] Review Request: nodejs-strscanner - Lexical string analysis for javascript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144660 --- Comment #2 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- There's no information about license even here: https://www.npmjs.org/package/strscanner !!! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1146926] Review Request: python-cltk - NLP support for Ancient Greek and Latin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146926 Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||moc...@hotmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|moc...@hotmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144661] Review Request: nodejs-node-print - Print tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144661 Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||moc...@hotmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|moc...@hotmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 429081] Review Request: perl-DateTime-Format-Oracle - Parse and format Oracle dates and timestamps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429081 --- Comment #14 from Bill Pemberton wf...@worldbroken.com --- I don't mind waiting. The Fedora 20 packages builds fine for epel7 so I'm using that for now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 204561] Review Request: python-pyspf - Sender Policy Framework library for Python.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=204561 Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pwout...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-pyspf New Branches: epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 204561] Review Request: python-pyspf - Sender Policy Framework library for Python.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=204561 --- Comment #15 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-pyspf New Branches: epel7 Owners: pwouters -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078368] Review Request: js-jquery - JavaScript DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078368 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: js-jquery Short Description: JavaScript DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX library Upstream URL: https://jquery.com/ Owners: patches jamielinux Branches: f21 f20 f19 epel7 el6 el5 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142051] Review Request: nodejs-xmldom - A W3C Standard XML DOM implementation and parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142051 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tchollingswo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tchollingswo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036354] Review Request: nodejs-codemirror - A versatile JS text editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036354 --- Comment #4 from Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com --- All Fixed , except sebangs. They aren't important in these places. Spec: http://ojuba.org/test/nodejs-codemirror.spec Srpm: http://ojuba.org/test/nodejs-codemirror-4.6.0-2.oj35.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077795] Review Request: copr-selinux - SELinux module for COPR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077795 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077795] Review Request: copr-selinux - SELinux module for COPR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077795 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- copr-selinux-1.35-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/copr-selinux-1.35-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077795] Review Request: copr-selinux - SELinux module for COPR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077795 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- copr-selinux-1.35-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/copr-selinux-1.35-1.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142051] Review Request: nodejs-xmldom - A W3C Standard XML DOM implementation and parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142051 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- %check %nodejs_symlink_deps --check This is pointless unless you actually execute something below it. For extra credit please add BuildRequires: proof and the test command `proof test */*/*.t.js` and comment it out or disable it all with a macro. This way, the tests can be easily enabled later on if someone packages proof. Everything else is legit and test issues are a SHOULD so APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155400] Review Request: pygeoip - Pure Python GeoIP API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155400
nicolas.vievi...@univ-valenciennes.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nicolas.vieville@univ-valen
||ciennes.fr
--- Comment #1 from nicolas.vievi...@univ-valenciennes.fr ---
Hello,
As a candidate packager for Fedora (I need a sponsor), I can make an unofficial
review of your package if you don't mind.
In order to make it more easy using fedora-review, there's a couple of things I
would modify in your spec file. I'm not a proven Fedora Python packager, so if
one of them wants to make any comment, they are welcome.
First, in order to reflect Fedora packaging rules, you should rename your spec
file to match the name of the package according to the specific rules dedicated
to python modules
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29).
It should be set as python-pygeoip.spec.
Then, to follow this recommendation the packages names should be python-pygeoip
and python3-pygeoip in the spec file.
If we look at
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-setuptools.git/tree/python-setuptools.spec
file cited as an example in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Building_more_than_once we can
see that the first test macro is:
%if 0%{?fedora}
The release version of Fedora is not evaluated.
In each section BuildRequires for the python2 package and the python3 package,
you should add:
BuildRequires: python-nose
BuildRequires: python-tox
BuildRequires: curl
BuildRequires: tar
in order to be able to proceed with the test provided upstream (see below about
the %check section).
As the upstream developer provides some tests, the packaging guide invite you
to use them. Here there's no makefile in order to achieve them. The only
solution I would use (proven python packager are welcome about that) is to make
them manually by adding a %check section as this one for example (taken and
adapted from the makefile available on the github but not on the pipy URL):
%check
rm -rf maxmind-geoip-samples.tar.gz tests/data
mkdir -p tests/data
curl -s https://www.defunct.cc/maxmind-geoip-samples.tar.gz | tar -zx -C tests
# Test with the only available python env in Fedora
sed -i -e 's/\(envlist = \)\(.*$\)/\1py27,py34/g' tox.ini
tox
%if 0%{?with_python3}
pushd %{py3dir}
rm -rf maxmind-geoip-samples.tar.gz tests/data
mkdir -p tests/data
curl -s https://www.defunct.cc/maxmind-geoip-samples.tar.gz | tar -zx -C tests
# Test with the only available python env in Fedora
sed -i -e 's/\(envlist = \)\(.*$\)/\1py27,py34/g' tox.ini
tox
popd
%endif # with_python3
Here, I'm not sure if it is necessary to proceed with the tests on the two
packages (python2 and python3 - confirmation needed).
The sed command replaces the value of the envlist variable in the tox.ini file
to reflect the real python env available in Fedora (e.g. ptyhon2.7 and
python3.4). As the tests dependencies were correctly set in the BuildRequires
sections curl, tar and tox (python-tox) are available.
In each %files section, it could be possible to simplify the directives
beginning with %{python2_sitelib} (respectively %{python3_sitelib}) by only
one:
%{python2_sitelib}/*
respectively
%{python3_sitelib}/*
While testing the packages build with such a modified spec file with rpmlint,
it states that hostname in the description is not the correct spelling:
spelling-error %description -l en_US hostname - host name, host-name, hostage
Don't know if it should be corrected (real correct spelling against real usage
in IT).
I'll do an unofficial review using fedora-review tool, once you proposed a new
spec file containing what I proposed or what proven python packagers will
indicate to do.
Feel free to ask for any help if needed.
Cordially,
--
NVieville
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755510] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510 --- Comment #70 from nicolas.vievi...@univ-valenciennes.fr --- Hello, New unofficial review began for python-pygeoip packages here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155400 Another one has also began but without any response for the moment (maybe this one is too old): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039323 These make 3 reviews began (with the one cited above in comment #67). Hope this will fit the Fedora packaging recommendations. Any comment about this are welcome. Cordially, -- NVieville -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1039323] Review Request: Weatherman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039323 --- Comment #7 from nicolas.vievi...@univ-valenciennes.fr --- Hello, I wonder if you could drop a line if you still interested in this review request and my proposed unofficial review. Thanks in advance. Cordially, -- NVieville -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 204561] Review Request: python-pyspf - Sender Policy Framework library for Python.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=204561 --- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 204561] Review Request: python-pyspf - Sender Policy Framework library for Python.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=204561 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078368] Review Request: js-jquery - JavaScript DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078368 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1078368] Review Request: js-jquery - JavaScript DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078368 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067445] Review Request: python-pyghmi - Python General Hardware Management Initiative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067445 Jordan OMara jom...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jom...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Jordan OMara jom...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-pyghmi New Branches: epel7 Owners: lucasgomes jomara InitialCC: lucasgomes -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155210] Review Request: compat-drumstick - C++/Qt4 wrapper around the ALSA library sequencer interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155210 Helio Chissini de Castro hcas...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hcas...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Helio Chissini de Castro hcas...@redhat.com --- After some initial idea, drumstick-qt4 sounded better, but in the end, better follow the package upstream name, going with compat-drumstick If the qt5 counterpart ( if exists ) is named same way, then compat-drumstick-qt4 sounds better -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142051] Review Request: nodejs-xmldom - A W3C Standard XML DOM implementation and parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142051 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Thanks T.C. Hollingsworth for this package review. I will follow your advice after importing the approved srpm. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-xmldom Short Description: A W3C Standard XML DOM implementation and parser Upstream URL: https://github.com/jindw/xmldom Owners: pnemade Branches: f20 f21 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1146931] Review Request: python-freetype - Freetype python bindings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146931 --- Comment #2 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/python-freetype.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/python-freetype-0.4.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Freetype python bindings Fedora Account System Username: pnemade -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155210] Review Request: compat-drumstick - C++/Qt4 wrapper around the ALSA library sequencer interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155210 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- Huh? compat-drumstick is NOT the upstream name! The upstream name is just drumstick. The compat- prefix was added to signal that it's an old version of drumstick, to install in parallel with the current drumstick 1.x.x. And there what I'm saying is that the drumstick0 naming scheme is more commonly used for that kind of compatibility package in Fedora. The '0' being not the soname soversion there, but the human-readable version number (drumstick 0.x.x, the new Qt 5 one is 1.x.x). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144659] Review Request: nodejs-text-table - Generate borderless text table strings suitable for printing to stdout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144659 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Thanks Mosaab for the above package review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-text-tablesuitable for printing to stdout Short Description: Generate borderless text table strings Upstream URL: https://github.com/substack/text-table Owners: pnemade Branches: f20 f21 epel7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144665] Review Request: nodejs-xtend - Extend like a boss
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144665 T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tchollingswo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tchollingswo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com --- MUST fix: This package fails to build from source in Mock because it is missing BuildRequires: npm(tape). SHOULD fix: Whitespace typo on line 6: Summary: Extend like a boss -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 755510] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510 --- Comment #71 from Pablo Rodríguez fed...@pragmata.tk --- (In reply to nicolas.vieville from comment #69) Pablo, As this package is not yet approved, I voluntary do not bump release version for each upgrade I do. The only thing I do is to update the git hash number, but as this is a hash, new upgrade doesn't mean that this number will be superior to the previous one. Sorry for the noise, Nicolas. I didn’t know this was intended. Pablo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144658] Review Request: nodejs-pegjs - Parser generator for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144658 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142049] Review Request: nodejs-chainsaw - Build chainable fluent interfaces the easy way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142049 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-chainsaw-0.1.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1148577] Review Request: perl-XML-SemanticDiff - Perl extension for comparing XML documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148577 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-XML-SemanticDiff-1.0004-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1150113] Review Request: perl-Cwd-Guard - Temporarily change the current directory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150113 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Cwd-Guard-0.04-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 855701] Review Request: cabal-rpm - creates rpm spec files for Haskell Cabal packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855701 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||cabal-rpm-0.9.1-1.el5 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- cabal-rpm-0.9.1-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1145443] Review Request: python-pdfkit - Python 2 wrapper for wkhtmltopdf utility to convert HTML to PDF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1145443 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-pdfkit-0.4.1-5.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1148577] Review Request: perl-XML-SemanticDiff - Perl extension for comparing XML documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148577 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-XML-SemanticDiff-1.0004-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144658] Review Request: nodejs-pegjs - Parser generator for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144658
--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
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. 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/tom/1144658-nodejs-pegjs/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 143360 bytes in 6 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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-pegjs-0.8.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
[Bug 1148577] Review Request: perl-XML-SemanticDiff - Perl extension for comparing XML documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148577 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-XML-SemanticDiff-1.0004-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144658] Review Request: nodejs-pegjs - Parser generator for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144658 --- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- Couple of things... First, you're not including the command line interface (bin/pegjs) in the package, so you might want to think about adding that. Second, you may want to consider using github as the source so that you get the tests and can run them in %check. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1150113] Review Request: perl-Cwd-Guard - Temporarily change the current directory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150113 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Software-License-CCpack-1.01-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1117025] Review Request: rubygem-joiner - Builds ActiveRecord joins from association paths
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117025 --- Comment #15 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- I failed to notice the Rails 4.1 dependency so I've un-pushed the update for F19 and F20. I'm not *entirely* sure if Rails 4.1 is a hard dep or if 4.0 would be ok and upstream could loosen their gemspec... at any rate, it's unpushed for F19 and F20. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067445] Review Request: python-pyghmi - Python General Hardware Management Initiative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067445 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1067445] Review Request: python-pyghmi - Python General Hardware Management Initiative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067445 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142051] Review Request: nodejs-xmldom - A W3C Standard XML DOM implementation and parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142051 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142051] Review Request: nodejs-xmldom - A W3C Standard XML DOM implementation and parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142051 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144659] Review Request: nodejs-text-table - Generate borderless text table strings suitable for printing to stdout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144659 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144659] Review Request: nodejs-text-table - Generate borderless text table strings suitable for printing to stdout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144659 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Requested package name nodejs-text-tablesuitable for printing to stdout doesn't match bug summary nodejs-text-table -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 664151] Review Request: ghc-Diff - A O(ND) diff algorithm in Haskell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664151 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||ghc-Diff-0.3.0-1.el7 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-Diff-0.3.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077795] Review Request: copr-selinux - SELinux module for COPR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077795 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- copr-selinux-1.35-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libpuma-1.2-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1039163] Review Request: python-fuckit - The Python Error Steamroller
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039163 Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org --- It's built for rawhide (I think) [1] -- I need to get a fix in for building on epel7 (and discover what the fix is to begin with), and push a newpackage update for the other Fedora branches. As such I'll mark this as MODIFIED. Thanks for the reminder! [1]: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=582984 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1115669] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-banner - Adds a simple banner to files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115669
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||t...@compton.nu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
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. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/tom/1115669-nodejs-grunt-banner/licensecheck.txt
[-]: %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.
[-]: 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 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no
[Bug 1115669] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-banner - Adds a simple banner to files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115669 --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- Couple of things: * This should build as noarch * You may want to package from github (or pull in the tests as a separate source) so that the tests can be run -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155778] New: Review Request: python-regex - Alternative regular expression module, to replace re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778 Bug ID: 1155778 Summary: Review Request: python-regex - Alternative regular expression module, to replace re Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: thomas.mosc...@gmx.de QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://thm.fedorapeople.org/python-regex/python-regex.spec SRPM URL: https://thm.fedorapeople.org/python-regex/python-regex-2014.10.09-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: This new regex implementation is intended eventually to replace Python's current re module implementation. For testing and comparison with the current 're' module the new implementation is in the form of a module called 'regex'. Fedora Account System Username: thm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7931621 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1115670] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-connect - Start a connect web server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115670
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||t...@compton.nu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
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. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/tom/1115670-nodejs-grunt-contrib-
connect/licensecheck.txt
[-]: %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.
[-]: 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]: 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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]:
[Bug 1115670] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-contrib-connect - Start a connect web server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115670 --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- Again this should be noarch, and you may want to think about the 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
