[Bug 1216279] Review Request: cppformat - Small, safe and fast formating library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1216279
--- Comment #2 from Dave Johansen ---
I fixed all of the issues below with the details below. The update .spec and
source .rpm can be found at the same links as before.
(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #1)
> > License:BSD
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
I extracted the LICENSE from README.rst and included it in the base package
(please let me know if it's need to be in the -devel package). I also emailed
upstream to request that it be added to the source distribution for a future
release.
> > Patch0: cppformat_so_name.patch
> > Patch1: cppformat_lib64.patch
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Patch_Guidelines
I added references to the commits where these issues have been fixed upstream
for a future release.
> > %files doc
> > %doc doc/html/
>
> > %packagedoc
> > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
>
> Even if the guidelines don't say anything about it [yet], please keep plain
> documentation packages free from superfluous dependencies. This -doc package
> certainly does _not_ need the base library package to be installed. It is
> much more convenient, if documentation packages can be installed without
> pulling in unnecessary dependency-chains.
Sorry, this was a copy and paste error from the -devel 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 1219288] New: Review Request: python-marshmallow - Python library for converting complex datatypes to and from primitive types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219288 Bug ID: 1219288 Summary: Review Request: python-marshmallow - Python library for converting complex datatypes to and from primitive types Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcall...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/python-marshmallow/python-marshmallow.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/python-marshmallow/python-marshmallow-1.2.6-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Marshmallow is a framework-agnostic library for converting complex datatypes, such as objects, to and from primitive Python datatypes. Marshmallow schemas can be used to: * Validate input data. * Deserialize input data to app-level objects. * Serialize app-level objects to primitive Python types. The serialized objects can then be rendered to standard formats such as JSON for use in an HTTP API. Fedora Account System Username: dcallagh -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1215762] Review Request: py4j - Dynamically access in Python programs to arbitrary Java objects (for Python 2 and 3)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215762
Raphael Groner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: py4j - Py4J |Review Request: py4j -
|enables Python programs to |Dynamically access in
|dynamically access |Python programs to
|arbitrary Java objects (for |arbitrary Java objects (for
|Python 2 and 3) |Python 2 and 3)
--- Comment #31 from Raphael Groner ---
Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/py4j/py4j.spec
SRPM URL:
https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/py4j/py4j-0.9-0.2.pre.20141101git9a8ab93.fc22.src.rpm
Description: Dynamically access in Python programs to arbitrary Java objects
Fedora Account System Username: raphgro
rawhide scratch (Java 8 and Python 2+3):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9671013
epel7 scratch (Java 7 and Python 2 only):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9671042
Note: There was a lot of activity at upstream in the last few days. So I'm
going to provide a new snapshot for just another 0.3 release. But there's a bug
with sphinx now.
--
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #30)
> Forgotten
> invalid-url URL: https://py4j.sf.net refused>
> Please, use http://py4j.sourceforge.net/
Fixed. Replaced https with http - it does not seem to like ssl with the short
sf domain.
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #29)
> ISSUES:
>
> [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> py4j-9a8ab938b4024af8f0455edb54f80fdb5195968b/py4j-java/src/py4j/Base64.java
This file is obviously taken from MiGBase64 that's licensed with BSD and can be
found as the original project separately at sourceforge, see also inside the
source file header with an included BSD statement. There are some forks also at
GitHub. But I fail to find any Fedora package. Not sure if we have to care.
Maybe use base64coder or java-base64 as a replacement?
http://migbase64.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/migbase64/migbase64/src/util/Base64.java?view=markup
http://sourceforge.net/projects/migbase64/
> [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
What to do here exactly? Should I patch the setup.py internal logic that builds
the CPython stuff?
> py4j-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
> /usr/share/doc/py4j-doc/html/.buildinfo
> Please, remove
>
> py4j-java.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/py4j/*.jar
> %{javadir}/py4j/*.jar
> Please, use
> %mvn_artifact %{name}-java/pom.xml %{name}-java/%{name}.jar
> ...
> ln -sf %{javadir}/%{name}/%{name}.jar %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}
>
> Please, remove all bundled JS libraries
...
> py4j-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
...
> Please remove these files, used only for generate documentation
...
All fixed.
> Diff spec file in url and in SRPM (see above)
Not clear to me what that means?
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #28)
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 50 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1215762-py4j/review-
py4j/licensecheck.txt
==> I guess all of those files can be considered to be BSD cause it's the main
upstream license for the whole project.
py4j-9a8ab938b4024af8f0455edb54f80fdb5195968b/py4j-java/src/py4j/commands/ExceptionCommand.java
==> Not sure why not licensed inside. Have to invest.
py4j-9a8ab938b4024af8f0455edb54f80fdb5195968b/py4j-python/setup.py
==> This is configuration for setuptools.
py4j-9a8ab938b4024af8f0455edb54f80fdb5195968b/py4j-python/src/py4j/compat.py
py4j-9a8ab938b4024af8f0455edb54f80fdb5195968b/py4j-python/src/py4j/finalizer.py
py4j-9a8ab938b4024af8f0455edb54f80fdb5195968b/py4j-python/src/py4j/java_collections.py
==> Not sure why not licensed inside. Have to invest.
py4j-9a8ab938b4024af8f0455edb54f80fdb5195968b/py4j-python/src/py4j/java_gateway.py
py4j-9a8ab938b4024af8f0455edb54f80fdb5195968b/py4j-python/src/py4j/protocol.py
==> Not sure why not licensed inside. Have to invest.
py4j-9a8ab938b4024af8f0455edb54f80fdb5195968b/py4j-python/src/py4j/version.py
==> Very short file that is patched to nearly emptiness in spec file.
...
> py4j.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Py4J
Fixed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1098965] Review Request: capstone - Multi-platform, multi-architecture disassembly framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098965 Stefan Cornelius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||scorn...@redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Stefan Cornelius --- Created attachment 1022824 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1022824&action=edit Updated spec file for version 3.0.2. Update to 3.0.2. It's a major version change, but the previous spec file pretty much worked, apart from a few minor tweaks. This adds the %check section, as upstream now seems to have separated them now. Also fixes 64bit packing issues. Next thing to do is to get a scratch build of this done to see if that passes on all arches. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1060804] Review Request: flamp - Amateur Multicast Protocol - file transfer program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060804 --- Comment #22 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #21) > SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flamp.spec > SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flamp-2.2.02-1.fc21.src.rpm > > * Tue May 5 2015 Richard Shaw - 2.2.02-1 > - Update to latest upstream release. > - Build with external xmlrpc library. http://www.w1hkj.com/downloads/flamp/flamp-2.2.02.tar.gz is not reachable; as soon as this link is reactivated i can review your 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 1207948] Review Request: dagger - A fast dependency injector for Android and Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207948 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner --- APPROVED Sorry for the delay. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1216279] Review Request: cppformat - Small, safe and fast formating library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1216279
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
> License:BSD
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
> Patch0: cppformat_so_name.patch
> Patch1: cppformat_lib64.patch
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Patch_Guidelines
> %files doc
> %doc doc/html/
> %packagedoc
> Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Even if the guidelines don't say anything about it [yet], please keep plain
documentation packages free from superfluous dependencies. This -doc package
certainly does _not_ need the base library package to be installed. It is much
more convenient, if documentation packages can be installed without pulling in
unnecessary dependency-chains.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1204447] Review Request: python-geoip-geolite2 - GeoIP database access for Python under a BSD license
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204447
--- Comment #2 from William Moreno ---
Hello!
Thanks for the comment.
I change the source from github to pypi, the pypi source contains a
GeoLite2-City.mmdb file than is the database of IP, without this file the
package it is not funtional, this database is licensed under a CC license so
con be included in Fedora Repos, can see:http://dev.maxmind.com/ru/geolite2/
I run fedora-review locally without issues
Thanks for that!
This package build both with Python2 and Python3, but there is not
python3-GeoIP in repos so only build with Python2.
Rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9668744
I will keep the %{python2_sitelib}/* to be sure than include the database file
with out hard code names.
The changelog is in a permisible format (3rd option):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
This section of Guidelines was update early this year
Own fedora-review do not provide issues:
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/python-geoip-
geolite2/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[
[Bug 1218124] Review Request: kwalletmanager5 - Manage KDE passwords
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218124 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: kwalletmanager5 Short Description: Manage KDE passwords Upstream URL: https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdeutils/kwalletmanager Owners: jgrulich group::kde-sig Branches: f22 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1218277] Review Request: mongo-tools - MongoDB tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218277 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo --- mongo-tools-r3.0.2/vendor/src/gopkg.in/mgo.v2/LICENSE BSD (2 clause) license mongo-tools-r3.0.2/vendor/src/gopkg.in/tomb.v2/LICENSE BSD (3 clause) license -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1218277] Review Request: mongo-tools - MongoDB tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218277 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo --- NON blocking issues: [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 719 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1218277-mongo-tools/review-mongo- tools/licensecheck.txt You should install also BSD license for e.g. mongo-tools-r3.0.2/vendor/src/gopkg.in/tomb.v2/LICENSE mongo-tools-r3.0.2/LICENSE.md is more similar to a "NOTICE" file should have these contents http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt [!]: Latest version is packaged. see above -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-05-06 13:46:30 --- Comment #28 from James Hogarth --- Sslh is now in epel5/6/7 and f21/22/rawhide stable repos and can be installed via yum install sslh -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1218277] Review Request: mongo-tools - MongoDB tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218277
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE.md in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
IGNORE
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or
generated". 719 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/gil/1218277-mongo-tools/review-mongo-
tools/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses
[?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[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
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package 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:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: 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.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager,
[Bug 1199298] Review Request: liblas - LAS 1.0/1.1/1.2 ASPRS LiDAR data translation toolset
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199298 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|liblas-1.8.0-3.fc21 |liblas-1.8.0-3.el7 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- liblas-1.8.0-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203476] Review Request: sslh - Applicative protocol(SSL/SSH) multiplexer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203476 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- sslh-1.17-1.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 1199296] Review Request: laszip - Quickly turns bulky LAS files into compant LAZ files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199296 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|laszip-2.2.0-4.fc21 |laszip-2.2.0-4.el7 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- laszip-2.2.0-4.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 1203476] Review Request: sslh - Applicative protocol(SSL/SSH) multiplexer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203476 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- sslh-1.17-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203476] Review Request: sslh - Applicative protocol(SSL/SSH) multiplexer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203476 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- sslh-1.17-1.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 1193531] Review Request: php-phpspec - Specification-oriented BDD framework for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193531 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- php-phpspec-2.2.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1218277] Review Request: mongo-tools - MongoDB tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218277 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- https://github.com/mongodb/mongo-tools/releases/tag/r3.0.3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1218277] Review Request: mongo-tools - MongoDB tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218277 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo --- can update to latest release? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1218277] Review Request: mongo-tools - MongoDB tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218277 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it 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 1215261] Review Request: pytimeparse - Time expression parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215261 --- Comment #6 from Pradeep Kilambi --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-pytimeparse Short Description: Python time expression parse library Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/pytimeparse/pytimeparse-1.1.4.tar.gz Owners: pkilambi Branches: f20 f21 f22 epel7 InitialCC: pkilambi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1219122] Review Request: rubygem-webkit-gtk - Ruby binding of WebKitGTK+ using GTK3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219122 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 1091657] Review Request: python34 - Version 3 of the Python programming language aka Python 3000
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091657 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi --- It might be better if you open a new review with you as submitter and close this one as a duplicate of that one. (Just to keep things clear who is submitting, etc). I'm also happy to review (but It likely wouldn't be super soon), and also happy to help co-maintain (along with infra-sig if you like). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1206946] Review Request: rubygem-occi-cli - Executable OCCI client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206946 Mamoru TASAKA changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mtas...@fedoraproject.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mamoru TASAKA --- Taking. I would appreciate it if you would review my review request (bug 1219122) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1219122] New: Review Request: rubygem-webkit-gtk - Ruby binding of WebKitGTK+ using GTK3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219122 Bug ID: 1219122 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-webkit-gtk - Ruby binding of WebKitGTK+ using GTK3 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mtas...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/ruby-gnome2-suite/rubygem-webkit-gtk.spec SRPM URL: https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/ruby-gnome2-suite/rubygem-webkit-gtk-2.2.5-1.fc.src.rpm Description: Ruby/WebKitGTK is a Ruby binding of WebKitGTK+ using GTK3. Fedora Account System Username: mtasaka Koji scratch build: F-23 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9665140 F-22 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9665148 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1215261] Review Request: pytimeparse - Time expression parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215261 Pradeep Kilambi 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 1215261] Review Request: pytimeparse - Time expression parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215261
Haïkel Guémar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. |
|com)|
--- Comment #5 from Haïkel Guémar ---
2 remaining issues, but I trust you to fix them before importing
* URL has a small typo: correct one is
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
* sed -i s/rm -rf %{buildroot}//g' python-pytimeparse.spec => not needed and
against guidelines
Then I hereby approve it into Fedora Package Collection, please submit a SCM
request.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/1215261-python-
pytimeparse/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source0:
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/g/pytimeparse/pytimeparse-1.1.4.tar.gz
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to incl
[Bug 1091657] Review Request: python34 - Version 3 of the Python programming language aka Python 3000
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091657 --- Comment #6 from Matej Stuchlik --- Spec URL: https://mstuchli.fedorapeople.org/python34.spec SRPM URL: https://mstuchli.fedorapeople.org/python34-3.4.3-1.fc21.src.rpm Here's it is, fixed up and rebased to 3.4.3. I'll ask Aurelien Bompard if he would do the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1218124] Review Request: kwalletmanager5 - Manage KDE passwords
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218124 Rajeesh changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Rajeesh --- Okay, clear then. Thanks, 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 1210983] Review Request: python-vcrpy - Automatically mock your HTTP interactions to simplify and speed up testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210983 Pierre-YvesChibon changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Pierre-YvesChibon --- * Rpmlint can safely be ignored: python3-vcrpy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yaml -> yam, yams, yawl python3-vcrpy.noarch: W: no-documentation python-vcrpy.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-contextlib2 python-vcrpy.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-contextlib2 python-vcrpy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yaml -> yam, yams, yawl python-vcrpy.noarch: W: no-documentation python-vcrpy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yaml -> yam, yams, yawl python-vcrpy.src:135: W: macro-in-comment %doc python-vcrpy.src:136: W: macro-in-comment %license python-vcrpy.src:144: W: macro-in-comment %doc python-vcrpy.src:145: W: macro-in-comment %license 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings. * Spec is clean * License is MIT and is shipped in the sources ! The LICENSE and README file can now be marked as %doc * No bundle in the sources * Builds cleanly on F22 (via mock) (not in F21 but that's likely an updates-testing issue) * Consistent usage of the macros * Upstream sources: 6f40f3e0fbde03ca44ccdff2711cac39dcd6d2354795582f8bf6f98376fa0b62 vcrpy-1.4.2.tar.gz * srpm sources: 6f40f3e0fbde03ca44ccdff2711cac39dcd6d2354795582f8bf6f98376fa0b62 python-vcrpy-1.4.2-1.fc21.src/vcrpy-1.4.2.tar.gz This looks all good to me This package is 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 1218362] Review Request: richacls - Rich Access Control List utilities and dynamic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218362 Andreas Gruenbacher changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Andreas Gruenbacher --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: richacl Short Description: Rich Access Control List utilities Upstream URL: https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/richacl Owners: agruenba devos Branches: f22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1210983] Review Request: python-vcrpy - Automatically mock your HTTP interactions to simplify and speed up testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210983 --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean --- Sorry about that. I must've been in a rush at PyCon. Here's a latest upstream rebuild with some fixes to the specfile: Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SPECS/python-vcrpy.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SRPMS/python-vcrpy-1.4.2-1.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1218310] Review Request: fedora-user-agent-chrome - User-Agent Fedora branding for Google Chrome/Chromium browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218310 Tomas Popela 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 1218124] Review Request: kwalletmanager5 - Manage KDE passwords
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218124 --- Comment #2 from Jan Grulich --- It cannot obsolete kwalletmanager, because we need both to be co-installable. Old kwalletmanager is still needed for KDE 4 applications, like KMail. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1218362] Review Request: richacls - Rich Access Control List utilities and dynamic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218362 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Package looks good to me. APPROVED Also, since you needed a sponsor, I have sponsored you into the packager group. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1218124] Review Request: kwalletmanager5 - Manage KDE passwords
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218124 Rajeesh changed: What|Removed |Added 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 1218362] Review Request: richacls - Rich Access Control List utilities and dynamic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218362 --- Comment #11 from Andreas Gruenbacher --- New version: https://agruenba.fedorapeople.org/scratch/richacl-1.5-4.fc21.src.rpm https://agruenba.fedorapeople.org/scratch/richacl.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 1218124] Review Request: kwalletmanager5 - Manage KDE passwords
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218124 Rajeesh changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rajeeshknamb...@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 1218124] Review Request: kwalletmanager5 - Manage KDE passwords
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218124
Rajeesh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||rajeeshknamb...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Rajeesh ---
In general, looks good! There is one non-conformance: kwalletmanager5 should
obsolete kwalletmanager.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"LGPL (v2)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/rajeesh/kwalletmanager5/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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. kwalletmanager5 should obsolete kwalletmanager
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
[-]: 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 installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Rpmlint complains about the commented macros, but that should be okay
because of no official release yet
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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 rp
[Bug 1196780] Review Request: openrpt - reporting tool for xTuple / PostBooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
fedora-review has the following to say:
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/var/tmp/1196780-openrpt/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
- Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
attached diff).
See: (this test has no URL)
openrpt-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/openrpt/**.h
openrpt-devel.x86_64: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/include/openrpt/OpenRPT/wrtembed/tmp/ui_texteditor.h
openrpt-devel.x86_64: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/include/openrpt/OpenRPT/wrtembed/tmp/ui_crosstabeditor.h
openrpt.src:47: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
openrpt.src: W: file-size-mismatch v3.3.7.tar.gz = 1218978,
https://github.com/xtuple/openrpt/archive/v3.3.7.tar.gz = 1198328
openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libopenrptcommon.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libopenrptcommon.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1015868] Review Request: python-qutepart - Source code text editor component based on Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015868 --- Comment #20 from Yajo --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #19) > Sorry, I missed the word "component" in the summary and commented wrongly. > The python prefix seems to be right in the name. It's the component that uses the Enki editor. The main goal is to package Enki for Fedora, but of course this must be done first. I'll update the Enki bug ASAP too, it got updated recently. Also, I'll try to take more seriously the task of reviewing others' jobs. I'll report here. I sincerely thank your efforts. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1213871] Review Request: plasma-sdk - Development tools for Plasma 5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1213871 Daniel Vrátil changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-05-06 07:32:24 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Vrátil --- Imported. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1218362] Review Request: richacls - Rich Access Control List utilities and dynamic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218362
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Uiterwijk ---
(In reply to Andreas Gruenbacher from comment #7)
> > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/sys
> >Requires on glibc-headers required for /usr/include/sys
>
> The librichacl-devel package does not create /usr/include/sys, it only puts
> files there. But see below ...
Fair enough, this was only meant under the "Requires packages for directories
it uses".
>
> > [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> >I have no idea what "%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}" does.
>
> It's from this from this commit:
>
>
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/acl.git/commit/
> ?id=231dae96d1ec92a18d9a53e73e080c538d5739df
>
> It defines "%license" to expand to "%doc" if %_licensedir is not defined.
> Seemingly that was needed in 2014; why would that have changed?
Okay, I have found the origin of this line, but it's only used for EPEL 5/6
compatibility.
If you're not going to put this in EPEL 5 or 6, please remove it.
>
> > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
> > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
>
> Let's see if any of the nonsense rpmlint complains about really needs
> to be addressed with the updated spec file.
>
> > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> >Dep for glibc-headers missing for /usr/include/sys
> >Dep for pkgconfig missing for /usr/lib(64)/pkgconfig
>
> Okay, but this rule seems totally arbitrary: there are numerous packages
> where this is not the case, just check some of those:
>
> rpm -qf /usr/include/sys/* | sort -u
> rpm -qf /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/* | sort -u
I don't know how you get this to return nothing, on F21:
[puiterwijk@bofh ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/* | sort -u | head
GeoIP-devel-1.6.5-1.fc21.x86_64
R-core-devel-3.1.3-1.fc21.x86_64
SDL-devel-1.2.15-17.fc21.x86_64
SDL2-devel-2.0.3-4.fc21.x86_64
SDL2_image-devel-2.0.0-7.fc21.x86_64
SDL2_mixer-devel-2.0.0-7.fc21.x86_64
SDL2_net-devel-2.0.0-2.fc21.x86_64
SDL2_ttf-devel-2.0.12-4.fc21.x86_64
Xaw3d-devel-1.6.2-7.fc21.x86_64
accountsservice-devel-0.6.39-2.fc21.x86_64
[puiterwijk@bofh ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/include/sys/* | sort -u | head
alsa-lib-devel-1.0.28-2.fc21.x86_64
glibc-headers-2.20-8.fc21.x86_64
libacl-devel-2.2.52-7.fc21.x86_64
libcap-devel-2.24-7.fc21.x86_64
systemtap-sdt-devel-2.7-1.fc21.x86_64
Also: the fact "Nobody does it, thus I don't have to do it" is just... wrong.
>
> > [!]: SourceX is a working URL.
> >Please use the github tarball urls:
> >https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/richacl/archive/v1.4.tar.gz
>
> This is actually bad advice: those tarballs that github creates dynamically
> are
> git snapshots for certain tags. They do not include generated files like
> configure, etc. and they don't work in the context of SourceX.
>
> We could make them work by adding autoconf + automake to the dependencies
> and by
> running autoreconf, but that is not recommended.
You can also upload your own tarballs to github for a release you created
(https://help.github.com/articles/creating-releases/).
You should REALLY consider making sane releases, since that also makes it a lot
easier for people to check your package and for other people (non-Fedora users)
to pick it up.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1015868] Review Request: python-qutepart - Source code text editor component based on Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015868 --- Comment #19 from Raphael Groner --- Sorry, I missed the word "component" in the summary and commented wrongly. The python prefix seems to be right in the name. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1218779] Review Request: vagrant-triggers - Vagrant plugin to allow using arbitrary commands on host before/after Vagrant commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218779 Josef Stribny changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jstri...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jstri...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Josef Stribny --- I will take it for a review. Please fix first the issues pointed out by Vit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1218127] Review Request: pagure - A git-centered forge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218127 --- Comment #2 from Pierre-YvesChibon --- Update to 0.1.1: Spec URL: http://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/pagure.spec SRPM URL: https://pingou.fedorapeople.org/RPMs/pagure-0.1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210983] Review Request: python-vcrpy - Automatically mock your HTTP interactions to simplify and speed up testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210983 Pierre-YvesChibon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pin...@pingoured.fr Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Pierre-YvesChibon --- ! Changelog is invalid ! Spec in the srpm is different from the spec linked to here ! Using the spec file linked to here, I fail to rebuild this package in mock mock --rebuild ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-vcrpy-1.4.0-1.fc21.src.rpm -r fedora-22-x86_64 output: http://fpaste.org/218906/43090307/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1210983] Review Request: python-vcrpy - Automatically mock your HTTP interactions to simplify and speed up testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210983 Pierre-YvesChibon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pin...@pingoured.fr --- Comment #1 from Pierre-YvesChibon --- Note: This package won't build on F21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1218779] Review Request: vagrant-triggers - Vagrant plugin to allow using arbitrary commands on host before/after Vagrant commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218779 --- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch --- * Too long summary - Not sure if there is some limit for Summary, but it seems to be pretty long. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1218779] Review Request: vagrant-triggers - Vagrant plugin to allow using arbitrary commands on host before/after Vagrant commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218779 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vondr...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch --- Just a few quick notes: * Empty changelog - You should put some entry into changelog * Unused BuildRequires - The following build requires are not required: BuildRequires: rubygem-rake, rubygem-rspec, rubygem-simplecov BuildRequires: ruby(release) BuildRequires: ruby - If you put the test suite into usable state, the rubygem-rspec would be the only required gem. Usage of Rake and SimpleCov is discouraged in every case. * Bundler is not required for runtime - I believe that "Requires: rubygem-bundler: is not needed, since rubygem-bundler is very likely pulled in via Vagrant dependency. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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
