[Bug 1185606] Review Request: php-sebastian-recursion-context - Recursively process PHP variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185606 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||php-sebastian-recursion-con ||text-1.0.0-1.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-02-04 02:58:51 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- php-sebastian-recursion-context-1.0.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 1184600] Review Request: python-sep -Astronomical source extraction and photometry in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184600 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-sep-0.2.0-1.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-02-04 02:58:26 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python-sep-0.2.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 1142398] Review Request: golang-github-vaughan0-go-ini - INI parsing library for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142398 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||golang-github-vaughan0-go-i ||ni-0-0.3.gita98ad7e.fc20 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-vaughan0-go-ini-0-0.3.gita98ad7e.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1183255] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Random-Seed - Simple method to get strong randomness
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183255 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Crypt-Random-Seed-0.03-1.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 1087895] Review Request: argparse4j - The command-line parser library based on Python's argparse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087895 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||argparse4j-0.4.4-2.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-02-04 02:56:28 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- argparse4j-0.4.4-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 1178687] Review Request: python-glob2 - Glob module recursive wildcards support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178687 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-glob2-0.4.1-2.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-02-04 02:56:15 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-glob2-0.4.1-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187337] Review Request: sil-coval-fonts - font derived from sans-serif
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187337 --- Comment #5 from Carlos Morel-Riquelme --- Thanks parag for all help, i've update the spec file and fontconfig.conf spec : https://empateinfinito.fedorapeople.org/font/coval-fonts/coval-fonts.spec srpm : https://empateinfinito.fedorapeople.org/font/coval-fonts/coval-fonts-0.1-1.20150122.fc21.src.rpm font-config : https://empateinfinito.fedorapeople.org/font/coval-fonts/coval-fonts-fontconfig.conf fedora-review : https://empateinfinito.fedorapeople.org/font/coval-fonts/review.txt I really appreciate all your help :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1141494] Review Request: python-flask-whooshalchemy - Whoosh extension to Flask/SQLAlchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141494 --- Comment #18 from Tonet Jallo --- Spec URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy.spec SRPM URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.6-4.fc21.src.rpm Hi again again again, i just correct my error. Tranks you for your time. Fedora Account System Username: Tonet666p -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1188536] Review Request: rubygem-debugger-linecache - Read file with caching
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188536 --- Comment #2 from Mamoru TASAKA --- MIT is compatible with GPL (GPL is stronger) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing so without gaining any permission from the previous author, it is okay, as long as we recognize the whole license as GPL (i.e. the current developer can write codes with MIT license, and package them with previous GPL code, and then the whole license is GPL, it is okay) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1141494] Review Request: python-flask-whooshalchemy - Whoosh extension to Flask/SQLAlchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141494 --- Comment #17 from Tonet Jallo --- Spec URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy.spec SRPM URL: https://tonet666p.fedorapeople.org/python-flask-whooshalchemy-0.6-3.fc21.src.rpm Hi again, the BuildRequire lines were corrected and the conditional was added with some changes, check if i have an error please. Tranks for your time. Fedora Account System Username: Tonet666p -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1177009] Review Request: python-tempest-lib - OpenStack Functional Testing Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177009 --- Comment #16 from Steve Linabery --- Updated spec and srpm, TIA. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1187970] Review Request: konsole5 - KDE Terminal emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187970 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-02-03 19:22:53 --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter --- imported, 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 1188895] New: Review Request: python-GridDataFormats - Read and write data on regular grids in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188895
Bug ID: 1188895
Summary: Review Request: python-GridDataFormats - Read and
write data on regular grids in Python
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: domi...@greysector.net
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL:
https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-GridDataFormats/python-GridDataFormats.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-GridDataFormats/python-GridDataFormats-0.2.4-1.fc21.src.rpm
Description:
GridDataFormats provides the Python package 'gridData'. It contains a class
('Grid') to handle data on a regular grid --- basically NumPy n-dimensional
arrays. It supports reading from and writing to some common formats (such as
OpenDX).
Fedora Account System Username: rathann
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1098807] Review Request: python3-liblarch - Data structures helper library for python3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098807
Thomas Spura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|toms...@fedoraproject.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Spura ---
Review:
- License ok
- rpmlint output ok:
$ rpmlint
/home/tomspur/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python3-liblarch-3.0-1.gitb873698.fc21.src.rpm
/home/tomspur/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python3-liblarch-3.0-1.gitb873698.fc21.noarch.rpm
/home/tomspur/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python3-liblarch_gtk-3.0-1.gitb873698.fc21.noarch.rpm
python3-liblarch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acyclic ->
cyclic, a cyclic, acyclovir
python3-liblarch.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
python3-liblarch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acyclic ->
cyclic, a cyclic, acyclovir
python3-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Liblarch -> Lib
larch, Lib-larch, Oligarch
python3-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gtk -> gt, gt k
python3-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Treeview -> Tree
view, Tree-view, Preview
python3-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US liblarch
-> lib larch, lib-larch, oligarch
python3-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtk -> gt,
gt k
python3-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Treeview
-> Tree view, Tree-view, Preview
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
- source matches upstream
- version ok
- BR/R ok
Issues:
- Please query upstream to also tag a 3.0 release, so you don't need to
checkout a commit after 3.0 to get it.
- Please run the testsuite with xvfb. The diff is:
--- python3-liblarch.spec.orig2015-02-04 00:04:39.891570620 +0100
+++ python3-liblarch.spec2015-02-04 00:12:02.053702707 +0100
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: python3-devel
+BuildRequires: xorg-x11-server-Xvfb
Requires: pygobject3
%description
@@ -36,9 +37,8 @@
%install
%{__python3} setup.py install --skip-build --root %{buildroot}
-#tests require DISPLAY
-#check
-#make test
+%check
+xvfb-run make test
%files
%doc AUTHORS LICENSE README.md examples
Note, that I'd prefer to run "%{_bindir}/nosetests-3.? -v", instead of the
non-verbose nose run above.
- The _gtk package requires the base package, so you don't need to have an
extra %doc.
- Please use %license for the LICENSE file:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 976051] Review Request: jsmpp - Java SMPP (Short Message Peer-to-peer) API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||jsmpp-2.1.0-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-02-03 17:54:54 --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo --- Thanks for everything! Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8813599 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 976051] Review Request: jsmpp - Java SMPP (Short Message Peer-to-peer) API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 968136] Review Request: camel - Apache Camel integration framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968136 Bug 968136 depends on bug 976051, which changed state. Bug 976051 Summary: Review Request: jsmpp - Java SMPP (Short Message Peer-to-peer) API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1188873] New: Review Request: python-total-ordering - Backport of 2.7 functools.total_ordering
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188873 Bug ID: 1188873 Summary: Review Request: python-total-ordering - Backport of 2.7 functools.total_ordering Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mc...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/python-total-ordering.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mcepl/piglit-el6/epel-6-x86_64/python-total-ordering-0.1.0-1.el6/python-total-ordering-0.1.0-1.el6.src.rpm Description: functools.total_ordering backport for Python 2.6 Fedora Account System Username:mcepl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1187624] Review Request: devassistant-dap-openscad - Create 3D printing projects for OpenSCAD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187624
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tra...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
rpmlint:
devassistant-dap-openscad.src:47: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
Use %%license ore drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git.
devassistant-dap-openscad.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Projects
created with this assistant have a `Makefile` to build the 3D models form
OpenSCAD sources.
devassistant-dap-openscad.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C To do so,
run `make`. You can also generate the images by `make images` or print plates
with `make arrange`.
Split the lines by newlines.
Please drop a note baout the used license:
Icon is GPLv2 with exceptions, everything else is GPLv3+.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Note: In this case, I consider the DevAssistant packages as "notable
exception to this packaging model" as mentioned in guidelines
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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 s
[Bug 1187629] Review Request: devassistant-dap-tito - Tito snippet to use in other assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187629
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tra...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
rpmlint:
devassistant-dap-tito.src:38: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
Use %%license ore drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Note: In this case, I consider the DevAssistant packages as "notable
exception to this packaging model" as mentioned in guidelines
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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 %clea
[Bug 1187628] Review Request: devassistant-dap-ruby - Ruby assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187628
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tra...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
rpmlint:
devassistant-dap-ruby.src:43: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
Use %%license ore drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Note: In this case, I consider the DevAssistant packages as "notable
exception to this packaging model" as mentioned in guidelines
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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 %clea
[Bug 1187627] Review Request: devassistant-dap-python - Python assistants (library, Django, Flask, GTK3)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187627
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tra...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
rpmlint:
devassistant-dap-python.src:47: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
Use %%license ore drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git.
devassistant-dap-python.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/bkabrda/dap-python HTTP Error 404: Not Found
Fix this with https://github.com/devassistant/dap-python (I've already
done the upstream commit)
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Note: In this case, I consider the DevAssistant packages as "notable
exception to this packaging model" as mentioned in guidelines
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: Packages shoul
[Bug 1187626] Review Request: devassistant-dap-php - Perl assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187626
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tra...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
Also fix the summary as already mentioned.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Note: In this case, I consider the DevAssistant packages as "notable
exception to this packaging model" as mentioned in guidelines
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[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).
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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 no
[Bug 1187625] Review Request: devassistant-dap-perl - Perl assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187625 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tra...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com ||) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187625] Review Request: devassistant-dap-perl - Perl assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187625
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
Package provides and requires perl() stuff.
This should be blocked by %global __requires_exclude ... and similar.
rpmlint:
devassistant-dap-perl.src:43: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
Use %%license ore drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Note: In this case, I consider the DevAssistant packages as "notable
exception to this packaging model" as mentioned in guidelines
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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, /s
[Bug 1187623] Review Request: devassistant-dap-nodejs - Node.js assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187623
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
rpmlint:
devassistant-dap-nodejs.src:42: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
Use %%license ore drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Note: In this case, I consider the DevAssistant packages as "notable
exception to this packaging model" as mentioned in guidelines
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Spec file according to URL is
[Bug 1187623] Review Request: devassistant-dap-nodejs - Node.js assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187623 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tra...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com ||) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187622] Review Request: devassistant-dap-java - Java assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187622
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tra...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
rpmlint:
devassistant-dap-java.src:45: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
Use %%license ore drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Note: In this case, I consider the DevAssistant packages as "notable
exception to this packaging model" as mentioned in guidelines
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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 %clea
[Bug 1179804] Review Request: python-nine - Python 2 / 3 compatibility, like six, but favouring Python 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179804 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- python-nine-0.3.4-4.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 1187224] Review Request: python-backport_collections - Backport of Python 2.7's collections module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187224 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python-backport_collections-0.1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1179804] Review Request: python-nine - Python 2 / 3 compatibility, like six, but favouring Python 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179804 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- python-nine-0.3.4-4.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 1161965] Review Request: python-honcho - Python clone of Foreman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161965
--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann ---
%files
%doc README.rst
%{_bindir}/honcho
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
%if 0%{?with_python3}
%files -n python3-%{pypi_name}
%doc README.rst
%{_bindir}/honcho
%{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}
%{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
%endif # with_python3
The file %{_bindir}/honcho is included in both packages, but py2 and py3
versions of the same module have to be completely independent from each other.
Imagine, someone needs both versions for resolve some dependencies, but this
would end up in a unresolvable file conflict. Have a look at the appropriate
guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin
Here's the scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8812185
The file %{_bindir}/honcho looks the same in both py2 and py3 package:
#!/usr/bin/python3
# EASY-INSTALL-ENTRY-SCRIPT: 'honcho==0.5.0','console_scripts','honcho'
__requires__ = 'honcho==0.5.0'
import sys
from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
if __name__ == '__main__':
sys.exit(
load_entry_point('honcho==0.5.0', 'console_scripts', 'honcho')()
)
Even the py2 package has the shebang "#!/usr/bin/python3". As I already wrote,
I don't know where you need this for, but if the py3 version works for you,
then just drop the py2 package. Otherwise, rename the "binaries" according to
the guidelines.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1186889] Review Request: geoipupdate - Update GeoIP2 and GeoIP Legacy binary databases from MaxMind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889 --- Comment #33 from Paul Howarth --- OK, I've had time to look at this today and here are my thoughts. Firstly, the big change between GeoIP 1.5.x and GeoIP 1.6.x+geoipupdate is that there is no libGeoIPUpdate any more. I was quite concerned about that, because even installing the two new packages would not satisfy a dependency on that library on old systems. However, there doesn't seem to be anything in Fedora that requires it, and I haven't been able to find anything in the wider open source world that uses it either, so it's probably not such a big deal. If the worst comes to the worst and somebody raises a bug on it, we could bundle the library in the GeoIP package by building it from the 1.5.x sources, much like the xz package does for the old liblzma.so.0 library. The other thing missing from the current packages is the cron job for the IPv6 databases. Philip intends to create a new perl script to do this (Comment #29), which could perhaps be based on examples/geolite-mirror-simple.pl from perl-Geo-IP. In the meantime we could go with the last version from the old GeoIP 1.5.x package, packaged up in a new geoipupdate-cron6 package. Regarding the requires/provides/obsoletes, I think these are actually quite simple, and amount to the following: * GeoIP 1.6.x should require geoipdate for F-21, EL-7 and any earlier builds, and not for Rawhide, EL-8 onwards builds/ * geoipupdate does not need any special obsoletes/provides/requires * geoipupdate-cron should obsolete/provide GeoIP-update, and require geoipupdate and crontabs * geoipdate-cron6 should obsolete/provide GeoIP-update6, and require geoipupdate, crontabs and wget (or whatever is needed for the script) I have created some local builds that implement these (close to, but not identical to the Fedora versions): * http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/GeoIP/trunk/GeoIP.spec * http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/geoipupdate/trunk/geoipupdate.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 1186900] Review Request: kwave - Sound Editor for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186900 --- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann --- Thanks for the hint, I've fixed the %post and %postun sections. And I've also removed gcc-c++ from BR. New files: Spec URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/kwave.spec SRPM URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/kwave-0.8.99-5.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 1187621] Review Request: devassistant-dap-github - GitHub assistant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187621
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tra...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
rpmlint:
devassistant-dap-github.src:45: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
Use %%license ore drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Note: In this case, I consider the DevAssistant packages as "notable
exception to this packaging model" as mentioned in guidelines
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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 %cl
[Bug 1187619] Review Request: devassistant-dap-eclipse - Eclipse snippet and assistant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187619
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tra...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
rpmlint:
devassistant-dap-eclipse.src:39: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
Use %%license ore drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git.
devassistant-dap-eclipse.src: E: description-line-too-long C Installs and
configures eclipse. Works as a mod assistant or a snippet, so you can use it
form other assistants.
Split the line with newline.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Note: In this case, I consider the DevAssistant packages as "notable
exception to this packaging model" as mentioned in guidelines
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: Packages should try to
[Bug 1187618] Review Request: devassistant-dap-docker - Docker assistant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187618
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tra...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
rpmlint:
devassistant-dap-docker.src:39: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
Use %%license ore drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Note: In this case, I consider the DevAssistant packages as "notable
exception to this packaging model" as mentioned in guidelines
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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 %cl
[Bug 1187628] Review Request: devassistant-dap-ruby - Ruby assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187628 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187629] Review Request: devassistant-dap-tito - Tito snippet to use in other assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187629 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187627] Review Request: devassistant-dap-python - Python assistants (library, Django, Flask, GTK3)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187627 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187624] Review Request: devassistant-dap-openscad - Create 3D printing projects for OpenSCAD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187624 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187626] Review Request: devassistant-dap-php - Perl assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187626 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187625] Review Request: devassistant-dap-perl - Perl assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187625 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187623] Review Request: devassistant-dap-nodejs - Node.js assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187623 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187622] Review Request: devassistant-dap-java - Java assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187622 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187621] Review Request: devassistant-dap-github - GitHub assistant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187621 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187617] Review Request: devassistant-dap-devassistant - DevAssistant prep assistants to develop DevAssistant itself
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187617
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tra...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
rpmlint:
devassistant-dap-devassistant.src:42: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
Use %%license ore drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git.
devassistant-dap-devassistant.src: E: description-line-too-long C Set up
environment for DevAssistant, so you can develop on DevAssistant trough
DevAssistant. We have to go deeper.
Split the line with newline.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Note: In this case, I consider the DevAssistant packages as "notable
exception to this packaging model" as mentioned in guidelines
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: Packages sh
[Bug 1187619] Review Request: devassistant-dap-eclipse - Eclipse snippet and assistant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187619 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187618] Review Request: devassistant-dap-docker - Docker assistant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187618 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187616] Review Request: devassistant-dap-dap - Assistants for creating DAPs - DevAssistant packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187616
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tra...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
rpmlint:
devassistant-dap-dap.src:43: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
Use %%license ore drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Note: In this case, I consider the DevAssistant packages as "notable
exception to this packaging model" as mentioned in guidelines
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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
[Bug 1187617] Review Request: devassistant-dap-devassistant - DevAssistant prep assistants to develop DevAssistant itself
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187617 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187615] Review Request: devassistant-dap-custom - Custom prep assistants to develop on an upstream project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187615
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tra...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
rpmlint:
devassistant-dap-custom.src:45: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
Use %%license ore drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Note: In this case, I consider the DevAssistant packages as "notable
exception to this packaging model" as mentioned in guidelines
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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 %cl
[Bug 1187616] Review Request: devassistant-dap-dap - Assistants for creating DAPs - DevAssistant packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187616 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187614] Review Request: devassistant-dap-cpp - C++ assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187614
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tra...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
rpmlint:
devassistant-dap-cpp.src:44: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
Use %%license ore drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
Note: In this case, I consider the DevAssistant packages as "notable
exception to this packaging model" as mentioned in guidelines
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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
[Bug 1187615] Review Request: devassistant-dap-custom - Custom prep assistants to develop on an upstream project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187615 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1147330] Review Request: libason - A library for manipulating ASON values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147330 Casey Dahlin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(casey.dahlin@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #18 from Casey Dahlin --- Pushed now. I believe the bot will close this when it lands -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1187614] Review Request: devassistant-dap-cpp - C++ assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187614 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187620] Review Request: devassistant-dap-git - Git snippet to be used from other assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187620
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mhron...@redhat.com,
||tra...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
rpmlint:
devassistant-dap-git.src:38: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
Use %%license ore drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source:
[Bug 1187613] Review Request: devassistant-dap-common_args - Common arguments to be used from other assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187613 --- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok --- One thing I didn't notice: devassistant-dap-common_args.src:43: W: macro-in-%changelog %license Use %%license or drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187613] Review Request: devassistant-dap-common_args - Common arguments to be used from other assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187613 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tra...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ||needinfo?(tra...@redhat.com ||) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1188625] Review Request: astutils - AT&T AST utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188625 --- Comment #1 from Roland Mainz --- Updated packages per review comments: Spec URL: http://www.nrubsig.org/people/gisburn/work/redhat/ast_utils_rpm_review/astutils.spec SRPM URL: http://www.nrubsig.org/people/gisburn/work/redhat/ast_utils_rpm_review/astutils-20141224-1.fc20.src.rpm Fixed S390/S390x build, not covered yet are PowerPC-BigEndian/LittleEndian and ARM/ARM64, I'll test them tomorrow. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1187613] Review Request: devassistant-dap-common_args - Common arguments to be used from other assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187613
--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok ---
Otherwise, this package is fine.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: This is just the consequence of the next point
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See other issues for explanation.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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]: 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: devassistant-dap-common_args-0.10.0-5.fc22.noarch.rpm
devassistant-dap-common_args-0.10.0-5.fc22.src.rp
[Bug 1187613] Review Request: devassistant-dap-common_args - Common arguments to be used from other assistants
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187613 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review- --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok --- I was in the process of package review and I found htis in FedoraReview output: > Package does not contain duplicates in %files. So I consulted the guidelines, just to be sure, and yes, this is indeed against the guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplicate_Files > A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec > file's %files listings. If you think your package is a valid > exception to this, please bring it to the attention of the > Packaging Committee so they can improve on this Guideline. So we are still not there, this package is NOT APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187224] Review Request: python-backport_collections - Backport of Python 2.7's collections module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187224 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187224] Review Request: python-backport_collections - Backport of Python 2.7's collections module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187224 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python-backport_collections-0.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-backport_collections-0.1-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1188763] New: Review Request: nodejs-ultron - Ultron is a high-intelligence robot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188763 Bug ID: 1188763 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-ultron - Ultron is a high-intelligence robot Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tdaw...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/nodejs/nodejs-ultron.spec SRPM URL: https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/nodejs/nodejs-ultron-1.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Ultron is a high-intelligence robot. It gathers intelligence so it can start improving upon his rudimentary design. Fedora Account System Username: tdawson -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1188763] Review Request: nodejs-ultron - Ultron is a high-intelligence robot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188763 --- Comment #1 from Troy Dawson --- Here is a scratch build, on rawhide, if it helps. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8810892 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 976051] Review Request: jsmpp - Java SMPP (Short Message Peer-to-peer) API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051 Jon Ciesla 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 976051] Review Request: jsmpp - Java SMPP (Short Message Peer-to-peer) API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 976051] Review Request: jsmpp - Java SMPP (Short Message Peer-to-peer) API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jsmpp Short Description: Java SMPP (Short Message Peer-to-peer) API Upstream URL: http://code.google.com/p/jsmpp/ Owners: gil InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1181365] Review Request: ice - ZeroC Object-Oriented middleware (un-retire)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181365 Andrew Dunn changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrew.g.d...@gmail.com --- Comment #9 from Andrew Dunn --- I'd like to voice support for Carlos as I would like to see mumble working in the fedora repositories. I've installed mumble from this repository in the meantime: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/lkiesow/mumble/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1173159] Review Request: libsbml - Systems Biology Markup Language library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173159
--- Comment #24 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
(In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #23)
> Issues:
> ===
> - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
I think they have. There's BR:java-devel, and R:java-headless,jpackage-utils,
which
seems to agree with
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires.
> - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
> Note: No javadoc subpackage present
> See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
It's optional. I'd like to skip it for now, since the package is complicated
enough anyway.
> - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
> subpackage
> Note: No javadoc subpackage present
> See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
> - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> (~1MB)
> or number of files.
> Note: Documentation size is 574330880 bytes in 12918 files.
> See:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
Freaking %doc macro. Fixed.
> - libsbml-sharp needs to Requires: mono-core
Done.
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/libsbml
> - java-libsbml needs to own %{_libdir}/libsbml
Done.
> Use %{_monodir} instead of %{_prefix}/lib/mono
Done.
> [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> see libsbml-sharp note above
Ack.
> [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> note - it does but is marked as such -- this is fine
Upstream has acknowledged the issue, but the fix might not be easy.
> [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
> is
> arched.
> Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 290048000 bytes in /usr/share ruby-
> SBML-5.11.0-6.fc21.x86_64.rpm:289546240
Should be fixed now.
> libsbml-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/include/sbml/packages/render/sbml/ListOfCurveElements.h
I'll ping upstram.
> ruby-SBML.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
> /usr/share/doc/libsbml/README-ruby.txt src/bindings/ruby/README.txt
Yikes, fixed.
> libsbml.src:344: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
> libsbml.src:350: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
Fixed.
> libsbml.src:391: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/mono/libsbmlcsP/
> 12 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 30 errors, 17 warnings.
I think it's fine.
Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/libsbml.spec
SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/libsbml-5.11.0-8.fc22.src.rpm
koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8810346 (build, but I
hope it'll be fine)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187337] Review Request: sil-coval-fonts - font derived from sans-serif
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187337
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
Some suggestions:
1) Drop the sil prefix. This font does not look to be published on
http://scripts.sil.org website so "sil" as a foundry cannot be used.
2) As fonts do get updates without getting their metadata updated. I suggest
always to use maximum for versioning like if font provides version number then
use it. Also, use the date on which you downloaded source. So consider this as
a post-release snapshot package as given in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
If you look at http://openfontlibrary.org/en/font/bretan page, you can clearly
see last updated date given as well as history also shows same zip archive name
is used in past.
So, your release tag can be either
Release: 1.20150122%{?dist}
or today's date as you downloaded source today
Release: 1.20150203%{?dist}
But, considering all these facts I will say for now use "1.20150122" as updated
date is specified on website. If it was not there we should use current date.
3) fontconfig file should say "sans-serif" and not "serif"
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1188648] Review Request: perl-Palm - Palm OS utility functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188648 --- Comment #4 from Emmanuel Seyman --- (In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #3) > > This is not a simple rename. The distribution got split into two, at least > -- this one and Palm::PDB. The latter needs to be packaged before this one > as it's your (and lbdb's) dependency. Yup, perl-Palm-PDB was reviewed in bug #1187873 and hit rawhide on 2015-02-02. > Wrong lettercase on the Obsoletes line. > Mark the LICENSE file with %license; this is now mandatory. > Missing BR: perl > The minimum required version of EU::MM should be 6.76. That's when support > for NO_PACKLIST was introduced. > You can substitute PERL_INSTALL_ROOT with DESTDIR. > The URL still points to p5-Palm. All fixed. Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Palm/perl-Palm.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Palm/perl-Palm-1.014-2.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 1188648] Review Request: perl-Palm - Palm OS utility functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188648 --- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata --- (In reply to Emmanuel Seyman from comment #2) > (In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #1) > > The standalone spec differs from the one included in the SRPM. > > Wow, I'm off to a great start on this one. Source RPM rebuilt. Indeed. This is not a simple rename. The distribution got split into two, at least -- this one and Palm::PDB. The latter needs to be packaged before this one as it's your (and lbdb's) dependency. Wrong lettercase on the Obsoletes line. Mark the LICENSE file with %license; this is now mandatory. Missing BR: perl The minimum required version of EU::MM should be 6.76. That's when support for NO_PACKLIST was introduced. You can substitute PERL_INSTALL_ROOT with DESTDIR. The URL still points to p5-Palm. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1187232] Review Request: perl-inc-latest - Use modules bundled in inc/ if they are newer than installed ones
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187232 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-inc-latest-0.500-1.fc2 ||2 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-02-03 09:38:44 --- Comment #9 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1182761] Review Request: vdr-weatherforecast - A VDR plugin which provides a weather forecast
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182761 MartinKG changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-02-03 09:11:35 --- Comment #9 from MartinKG --- package has been built successfully on fc20, fc21 and rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1186900] Review Request: kwave - Sound Editor for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186900 --- Comment #7 from Till Maas --- (In reply to Pranav Kant from comment #5) > Your new SPEC URL still contains BR gcc-c++, I think its not needed. There was a discussion to maybe remove gcc-c++ from the minimal build root and it is also not forbidden to include it, so it was a good finding, but is probably not worth changing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1186900] Review Request: kwave - Sound Editor for KDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186900
Till Maas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||opensou...@till.name
--- Comment #6 from Till Maas ---
(In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #4)
> (In reply to Pranav Kant from comment #3)
>
> > kwave.x86_64: E: non-empty-%post /sbin/ldconfig
> > kwave.x86_64: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig
>
> Strange thing... I don't know what this means. Will investigate it.
You need to use e.g. the following:
%post
/sbin/ldconfig
/usr/bin/update-desktop-database &> /dev/null || :
/bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig is only ok, when /sbin/ldconfig is the only command in
%post.
Reference: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1188648] Review Request: perl-Palm - Palm OS utility functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188648 --- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman --- (In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #1) > The standalone spec differs from the one included in the SRPM. Wow, I'm off to a great start on this one. Source RPM rebuilt. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1147013] Review Request: proxychains-ng - Redirect connections through proxy servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147013 --- Comment #20 from Till Maas --- Also please explain in your reviews, whether you consider the rpmlint output to be ok or if not, what needs to be done. Also for e.g. the Provides/Requires output, please comment whether this means there is a problem or not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1188536] Review Request: rubygem-debugger-linecache - Read file with caching
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188536 --- Comment #1 from František Dvořák --- It seems the upstream license is MIT, which is incompatible with the license chosen by previous author. Using GPLv2+ for the package in Fedora is probably the way, how to package debugger-linecache properly. But it would be better to point out this to upstream. (Maybe there is permission from the previous author?) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1147013] Review Request: proxychains-ng - Redirect connections through proxy servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147013 --- Comment #19 from Till Maas --- I took a look at your informal reviews. When you use fedora-review, you need to manually complete the review template, i.e. if there is a empty box like "[ ]", you need to manually evaluate whether this is not applicable, correct or not correct. Therefore can you please complete your informal reviews, so that the checklists are complete? If you have any questions, feel free to ask. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1188648] Review Request: perl-Palm - Palm OS utility functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188648 --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata --- The standalone spec differs from the one included in the SRPM. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1188648] Review Request: perl-Palm - Palm OS utility functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188648 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1187970] Review Request: konsole5 - KDE Terminal emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187970 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 1187970] Review Request: konsole5 - KDE Terminal emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187970 Jon Ciesla 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 1187232] Review Request: perl-inc-latest - Use modules bundled in inc/ if they are newer than installed ones
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187232 Jon Ciesla 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 1187232] Review Request: perl-inc-latest - Use modules bundled in inc/ if they are newer than installed ones
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187232 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 1187224] Review Request: python-backport_collections - Backport of Python 2.7's collections module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187224 Jon Ciesla 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 1187224] Review Request: python-backport_collections - Backport of Python 2.7's collections module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187224 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 1182761] Review Request: vdr-weatherforecast - A VDR plugin which provides a weather forecast
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182761 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). No need to request rawhide, it's automatic. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1182761] Review Request: vdr-weatherforecast - A VDR plugin which provides a weather forecast
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182761 Jon Ciesla 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 1188648] New: Review Request: perl-Palm - Palm OS utility functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188648 Bug ID: 1188648 Summary: Review Request: perl-Palm - Palm OS utility functions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: emman...@seyman.fr QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Palm/perl-Palm.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Palm/perl-Palm-1.014-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This module provides functions and handlers to manipulate files used by Palm PDAs (AddressBook, ToDo, Memo, ...). Fedora Account System Username: eseyman Rpmlint output: 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Note that this is a re-review for a package rename. The perl-Palm package is a renaming of the perl-p5-Palm one, upstream having decided to do a name-change. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1177406] Review Request: csvcat - Efficiently concatenate CSVs or other tabular text files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177406 Jon Ciesla 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 517858] Review Request: RackTables - RackTables is a datacenter asset management system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517858 Jon Ciesla 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 517858] Review Request: RackTables - RackTables is a datacenter asset management system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517858 --- Comment #31 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 1149410] Review Request: rubygem-aws-sdk-core - AWS SDK for Ruby - Core
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149410 --- Comment #4 from František Dvořák --- OK, updated. There is quite fast release cadence. :-) Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-aws-sdk-core-2.0.21-1/rubygem-aws-sdk-core.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-aws-sdk-core-2.0.21-1/rubygem-aws-sdk-core-2.0.21-1.fc22.src.rpm * Fri Jan 30 2015 František Dvořák - 2.0.21-1 - Update to 2.0.21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1188536] Review Request: rubygem-debugger-linecache - Read file with caching
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188536 František Dvořák changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||val...@civ.zcu.cz Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|val...@civ.zcu.cz 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 1188625] New: Review Request: astutils - AT&T AST utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188625 Bug ID: 1188625 Summary: Review Request: astutils - AT&T AST utils Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rma...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://www.nrubsig.org/people/gisburn/work/redhat/ast_utils_rpm_review/astutils.spec SRPM URL: http://www.nrubsig.org/people/gisburn/work/redhat/ast_utils_rpm_review/astutils-20140721-2.fc20.src.rpm Description: AT&T AST utilities Fedora Account System Username: gisburn -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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
