[Bug 1215046] Review Request: python-gear - Pure Python Async Gear Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215046
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- license go in %license, not in %doc anymore
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- There is no need to add a explit requires python, since rpm take care of that
( especially since that's a unversionned python deps )
- ideally, a comment saying that the patch cannot be sent upstream ( and why )
or a comment saying it was sent upstream would be nice
- any reasons to not have a %check section since the package ship a tox.ini
file ?
- what about python 3 ?
Since most issues can be fixed quite easily, none are a blocker so I will
sponsor you.
= 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. 1 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/1215046
-python-gear/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: 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 40960 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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.
[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.
[!]: 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:
[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).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description
[Bug 1177451] Review Request: minidns - Minimal DNS library for java and android systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177451 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- I will take this 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 1223627] Review Request: gap-pkg-edim - Elementary divisors of integer matrices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223627 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gap-pkg-edim Short Description: Elementary divisors of integer matrices Upstream URL: http://www.math.rwth-aachen.de/~Frank.Luebeck/EDIM/ Owners: jjames 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 1205777] Review Request: gap-pkg-autpgrp - Compute the automorphism group of a p-Group in GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205777 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gap-pkg-autpgrp Short Description: Compute the automorphism group of a p-Group in GAP Upstream URL: http://www.icm.tu-bs.de/~beick/so.html Owners: jjames 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 1079064] Review Request: btbuilder - Role-playing game construction set in the style of the Bard's Tale Construction Set
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079064 --- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu --- So, this has already gone through a bunch of review and the spec is about as clean as they come. There are a couple of tiny rpmlint issues, which aren't blockers: btbuilder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary btbuilder Would be nice if there was a manpage, but it's not essential. btbuilder-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/btbuilder-0.5.2/src/SDL_mng.c btbuilder-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/btbuilder-0.5.2/src/SDL_mng.h These have old copies of the GPL header which have the wrong address for the FSF. Not a huge deal, but upstream should probably fix it. However, that does unconver another issue: The files SDL_mng.c and SDL_mng.h appear to come from somewhere else and have a different license. Do you know where they're from? I can't find them on the Debian code search site so they may not be bundled from another project, but I would like to make sure. In the same vein, what about the code in util? It appears to be very old, and has no license. At least compressor.* and file.* are also present in the source tree, though file.C has several significant changes. Neither are particularly large and appear to, well, not really be much in the way of code anyway. Still, we have to be precise about these things. And, finally, uh, when I run it things are pretty weird. I get this absolutely, hilariously massive window which I cannot resize. A screenshot of my desktop would be really big and have all sorts of embarrassing crap on it, but here's xwininfo output: xwininfo: Window id: 0x443 (has no name) Absolute upper-left X: 698 Absolute upper-left Y: 174 Relative upper-left X: 0 Relative upper-left Y: 0 Width: 3200 Height: 2000 Depth: 24 Visual: 0x21 Visual Class: DirectColor Border width: 0 Class: InputOutput Colormap: 0x44c (not installed) Bit Gravity State: ForgetGravity Window Gravity State: NorthWestGravity Backing Store State: NotUseful Save Under State: no Map State: IsViewable Override Redirect State: no Corners: +698+174 --58+174 --58-226 +698-226 -geometry 3200x2000--58+153 3200 x 2000? My desktop is large, but not rectangular. Three 24 16x10 monitors, one above and one to the left of center. So I can't see a quarter of the window as it is off in the region where I have no monitor. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079064] Review Request: btbuilder - Role-playing game construction set in the style of the Bard's Tale Construction Set
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079064 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.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 1177451] Review Request: minidns - Minimal DNS library for java and android systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177451
--- Comment #5 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= Issues =
- The LICENCE file says that the user has a choice of 3 licenses, which means
that the License field in the spec file should use or, not and; i.e.,
ASL 2.0 or LGPLv2+ or WTFPL
= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[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 install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]:
[Bug 1215080] Review Request: morphia - A type-safe java library for MongoDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215080
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/java/morphia
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
This is probably due to the presence of %dir %{_javadir}/%{name} in %files.
- While the subpackages have dependencies generated for them by maven that
result in them requiring the main package, those dependencies are
unversioned. I think you should also have explicit versioned Requires in
the subpackages so that it is not possible for someone to mix and match
versions.
= 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]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %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]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[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 install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query
[Bug 1177451] Review Request: minidns - Minimal DNS library for java and android systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177451 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- Fix the license field (change and to or) when you import. The package is otherwise great. 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 1205777] Review Request: gap-pkg-autpgrp - Compute the automorphism group of a p-Group in GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205777 --- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #1) silly question: can you use texlive-pdftex-bin and texlive-tex-bin for re-generate documentation and htm files using make_doc script? That's not a silly question at all. This is what the GAPDoc package essentially does, and it is pulled in by the gap-core package. I will see what needs to be done to make this happen. Probably all of the other gap packages need similar tweaks. (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3) approved Thank you very much for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215046] Review Request: python-gear - Pure Python Async Gear Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215046 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |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 1223627] Review Request: gap-pkg-edim - Elementary divisors of integer matrices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223627 --- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2) Please, fix before import Okay, I will fix all of those before import. Thank you very much for the review. (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3) can you review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177451 ? Certainly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1226013] Review Request: fwupdate - firmware update utility and library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226013 Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: fwupdate Short Description: Tools to manage UEFI firmware updates Owners: pjones 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 1226013] New: Review Request: fwupdate - firmware update utility and library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226013 Bug ID: 1226013 Summary: Review Request: fwupdate - firmware update utility and library Product: Fedora Version: 23 Component: Package Review Assignee: a...@redhat.com Reporter: pjo...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://pjones.fedorapeople.org/fwupdate/fwupdate.spec SRPM URL: http://pjones.fedorapeople.org/fwupdate/fwupdate-0.3-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: fwupdate provides a simple command line interface to UEFI firmware updates. Fedora Account System Username: pjones (I am aware that the url in the .spec is currently my fedorapeople page; I'm going to do the upstream release just before I do the accepted Fedora build.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215074] Review Request: mysema-commons-lang - Mysema Commons Lang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215074
Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com ---
This is a very clean package. I see no issues, but if you want to preserve the
timestamp on the LICENSE file, replace these two lines in %prep:
cp -p %{SOURCE2} LICENSE
sed -i 's/\r//' LICENSE
with this:
sed 's/\r//' %{SOURCE2} LICENSE
touch -r %{SOURCE2} LICENSE
Make that change or not, at your discretion. This package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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 %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.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[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 install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
[Bug 1226026] New: Review Request: grantlee5 - Qt5 string template engine based on the Django template system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226026 Bug ID: 1226026 Summary: Review Request: grantlee5 - Qt5 string template engine based on the Django template system Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rdie...@math.unl.edu QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/grantlee5/grantlee5.spec SRPM URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/grantlee5/grantlee5-5.0.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Qt5 string template engine based on the Django template system Fedora Account System Username: rdieter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1207280] Review Request: python-semantic_version - A library implementing the 'SemVer' scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207280 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1207280] Review Request: python-semantic_version - A library implementing the 'SemVer' scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207280
Alan Pevec ape...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(ape...@gmail.com) |
--- Comment #5 from Alan Pevec ape...@gmail.com ---
Sorry for the massive delay :(
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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
NOTE there's compatiblity Provides for compatibility with early packaging
in RDO Delorean
[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]: 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 %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: 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:
[-]: 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).
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[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
[Bug 1215080] Review Request: morphia - A type-safe java library for MongoDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215080 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- I will take this 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 1226013] Review Request: fwupdate - firmware update utility and library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226013
Josh Boyer jwbo...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Josh Boyer jwbo...@redhat.com ---
This looks good to me. I'm assuming you'll fixup the Sources file as you've
already noted. A few minor comments below. Approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /boot/efi/EFI, /boot/efi
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /boot/efi/EFI,
/boot/efi/EFI/fedora, /boot/efi
This is fine
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
I don't really care about this, but %clean can be dropped.
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency
[Bug 1207280] Review Request: python-semantic_version - A library implementing the 'SemVer' scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207280 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1226013] Review Request: fwupdate - firmware update utility and library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226013 Josh Boyer jwbo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|a...@redhat.com |jwbo...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1225249] Review Request: møte - a MeetBot log wrangler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225249 --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Hey again Chaoyi. Here's an initial round of feedback. This first list of [!] items are things that will need to be fixed before the package can be approved. [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. The license is just a little unclear. The spec file lists GPLv2+ while setup.py lists GPLv2. The files headers say GPLv2+. [!]: 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. In the %files section, you should add the LICENSE file like this: %license LICENSE [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. You're bundling fontawesome which is actually packaged for Fedora. You should remove it (in the spec file during the install phase, not in the upstream project) and replace it with a symlink to the system fontawesome package. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Usually, you add a version string at the end of changelog entries to indicate what release is what. See this for an example: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-ansi2html.git/tree/python-ansi2html.spec#n206 [!]: Package should be noarch. Add this line after your Source0 line: BuildArch: noarch [!]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep You should do 'rm -rf *.egg*' at the end of the %prep section. [!]: rpmlint is not happy: Take a look at the full output at the bottom, but these ones in particular stand out: mote.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A meetbot log wrangler, providing a user-friendly interface for Fedora's logs. mote.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C A Meetbot log wrangler, providing a user-friendly interface for Fedora Project's logs. mote.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Mote allows contributors to the Fedora Project to quickly search and find logs beneficial in keeping up to date with the project's activities. Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated = 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. [!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: MIT/X11 (BSD like), Unknown or generated. 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/threebean/scratch/review-mote/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/httpd, /etc/httpd/conf.d [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: 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 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]:
[Bug 1173625] Review Request: fcitx-qt5 - Fcitx IM module for Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173625 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1173625] Review Request: fcitx-qt5 - Fcitx IM module for Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173625 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1207280] Review Request: python-semantic_version - A library implementing the 'SemVer' scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207280 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs- |fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1207280] Review Request: python-semantic_version - A library implementing the 'SemVer' scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207280 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs- --- Comment #6 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-semantic_version Short Description: A library implementing the 'SemVer' scheme Upstream URL: https://github.com/rbarrois/python-semanticversion Owners: hguemar apevec Branches: f21 f22 epel7 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 1215074] Review Request: mysema-commons-lang - Mysema Commons Lang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215074 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- I will take this 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 1226026] Review Request: grantlee5 - Qt5 string template engine based on the Django template system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226026 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Alias||grantlee5 Last Closed||2015-05-28 15:12:24 --- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Oops, duping *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1213184 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1226013] Review Request: fwupdate - firmware update utility and library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226013 --- Comment #1 from Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com --- Also, until rawhide repos refresh, you may need the efivar packages at http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/pjones/fwupdate/builds/ in order to build it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215046] Review Request: python-gear - Pure Python Async Gear Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215046 --- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- So, it seems that the missing - break fedora-review, so I paste the URL again : https://ca.enocloud.com:8080/v1/AUTH_b57314058a4e42dabffc8cde6ccbf2de/fedora-packaging/python-gear.spec https://ca.enocloud.com:8080/v1/AUTH_b57314058a4e42dabffc8cde6ccbf2de/fedora-packaging/python-gear-0.5.6-0.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 1223831] Review Request: jersey1 - JAX-RS (JSR 311) production quality Reference Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223831 Bug 1223831 depends on bug 1218315, which changed state. Bug 1218315 Summary: Update to Jersey 2.x (2.17) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218315 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 1213184] Review Request: grantlee-qt5 - Qt string template engine based on the Django template system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1213184 --- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- *** Bug 1226026 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1225249] Review Request: møte - a MeetBot log wrangler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225249 --- Comment #4 from Chaoyi Zha summermontr...@gmail.com --- Ralph, Thanks for the comments and the suggestions. I've corrected most of the issues and fixed the inconsistencies you've noted (e.g GPLv2+ GPLv2). The updated spec can be found at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fedora-infra/mote/master/files/mote.spec I have not had the opportunity to test my new spec in a VM yet, but I will give it a spin as soon as I get to and let you know how it turns out. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1079064] Review Request: btbuilder - Role-playing game construction set in the style of the Bard's Tale Construction Set
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079064 --- Comment #18 from Dennis Payne du...@identicalsoftware.com --- SDL_mng comes from http://sourceforge.net/projects/sdl-mng/ (actually I believe it came from an earlier site but that appears to be a new version). It doesn't compile to a shared library. I suggested the author do so as it would make it easier to use but he wasn't interested. I needed some changes to support mng generated by gimp. Since he didn't seem interested I incorporated it into btbuilder. As for it being a different license, it is LGPLv2 with the clause to allow you to upgrade which means it can be LGPLv3. GPLv3 and LGPLv3 can be combined into a GPLv3 licensed program I believe. Compatability section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License says as much. (I know wikipedia isn't a definitive source but it was found in a quick search and seemed like the simplest explanation.) util code is all mine and under the GPLv3. (Actually I should probably just remove all the util as they aren't really useful anymore.) The screen size problem is interesting. You can run it from the command line with -u1 (or -u2 or other value). The lowest resolution of the game is 320x200. It includes 640x400 graphics as well. It tries to find the largest multiple of 640x400 that will fit on the screen. In your case that is a bad thing to do. I'll change it to max out at 640x400 unless the person runs it with a specific multiplier on the command line. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1222690] Review Request: gap-pkg-fga - Free group algorithms for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222690 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gap-pkg-fga Short Description: Free group algorithms for GAP Upstream URL: http://www.icm.tu-bs.de/ag_algebra/software/FGA/ Owners: jjames 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 1222690] Review Request: gap-pkg-fga - Free group algorithms for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222690 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- Thanks once again for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223627] Review Request: gap-pkg-edim - Elementary divisors of integer matrices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223627 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |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 1223627] Review Request: gap-pkg-edim - Elementary divisors of integer matrices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223627 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it 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 1223627] Review Request: gap-pkg-edim - Elementary divisors of integer matrices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223627
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
NOTE: manual review
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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: Unknown or generated. 6 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1223627-gap-pkg-edim/srpm/review-
gap-pkg-edim/licensecheck.txt
MPLv1.1: edim/doc/mathml.css
[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
[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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for
[Bug 1223627] Review Request: gap-pkg-edim - Elementary divisors of integer matrices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223627 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it 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 709328] Review Request: psi-plus - Jabber client based on Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709328 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo? --- Comment #109 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Is there still interest to have an official psi-plus package? I see currently two blockers: - bundled iris (e.g. iris in Fedora is too old for unbundling) -- can we patch the official iris package? Upstream of iris is the same as of psi. - official release for psi 0.16 is awaited at upstream, so it will obsolete a psi-plus 0.16-0.X.foobar -- when this will happen is in the stars still ... -- 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 1225648] Review Request: compat-libvpx1 - Compat package with libvpx libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225648 Marcin Juszkiewicz mjusz...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mjusz...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Marcin Juszkiewicz mjusz...@redhat.com --- VirtualBox is a great example. rpmfusion is another user of this 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 1223627] Review Request: gap-pkg-edim - Elementary divisors of integer matrices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223627 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- NON blocking ISSUES: [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: Unknown or generated. 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1223627-gap-pkg-edim/srpm/review- gap-pkg-edim/licensecheck.txt MPLv1.1: edim/doc/mathml.css license field should changed in: GPLv2+ and MPLv1.1 gap-pkg-edim.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-edim/GPL https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address Please, report this problem to upstream minor issues: gap-pkg-edim.i686: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/gap/pkg/edim/doc/edim.bib gap-pkg-edim.i686: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/gap/pkg/edim/doc/edim.bbl Please, fix before import -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223627] Review Request: gap-pkg-edim - Elementary divisors of integer matrices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223627 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- can you review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177451 ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-npm-install-checks-1.0.5-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-npm-install-checks-1.0.5-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199284] Review request: nodejs-npm-install-checks - Install checks for NPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199284 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1166916] Review Request: fuzzynet - Fuzzy Logic Library for Mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166916 Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz claudiorodr...@pereyradiaz.com.ar changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1221559 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221559 [Bug 1221559] Mono 4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1166916] Review Request: fuzzynet - Fuzzy Logic Library for Mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166916 Bug 1166916 depends on bug 1089278, which changed state. Bug 1089278 Summary: Mono 3.4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089278 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1166897] Review Request: mono-nat - Mono library for automatic port forwarding (new github project name: Mono.NAT)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166897 Bug 1166897 depends on bug 1089278, which changed state. Bug 1089278 Summary: Mono 3.4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089278 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1159091] Review Request: openra - Libre/Free Real Time Strategy project that recreates the famous Command Conquer titles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159091 Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz claudiorodr...@pereyradiaz.com.ar changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1221559 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221559 [Bug 1221559] Mono 4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1159091] Review Request: openra - Libre/Free Real Time Strategy project that recreates the famous Command Conquer titles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159091 Bug 1159091 depends on bug 1089278, which changed state. Bug 1089278 Summary: Mono 3.4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089278 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223024] Review Request: rxjava - Reactive Extensions for the JVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223024 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Michal Srb from comment #4) Just one thing: # These test fails for various reasons rm -r src/test/java/rx/observers/TestObserverTest.java \ src/test/java/rx/observers/TestSubscriberTest.java \ src/test/java/rx/internal/operators/OperatorPublishTest.java I tried to comment this part of the specfile out, and it looks like all tests are passing (at least on my machine). Could you please double-check? If those tests fail for you, please try to add more descriptive comment. Tests run: 1375, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 2 Otherwise the package looks good. Approved. Seem a problem with Java7 (README.md explain the minimal requirement: Java 8 lambda support) I forgot to remove that part, for F 22 Failed tests: TestSubscriberTest.testAssertNotMatchCount:59 Number of items does not match. Provided: 1 Actual: 2 TestSubscriberTest.testAssertNotMatchValue:74 Value at index: 1 expected to be [3] (Integer) but was: [2] (Integer) TestSubscriberTest.testAssertTerminalEventNotReceived:93 No terminal events received. TestObserverTest.testAssertNotMatchCount:59 Number of items does not match. Provided: 1 Actual: 2 TestObserverTest.testAssertNotMatchValue:73 Value at index: 1 expected to be [3] (Integer) but was: [2] (Integer) TestObserverTest.testAssertTerminalEventNotReceived:92 No terminal events received. on x86_64 build fine Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9862861 on i386 as above Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9862874 on ARM take too much time (is still running) Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9862886 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1221218] Review Request: nodejs-fs-write-stream-atomic - Like fs.createWriteStream(...), but atomic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221218 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fs-write-stream-atomic-1.0.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-fs-write-stream-atomic-1.0.3-1.el7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1166897] Review Request: mono-nat - Mono library for automatic port forwarding (new github project name: Mono.NAT)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166897 Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz claudiorodr...@pereyradiaz.com.ar changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1221559 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221559 [Bug 1221559] Mono 4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-npm-install-checks-1.0.5-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-npm-install-checks-1.0.5-1.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 1221218] Review Request: nodejs-fs-write-stream-atomic - Like fs.createWriteStream(...), but atomic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221218 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fs-write-stream-atomic-1.0.3-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-fs-write-stream-atomic-1.0.3-1.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 1201788] Review request: nodejs-npm-cache-filename - Return NPM cache folder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201788 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-npm-cache-filename-1.0.1-5.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-npm-cache-filename-1.0.1-5.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 1201788] Review request: nodejs-npm-cache-filename - Return NPM cache folder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201788 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201788] Review request: nodejs-npm-cache-filename - Return NPM cache folder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201788 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-npm-cache-filename-1.0.1-5.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-npm-cache-filename-1.0.1-5.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1221218] Review Request: nodejs-fs-write-stream-atomic - Like fs.createWriteStream(...), but atomic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221218 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1221218] Review Request: nodejs-fs-write-stream-atomic - Like fs.createWriteStream(...), but atomic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221218 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fs-write-stream-atomic-1.0.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-fs-write-stream-atomic-1.0.3-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1221218] Review Request: nodejs-fs-write-stream-atomic - Like fs.createWriteStream(...), but atomic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221218 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fs-write-stream-atomic-1.0.3-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-fs-write-stream-atomic-1.0.3-1.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 1223024] Review Request: rxjava - Reactive Extensions for the JVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223024
Michal Srb m...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Michal Srb m...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable
= 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]: 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.
[x]: 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 194560 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: 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.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[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 install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are
[Bug 1199284] Review request: nodejs-npm-install-checks - Install checks for NPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199284 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-npm-install-checks-1.0.5-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-npm-install-checks-1.0.5-1.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 1223024] Review Request: rxjava - Reactive Extensions for the JVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223024 --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rxjava Short Description: Reactive Extensions for the JVM Upstream URL: https://github.com/ReactiveX/RxJava Owners: gil InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1147013] Review Request: proxychains-ng - Redirect connections through proxy servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147013 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #61 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- proxychains-ng-4.8.1-8.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 199647] Review Request: perl-File-RsyncP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199647 Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||psab...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-File-RsyncP New Branches: epel7 Owners: psabata InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076517] Review Request: orocos-kdl - A framework for modeling and computation of kinematic chains
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076517 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- orocos-kdl-1.3.0-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 826038] Review Request: proxytoys - An implementation neutral API for creation of dynamic proxies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826038 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- proxytoys-1.0-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1221293] Review Request: nodejs-normalize-git-url - Normalizes Git URLs. For npm, but you can use it too.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221293 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-normalize-git-url-1.0.1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-normalize-git-url-1.0.1-1.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 1221293] Review Request: nodejs-normalize-git-url - Normalizes Git URLs. For npm, but you can use it too.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221293 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-normalize-git-url-1.0.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-normalize-git-url-1.0.1-1.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 1221293] Review Request: nodejs-normalize-git-url - Normalizes Git URLs. For npm, but you can use it too.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221293 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-normalize-git-url-1.0.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-normalize-git-url-1.0.1-1.el7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201788] Review request: nodejs-npm-cache-filename - Return NPM cache folder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201788 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-npm-cache-filename-1.0.1-5.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-npm-cache-filename-1.0.1-5.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 1199285] Review request: nodejs-inflight - Add callbacks to requests in flight to avoid async duplication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199285 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-inflight-1.0.4-5.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-inflight-1.0.4-5.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 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl 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 1020096] Review Request: python-blosc - Python wrapper for the blosc high performance compressor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020096 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Package Change Request == Package Name: python-blosc New Branches: epel7 Owners: zbyszek tnorth 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 199647] Review Request: perl-File-RsyncP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199647 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223024] Review Request: rxjava - Reactive Extensions for the JVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223024 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 199647] Review Request: perl-File-RsyncP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199647 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223024] Review Request: rxjava - Reactive Extensions for the JVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223024 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1219411] Review Request: python34 - Version 3 of the Python programming language aka Python 3000
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219411
--- Comment #3 from Matej Stuchlik mstuc...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Aurelien Bompard from comment #2)
Since there's already a python3 package in Fedora, I'll comment on the diff
between the current master and this package.
My comments are inlined in the diff below, and start with --
@@ -16,3 +16,3 @@
-%global with_rewheel 1
+%global with_rewheel 0
@@ -23,2 +23,10 @@
+# is this the EPEL 7 main Python 3?
+%if %python3_pkgversion == %pyshortver
+%global main_python3 1
+%else
+%global main_python3 0
+%endif
+
+
%global pylibdir %{_libdir}/python%{pybasever}
-- The with_rewheel flag should be set to 1 in the final package, as it is
in the current master.
Correct, in the final package it should be and will be, first however one needs
to resolve the dependency cycle between Python, pip, setuptools and wheel.
There's more about this at the top of the .spec file in the comment.
-- I don't understand this main_python3 package flag. This package will
never be the main Python3 package, because it's from EPEL and RHEL will
always ship the main python3 package.
The purpose of the main_python3 flag is somewhat explained in [0], in
Lifecycle of python3X stacks, rebuilding. Let me know if it's not clear. :)
I'll add a comment to the .spec explaining the purpose of the flag.
Note that Python 3 is actually *not* in RHEL 7, hence why there's a need for it
in EPEL.
[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3
@@ -1121,3 +1140,4 @@
%endif
- false
+ false \
+ -O1
%endif # with_debug_build
-- What's the reason for adding the O1 flag?
The point of that flag is to make debugging the debug build easier, but now
that you mention it, it should be set to -O0 or -Og. Will fix!
@@ -1424,2 +1469,20 @@
+%if ! 0%{?main_python3}
+# make altinstall doesn't create python3.X-config, but we want it
+# (we don't want to have just python3.Xm-config, that's a bit confusing)
+ln -s \
+ %{_bindir}/python%{LDVERSION_optimized}-config \
+ %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/python%{pybasever}-config
+# make altinstall doesn't create python-3.4m.pc, only python-3.4.pc, but we
want both
+ln -s \
+ %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/python-%{pybasever}.pc \
+ %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/python-%{LDVERSION_optimized}.pc
+%endif
+
+# remove libpython3.so in EPEL python to not cause collision between
python3X and
+# python3X+1 stacks... I don't see any way in which this would be useful
+# Gentoo does this, as well... TODO: there's a sysconfig variable pointing
+# to this, maybe we should do something about it?
+rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libpython3.so
+
# ==
-- Looks good to me, I don't know about the sysconfig variable, can you
elaborate on that?
I'm frankly not sure on that, the comment is Slavek's. Will find out.
@@ -1456,2 +1519,3 @@
--verbose --findleaks \
+-x test_distutils \
%ifarch ppc64le aarch64
-- What's the reason for that?
One of the tests in distutils test suite checks for a precise pip version,
since we unbundle pip, it may happen that it is of a different version that the
test expects. This was a temporary solution, will fix. :)
END OF DIFF
I tried to review the other changes in the sources but the SRPM file seems
corrupt, I get:
error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/home/abompard/devel/rpms/RPMS/python34/Python-3.4.3.tar.xz;55658a3b: cpio:
read
error: python34-3.4.3-1.fc21.src.rpm cannot be installed
Please upload a fixed version so I can continue the review, and answer the
few questions I have asked here in the meantime.
Thanks!
SRPM URL: https://mstuchli.fedorapeople.org/python34-3.4.3-1.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 1173625] Review Request: fcitx-qt5 - Fcitx IM module for Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173625 --- Comment #10 from Liang Suilong liangsuil...@gmail.com --- OK. The review has been done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1173625] Review Request: fcitx-qt5 - Fcitx IM module for Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173625 Liang Suilong liangsuil...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ 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 1221293] Review Request: nodejs-normalize-git-url - Normalizes Git URLs. For npm, but you can use it too.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221293 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1221293] Review Request: nodejs-normalize-git-url - Normalizes Git URLs. For npm, but you can use it too.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221293 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-normalize-git-url-1.0.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-normalize-git-url-1.0.1-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1225249] Review Request: møte - a MeetBot log wrangler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225249 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rb...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Hi Chaoyi, one initial non-blocking comment: The .spec file link you provide goes to an HTML version of the specfile, which is nice for humans to read, but automated review programs choke on it (like fedora-review -b 1225249). Something to consider for future review 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 1225249] Review Request: møte - a MeetBot log wrangler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225249 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rb...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Furthermore, I'll be your packaging sponsor and will take the review. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020096] Review Request: python-blosc - Python wrapper for the blosc high performance compressor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020096 --- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020096] Review Request: python-blosc - Python wrapper for the blosc high performance compressor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020096 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #39 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223024] Review Request: rxjava - Reactive Extensions for the JVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223024 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||1.0.11-1.fc23 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-05-28 11:42:38 --- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=986575 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223831] Review Request: jersey1 - JAX-RS (JSR 311) production quality Reference Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223831 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||1.19-2.fc23 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-05-28 12:46:37 --- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9867145 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1173625] Review Request: fcitx-qt5 - Fcitx IM module for Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173625 --- Comment #11 from Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: fcitx-qt5 Short Description: Fcitx IM module for Qt5 Upstream URL: https://github.com/fcitx/fcitx-qt5 Owners: cheeselee Branches: f21 f22 InitialCC: i18n-team -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
