[Bug 472229] Review Request: PyQwt - Python bindings for Qwt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472229 markusN changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nete...@gmail.com --- Comment #20 from markusN --- (In reply to Jiri Kastner from comment #19) > Package Change Request > == > Package Name: PyQwt > New Branches: epel7 > Owners: tadej I have opened a new request for this at #1204451 -- 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 1204447] New: Review Request: python-geoip-geolite2 - GeoIP database access for Python under a BSD license
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447 Bug ID: 1204447 Summary: Review Request: python-geoip-geolite2 - GeoIP database access for Python under a BSD license Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: williamjmore...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-geoip-geolite2.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-geoip-geolite2-2015.0303-20140221git80b888b.fc21.1.src.rpm Description: GeoIP database access for Python under a BSD license Fedora Account System Username: williamjmorenor Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9294343 Epel7: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9294345 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1204445] New: Review Request: python-email_reply_parser - Email reply parser library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204445 Bug ID: 1204445 Summary: Review Request: python-email_reply_parser - Email reply parser library for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: williamjmore...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-email_reply_parser.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-email_reply_parser-0.3.0-20140523git76e9481.fc21.1.src.rpm Description: Email reply parser library for Python Fedora Account System Username: williamjmorenor Test fails something, issue is reported: https://github.com/zapier/email-reply-parser/issues/17 Rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9294307 F22 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9294321 F21 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9294322 EPEL7 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9294325 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- python-honcho-0.5.0-3.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 1199938] Review Request: simsu - Basic Sudoku game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199938 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|simsu-1.3.1-2.fc22 |simsu-1.3.1-2.fc21 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- simsu-1.3.1-2.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 1128253] Review Request: gerrymander - A client API and command line tool for gerrit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128253 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||gerrymander-1.4-1.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-03-22 00:42:21 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System --- gerrymander-1.4-1.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 1199184] Review Request: DecodeIR - Infrared remote controls decoding library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199184 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- DecodeIR-2.45-3.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 1198040] Review Request: gnome-characters - Character map application for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198040 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- gnome-characters-3.15.92-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1203018] Review Request: baculum - WebGUI tool for Bacula Community program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203018 --- Comment #4 from Marcin Haba --- Hello, I built Baculum by Fedora Build System. Here is link to task: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9293633 Spec file and SRPM are here: Spec URL: http://www.bacula.pl/baculum.spec SRPM URL: http://www.bacula.pl/baculum-7.0.20150322git0be2b51a-1.fc21.src.rpm One more info: I will need a sponsor. Thank you in advance for review and advises. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1186501] Review Request: libticables2 - Texas Instruments link cables library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186501 --- Comment #10 from Ben Rosser --- I think the tests are failing as a result of running inside a chroot (probably because they try to do something with USB?), but I'm not sure... I tested in mock myself just now and torture_ticables segfaulted in both a rawhide and a F21 chroot, but they passed on my actual, physical F21 machine. (And they were passing on this machine when I claimed everything was working). Suggestions? Is it acceptable here to just not run the tests in the specfile or should I investigate further and work on getting this fixed upstream? I mean, the latter *should* be done anyway, I'm wondering if the former is acceptable for the moment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1201788] Review request: nodejs-npm-cache-filename - Return NPM cache folder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201788 Zuzana Svetlikova changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Zuzana Svetlikova --- Sorry for typo New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-npm-cache-filename Short Description: Return NPM cache folder Upstream URL: https://github.com/npm/npm-cache-filename Owners: zvetlik humaton Branches: f20 f21 f22 InitialCC: humaton -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1199738] Review Request: nodejs-doctrine - A JSDoc parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199738 Bug 1199738 depends on bug 1199737, which changed state. Bug 1199737 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-isarray - Array#isArray for older browsers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199737 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1199737] Review Request: nodejs-isarray - Array#isArray for older browsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199737 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||nodejs-isarray-0.0.1-1.fc23 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-03-21 18:46:43 --- Comment #5 from Gerard Ryan --- This is built in Rawhide now: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9292739 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 1203476] Review Request: sslh - Applicative protocol(SSL/SSH) multiplexer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203476
--- Comment #7 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
James,
two (minor) comments regarding the submitted SPEC and SRPM
1) sslh.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sslh/ChangeLog
This can be easily fixed.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#file-not-utf8
2)
cp %{name}-fork %{buildroot}%{_sbindir}/%{name}
(and subsequent lines)
It is important to preserve timestamps when installing files.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps
Use,
cp -p {source} {destination}
Unfortunately, I cannot take this for review since I am not a sponsor. But,
good luck.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1200885] Review Request: airline - Java annotation-based framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200885 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: airline Short Description: Java annotation-based framework Upstream URL: https://github.com/airlift/airline Owners: gil Branches: f22 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 1200885] Review Request: airline - Java annotation-based framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200885 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to Gerard Ryan from comment #1) > Approved. Please enable tests as detailed below before importing. Thanks for > packaging! :) > > > Issues: > === > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > Tests are currently disabled with a note about missing settings from > parent POM, which is not packaged. I've managed to get them to work by > adding the following to %prep, so please enable them before importing: > > %pom_xpath_inject "pom:dependency[pom:artifactId='testng']" > '4.7' Done > ^The problem is that there's no version set, so maven sees the version > as SYSTEM, and that fails a check for version 4.7+. Since we ignore > the version most of the time anyway, we can set it to anything from > 4.7 or later to get this to work (Rawhide has 6.8.21). Inserted 6.8.7 (use guava 18.0) > There are other settings in the parent POM for surefire plugin, but > they don't seem to matter too much, all tests passed for me in mock. Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9292637 Thanks! Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/airline.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/airline-0.7-1.fc20.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 1148224] Review Request: mmdb2 - protein coordinate library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148224 --- Comment #29 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Any update on this Tim? 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 1102812] Review Request: Ubertooth - A Bluetooth wireless development platform for experimentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1102812 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW CC||nonamed...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1102812] Review Request: Ubertooth - A Bluetooth wireless development platform for experimentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1102812 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added CC|nonamed...@gmail.com| Assignee|nonamed...@gmail.com|nob...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1200885] Review Request: airline - Java annotation-based framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200885
Gerard Ryan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Gerard Ryan ---
Approved. Please enable tests as detailed below before importing. Thanks for
packaging! :)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Tests are currently disabled with a note about missing settings from
parent POM, which is not packaged. I've managed to get them to work by
adding the following to %prep, so please enable them before importing:
%pom_xpath_inject "pom:dependency[pom:artifactId='testng']"
'4.7'
^The problem is that there's no version set, so maven sees the version
as SYSTEM, and that fails a check for version 4.7+. Since we ignore
the version most of the time anyway, we can set it to anything from
4.7 or later to get this to work (Rawhide has 6.8.21).
There are other settings in the parent POM for surefire plugin, but
they don't seem to matter too much, all tests passed for me in mock.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 37 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/grdryn/1200885-airline/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files in
[Bug 1200885] Review Request: airline - Java annotation-based framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200885 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ger...@ryan.lt Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ger...@ryan.lt 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 549593] Review Request: tumbler - D-Bus service for applications to request thumbnails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549593 --- Comment #16 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 549593] Review Request: tumbler - D-Bus service for applications to request thumbnails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549593 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 549593] Review Request: tumbler - D-Bus service for applications to request thumbnails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549593 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nonamed...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Package Change Request == Package Name: tumbler New Branches: epel7 Owners: cwickert kevin nonamedotc InitialCC: nonamedotc -- 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 1200241] Review Request: nodejs-dom-serializer - Render dom nodes to string
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200241 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-dom-serializer-0.1.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-dom-serializer-0.1.0-1.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200241] Review Request: nodejs-dom-serializer - Render dom nodes to string
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200241 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-dom-serializer-0.1.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-dom-serializer-0.1.0-1.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1200241] Review Request: nodejs-dom-serializer - Render dom nodes to string
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200241 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201788] Review request: nodejs-npm-cache-filename - Return NPM cache folder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201788 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- WARNING: Requested package name nodejs-npm-chache-filename doesn't match bug summary nodejs-npm-cache-filename -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1199737] Review Request: nodejs-isarray - Array#isArray for older browsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199737 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 1201788] Review request: nodejs-npm-cache-filename - Return NPM cache folder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201788 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200241] Review Request: nodejs-dom-serializer - Render dom nodes to string
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200241 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 1200241] Review Request: nodejs-dom-serializer - Render dom nodes to string
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200241 --- 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 1199737] Review Request: nodejs-isarray - Array#isArray for older browsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199737 --- 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 1199199] Review request: nodejs-char-spinner - Node.js char spinner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199199 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 1199199] Review request: nodejs-char-spinner - Node.js char spinner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199199 --- Comment #7 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 1196290] Review Request: nodejs-wcwidth - Port of C's wcwidth() and wcswidth()
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196290 --- Comment #7 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 1196290] Review Request: nodejs-wcwidth - Port of C's wcwidth() and wcswidth()
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196290 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 1194545] Review Request: python-cached_property - A cached-property for decorating methods in Python classes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194545 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 1194545] Review Request: python-cached_property - A cached-property for decorating methods in Python classes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194545 --- Comment #10 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 351531] Review Request: ristretto - Image-viewer for the Xfce desktop environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=351531 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 351531] Review Request: ristretto - Image-viewer for the Xfce desktop environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=351531 --- Comment #64 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 351531] Review Request: ristretto - Image-viewer for the Xfce desktop environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=351531 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nonamed...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #63 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Package Change Request == Package Name: ristretto New Branches: epel7 Owners: cwickert InitialCC: nonamedotc -- 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 351531] Review Request: ristretto - Image-viewer for the Xfce desktop environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=351531 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1203555 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203555 [Bug 1203555] ristretto missing in EPEL-7 -- 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 1174479] Review Request: beets - Music library manager and MusicBrainz tagger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174479
Juan Orti changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Juan Orti ---
Package is APPROVED.
= 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]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
Note: parallel make disabled due to bugs
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Note: checks disabled because it is forcing the download of pypi modules
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not
[Bug 1196992] Review Request: golang-github-evanphx-json-patch - A Go library to apply RFC6902 patches to JSON documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196992 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|golang-github-evanphx-json- |golang-github-evanphx-json- |patch-0-0.1.gita1ba76c.fc20 |patch-0-0.1.gita1ba76c.el6 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-evanphx-json-patch-0-0.1.gita1ba76c.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 1203587] Review Request: compat-wxGTK3-gtk2 - GTK2 port of the wxWidgets GUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203587 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-03-21 07:57:23 --- Comment #9 from Lubomir Rintel --- Thanks for review & Git! (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #7) > Thx for this package. Sounds like filezilla is in the same case (rely on > wxGTK3 compiled with gtk2 support). > > So this makes me wonder if there is really any "distro wide users" for > wxGTK3 without gtk2 ? I mean for packages that will always work with non > native gtk3 desktop environment ? > > Can you submit a buildroot override (until tuesday) so I can build filezilla > with this new package ? > Thx Done. Imported and built. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1196290] Review Request: nodejs-wcwidth - Port of C's wcwidth() and wcswidth()
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196290 Zuzana Svetlikova changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Zuzana Svetlikova --- URL fixed New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-wcwidth Short Description: Port of C's wcwidth() and wcswidth() Upstream URL: https://www.npmjs.com/package/wcwidth Owners: zvetlik humaton Branches: f20 f21 f22 InitialCC: humaton -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1203155] Review Request: plasma-pk-updates - Plasma applet for system updates using PackageKit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203155
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter ---
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9288038
sources: NOT ok
4f502a7c243f7a2e74437f7083036261 plasma-pk-updates-0.1.tar.gz
but unverifiable
$ spectool -g plasma-pk-updates.spec
Getting
https://github.com/caybro/plasma-pk-updates/archive/plasma-pk-updates-0.1.tar.gz
to ./plasma-pk-updates-0.1.tar.gz
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current
Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed
100 1470 1470 0294 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 294
curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
looks like the URL is simply wrong, adjusting to:
Source0:
https://github.com/caybro/plasma-pk-updates/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz
works
md5sum *.gz
4f502a7c243f7a2e74437f7083036261 v0.1.tar.gz
1. MUST fix Source0 URL
naming: ok
license: ok
macros: ok
scriptlets: ok (n/a)
The only semi-blocker was the source url, but I think we can skip going through
another fix/review cycle here, please fix it prior to doing any official
builds.
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 1057454] Review Request: python-nagiosplugin - Python class library for writing Nagios (Icinga) plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057454 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||piotr1...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch --- This is a quite old request. I'm willing to do the review if you are still interested, please let me know. I can't sponsor you though, you will have to find a sponsor yourself. Best way to find a sponsor is by doing informal review requests and send an email to the fedora devel mailing list. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1203155] Review Request: plasma-pk-updates - Plasma applet for system updates using PackageKit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203155 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196290] Review Request: nodejs-wcwidth - Port of C's wcwidth() and wcswidth()
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196290
Piotr Popieluch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch ---
APPROVED,
There is one issue which you can fix before importing:
nodejs-wcwidth.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/isaacs/wcwidth
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
Url:https://github.com/isaacs/wcwidth
You can use:
Url:https://www.npmjs.com/package/wcwidth
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1196290-nodejs-
wcwidth/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Sour
[Bug 1199199] Review request: nodejs-char-spinner - Node.js char spinner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199199 Zuzana Svetlikova changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199199] Review request: nodejs-char-spinner - Node.js char spinner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199199 --- Comment #6 from Zuzana Svetlikova --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-char-spinner Short Description: Node.js char spinner Upstream URL: https://github.com/isaacs/char-spinner Owners: zvetlik humaton Branches: f20 f21 f22 InitialCC: humaton -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1203587] Review Request: compat-wxGTK3-gtk2 - GTK2 port of the wxWidgets GUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203587 --- Comment #8 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) --- There is an issue with your modification of the version field given m4/wxwin.m4 mandate it to be numeric only value. Maybe it would have been easier to maintain an alternate build from the original wxGTK3 package instead of trying to fork to another compat package... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199199] Review request: nodejs-char-spinner - Node.js char spinner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199199 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch --- Please ignore the license notice in the Issue section. The %license directive in %doc is new, fedora-review on F21 is not updated yet to support that. Package looks good. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1201788] Review request: nodejs-npm-cache-filename - Return NPM cache folder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201788 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199284] Review request: nodejs-npm-install-checks - Install checks for NPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199284
Piotr Popieluch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch ---
APPROVED, but you need to fix following issues before pushing to SCM:
1. nodejs-npm-install-checks.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause
License should be "BSD", not "BSD-2-Clause"
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License_List
for valid short license names.
2. [!]: Latest version is packaged.
I have noticed that the latest version is 1.0.5, you should update to that
version.
3. minor typo
I think this line:
tap test?*.js
Should be:
tap test/*.js
This does not affect working of package though.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1199284-nodejs-npm-install-
checks/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that
[Bug 1174479] Review Request: beets - Music library manager and MusicBrainz tagger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174479 Michele Baldessari changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mich...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Michele Baldessari --- Hi Juan, sorry, I uploaded a mock rebuild that did not have the last python2 changes in the spec file. Here the newer ones (I did not bumb the revision, hope that is ok): http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/beets/beets.spec http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/beets/beets-1.3.10-3.fc23.src.rpm I have now moved the comment about the ISC license of beetsplugin/mbcollection in the proper %files plugins, section as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios thanks again, Michele -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1199184] Review Request: DecodeIR - Infrared remote controls decoding library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199184 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- DecodeIR-2.45-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/DecodeIR-2.45-3.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199184] Review Request: DecodeIR - Infrared remote controls decoding library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199184 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- DecodeIR-2.45-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/DecodeIR-2.45-3.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1203587] Review Request: compat-wxGTK3-gtk2 - GTK2 port of the wxWidgets GUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203587 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kwiz...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) --- Thx for this package. Sounds like filezilla is in the same case (rely on wxGTK3 compiled with gtk2 support). So this makes me wonder if there is really any "distro wide users" for wxGTK3 without gtk2 ? I mean for packages that will always work with non native gtk3 desktop environment ? Can you submit a buildroot override (until tuesday) so I can build filezilla with this new package ? Thx -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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
