[Bug 1177958] Review Request: libsbw - C++ Broker library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177958 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #8 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- - Update to svn post-release #579 - Packaged Broker manpage Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw-2.11.1-4.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 1226664] Review Request: fido-pi - Protein identification in MS/MS proteomics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226664 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- fido-pi-0-0.1.20150209git281e4d.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fido-pi-0-0.1.20150209git281e4d.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 1118740] Review Request: fakesystemd - Minimal docker-specific package to satisfy systemd Provides
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118740 Tobias Florek m...@ibotty.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@ibotty.net --- Comment #14 from Tobias Florek m...@ibotty.net --- What's the status? Shouldn't that package show up at one point? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228795] Review Request: golang-github-garyburd-redigo - Go client for Redis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228795 Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pin...@pingoured.fr Flags|needinfo?(limburgher@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #5 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr --- Ok I directly fixed this in the DB, now to fix the check in pkgdb-admin (in case) :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1229478] Review Request: docker-client - Java API Docker Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229478 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com --- I'll take this one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1184446] Review Request: tunir - An ultra light CI system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184446 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- tunir-0.6-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tunir-0.6-2.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 1184446] Review Request: tunir - An ultra light CI system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184446 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 1177857] Review Request: libsedml - Library that fully supports SED-ML for SBML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177857 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libsedml-0.3.0-8.20150422git235bb5.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libsedml-0.3.0-8.20150422git235bb5.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 1229417] Review Request: python-django-markdown2 - Simple Django app, which supplies a single template tag for markdown markup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229417 Adam Samalik asama...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||asama...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|asama...@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 1177857] Review Request: libsedml - Library that fully supports SED-ML for SBML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177857 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 1226664] Review Request: fido-pi - Protein identification in MS/MS proteomics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226664 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 1224953] Review Request: rubygem-ejs - EJS (Embedded JavaScript) template compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224953 Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||rubygem-ejs-1.1.1-1.fc23 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-06-09 03:58:06 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1219422] Review Request: mujs - An embeddable Javascript interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219422 --- Comment #10 from Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com --- Thank you both. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1229594] Review Request: rubygem-fog-libvirt - Module for the 'fog' gem to support libvirt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229594 Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1040203 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040203 [Bug 1040203] rubygem-ruby-libvirt-0.5.2 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1229594] New: Review Request: rubygem-fog-libvirt - Module for the 'fog' gem to support libvirt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229594 Bug ID: 1229594 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-fog-libvirt - Module for the 'fog' gem to support libvirt Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jstri...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-fog-libvirt.spec SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/rubygem-fog-libvirt-0.0.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: This library can be used as a module for 'fog' or as standalone libvirt provider. Fedora Account System Username: jstribny -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 649495] Review Request: openstack-nova - OpenStack Compute (nova)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=649495 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|openstack-nova | -- 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 1219422] Review Request: mujs - An embeddable Javascript interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219422 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mujs-0-2.20150202gitc1ad1ba.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mujs-0-2.20150202gitc1ad1ba.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 1219422] Review Request: mujs - An embeddable Javascript interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219422 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 1229594] Review Request: rubygem-fog-libvirt - Module for the 'fog' gem to support libvirt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229594 Michael Adam ma...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ma...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ma...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Michael Adam ma...@redhat.com --- looking -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1229594] Review Request: rubygem-fog-libvirt - Module for the 'fog' gem to support libvirt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229594 Michael Adam ma...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1229610] New: Review Request: doxy2man - Create man pages from doxygen XML output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229610 Bug ID: 1229610 Summary: Review Request: doxy2man - Create man pages from doxygen XML output Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nmavr...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/doxy2man.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/doxy2man-0-1.20150609git8332014.fc22.src.rpm Description: Doxy2man takes the XML generated by Doxygen as input and creates several man pages from that. It creates a summary man page for a header and for each function a detailed man page. The output is optimized for C projects. It supports the most common doxygen features, e.g. implicit and explicit see also tags, copyright, author information, brief and detailed descriptions, etc. Fedora Account System Username: nmav -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223461] Review Request: python-glusterfs-api - python bindings of libgfapi library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223461
--- Comment #7 from Humble Chirammal hchir...@redhat.com ---
Thanks for the review!
Most of the discrepancies wrt license file has been resolved by an upstream
change.
Here is some details about other reported issues.
1) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
-
Corrected
2) 2) Directories without known owners:
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gluster
= Fix this by changing in %files
%{python2_sitelib}/gluster/gfapi/
to
%{python2_sitelib}/gluster
-
The gluster module is owned by another package called 'python-gluster' which is
a dependent package of this- python-gluster-api rpm. I have documented the same
in spec file.
3) # unit and functional test files are part of source, however we are not
packaging it, so adding them in
# exclude.
%exclude %{buildroot}/test/
%exclude %{buildroot}/functional_tests.sh
%exclude %{buildroot}/test-requirements.txt
%exclude %{buildroot}/tox.ini
%exclude %{buildroot}/unittests.sh
==
Removed the 'exclude' section from latest spec file.
4) 4) I checked all 3 .py files and found each source file having ASL 2.0
license header and also source tarball contains now LICENSE file.
= Change license tag to ASL 2.0
in %files change
%license COPYING-GPLV2 COPYING-LGPLV3
to
%license LICENSE
This went away with the latest upstream change
http://review.gluster.org/#/c/10256/
5)
5) When you submit update, you need to increase release tag to 2 and add new
changelog entry for today's date and log as Fix issues for this package
review
---
Done.
Can you please re review this request?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1225406] Review Request: rubygem-jruby-openssl - JRuby's OpenSSL gem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225406 --- Comment #4 from Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com --- For the question of packaging the Java extensions I opened an upstream issue: https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/1260 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228795] Review Request: golang-github-garyburd-redigo - Go client for Redis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228795 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||limburg...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(limburgher@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #4 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Hi Jon, my mistake. Package name should be golang-github-garyburd-redigo which I accidentally filled as Review Request: golang-github-garyburd-redigo. As by naming convention, package name must not contain whitespace. If Review Request: golang-github-garyburd-redigo package was created it means there is a missing check for the name. Is it still possible to rename the package to its corrent name? [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Common_Character_Set_for_Package_Naming Kind Regards Jan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1229150] Review Request: perl-Canary-Stability - Canary to check perl compatibility for Schmorp's modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229150 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Waiting on resolving a dist-git hiccup https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6193. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1229518] Unretiring gdesklets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229518 --- Comment #2 from Sergio Monteiro Basto ser...@serjux.com --- Spec URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/gdesklets/gdesklets.spec SRPM URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/gdesklets/gdesklets-0.36.3-18.fc22.src.rpm Summary : Architecture for desktop applets Description: 'gDesklets' provides an advanced architecture for desktop applets - tiny displays that sit on your desktop such as status meters, icon bars, weather sensors, news tickers. This package was orphan on F20 and retired on F21 , since it is maintained on https://launchpad.net/gdesklets -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1217857] Review Request: bandit - A framework for performing security analysis of Python source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217857 --- Comment #15 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Looks like it worked fine that time. ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||nodejs-npm-install-checks-1 ||.0.5-1.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-06-09 11:01:41 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-npm-install-checks-1.0.5-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1221742] Review Request: python-ipaddress - Port of the python 3.3+ ipaddress module to 2.6+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221742 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-ipaddress-1.0.7-1.fc |python-ipaddress-1.0.7-1.fc |20 |21 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-ipaddress-1.0.7-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fixed In Version|nodejs-fs-write-stream-atom |nodejs-fs-write-stream-atom |ic-1.0.3-1.fc20 |ic-1.0.3-1.fc21 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fs-write-stream-atomic-1.0.3-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077030] Review Request: python-semantic-version - library implementing SemVer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077030 Michael Hrivnak mhriv...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mhrivnak@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #9 from Michael Hrivnak mhriv...@redhat.com --- I will make time to finish this up this month. Thanks for the reminder. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215071] Review Request: querydsl - Type-safe queries for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215071 Bug 1215071 depends on bug 1215074, which changed state. Bug 1215074 Summary: Review Request: mysema-commons-lang - Mysema Commons Lang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215074 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1221545] Review Request: nodejs-umask - convert umask from string - number
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221545 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|nodejs-umask-1.1.0-2.fc22 |nodejs-umask-1.1.0-2.fc21 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-umask-1.1.0-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1217857] Review Request: bandit - A framework for performing security analysis of Python source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217857 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.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 1177958] Review Request: libsbw - C++ Broker library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177958 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely jwak...@redhat.com --- port from the original SBW Broker (written in JAVA) to C++. I'd also change that to say Java, there's no reason for it to be uppercase. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||nodejs-fs-write-stream-atom ||ic-1.0.3-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-06-09 11:00:59 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fs-write-stream-atomic-1.0.3-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1221272] Review Request: nodejs-hosted-git-info - Provides metadata and conversions from repository urls for Github, Bitbucket and Gitlab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221272 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||nodejs-hosted-git-info-2.1. ||4-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-06-09 11:01:07 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-hosted-git-info-2.1.4-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fixed In Version|nodejs-npm-install-checks-1 |nodejs-npm-install-checks-1 |.0.5-1.fc22 |.0.5-1.fc20 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-npm-install-checks-1.0.5-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1229594] Review Request: rubygem-fog-libvirt - Module for the 'fog' gem to support libvirt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229594 Michael Adam ma...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1220194 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220194 [Bug 1220194] vagrant-libvirt-0.0.30 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1229594] Review Request: rubygem-fog-libvirt - Module for the 'fog' gem to support libvirt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229594 Michael Adam ma...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Michael Adam ma...@redhat.com --- Installs fine with the updated rubygem-ruby-libvirt package (tested with build from koji). The above assessment still stands == the package is good to go in. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177958] Review Request: libsbw - C++ Broker library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177958
--- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
Why is static library packaged? Guidelines say that In general, packagers are
strongly encouraged not to ship static libs unless a compelling reason exists.
If you want to still package it, -static subpackage should be separate from
-devel.
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries_2]
libsbw-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The Systems Biology
Workbench(SBW) is a framework for application intercommunications.
libsbw-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It uses a broker-based,
distributed, message-passing architecture, supports many languages
libsbw-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C libSBW is the C++ Broker
port from the original SBW Broker (written in JAVA) to C++.
Please also add a space before (SBW).
I think the description of -devel can be trimmed to refer to the main package.
There still are bundled files, see below. Once they are removed, the license
will match.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[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.
BSD.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: BSD (3 clause), LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address), Unknown or generated. 105 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/review-
libsbw/licensecheck.txt
sbw-core/include/iconv.h is a bundled copy of /usr/include/iconv.h. Should be
removed in %prep.
sbw-core/include/libcharset.h and sbw-core/include/localcharset.h seems to come
from charset library, whatever that is. They should be removed in %prep too.
Those headers define libcharset_set_relocation_prefix and locale_charset,
neither which seems to be used.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %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
[Bug 1229704] Review Request: truth - The java truth framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229704 --- Comment #3 from Noa Resare n...@resare.com --- Thank you for your feedback. There are updated packages available in the above referenced URLs, as well as in https://resare.com/noa/fedora-submissions/2015-06-09_2/ (At some point it would be nice to update the minimal example spec file at https://fedorahosted.org/released/javapackages/doc/ with %license lines) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1229704] Review Request: truth - The java truth framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229704
Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
[x] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[x] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[x] The spec file must be written in American English.
[x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use
sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once
imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this
package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with
this.
[x] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.
[x] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the
package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug
number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding
ExcludeArch line.
[x] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
Apply common sense.
[x] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
[x] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[x] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[x] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[x] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a
package which does create that directory.
[x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in
specific situations.)
[x] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example.
[x] Each package must consistently use macros.
[x] The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement,
but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
[x] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[x] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[x] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires:
%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[x] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[x] Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed
with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel
that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file,
you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be
installed should own the files or directories that
[Bug 1221528] Review Request: nodejs-npm-package-arg - Parse the things that can be arguments to npm install
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221528 Bug 1221528 depends on bug 1221272, which changed state. Bug 1221272 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-hosted-git-info - Provides metadata and conversions from repository urls for Github, Bitbucket and Gitlab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221272 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1221742] Review Request: python-ipaddress - Port of the python 3.3+ ipaddress module to 2.6+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221742 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-ipaddress-1.0.7-1.fc |python-ipaddress-1.0.7-1.fc |22 |20 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-ipaddress-1.0.7-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1217857] Review Request: bandit - A framework for performing security analysis of Python source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217857 --- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.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 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|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||nodejs-npm-cache-filename-1 ||.0.1-5.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-06-09 11:06:27 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-npm-cache-filename-1.0.1-5.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199285] Review request: nodejs-inflight - Add callbacks to requests in flight to avoid async duplication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199285 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|nodejs-inflight-1.0.4-5.fc2 |nodejs-inflight-1.0.4-5.fc2 |1 |2 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-inflight-1.0.4-5.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1221272] Review Request: nodejs-hosted-git-info - Provides metadata and conversions from repository urls for Github, Bitbucket and Gitlab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221272 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|nodejs-hosted-git-info-2.1. |nodejs-hosted-git-info-2.1. |4-1.fc20|4-1.fc21 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-hosted-git-info-2.1.4-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fixed In Version|nodejs-normalize-git-url-1. |nodejs-normalize-git-url-1. |0.1-1.fc22 |0.1-1.fc20 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-normalize-git-url-1.0.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fixed In Version|nodejs-npm-cache-filename-1 |nodejs-npm-cache-filename-1 |.0.1-5.fc20 |.0.1-5.fc22 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-npm-cache-filename-1.0.1-5.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196289] Review Request: nodejs-defaults - A simple one level options merge utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196289 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||nodejs-defaults-1.0.2-2.fc2 ||2 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-defaults-1.0.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fixed In Version|nodejs-npm-cache-filename-1 |nodejs-npm-cache-filename-1 |.0.1-5.fc22 |.0.1-5.fc21 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-npm-cache-filename-1.0.1-5.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1221212] Review Request: nodejs-ansi-regex - Regular expression for matching ANSI escape codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221212 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|nodejs-ansi-regex-1.1.1-1.f |nodejs-ansi-regex-1.1.1-1.f |c22 |c21 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-ansi-regex-1.1.1-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fixed In Version|nodejs-npm-install-checks-1 |nodejs-npm-install-checks-1 |.0.5-1.fc21 |.0.5-1.fc22 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-npm-install-checks-1.0.5-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196289] Review Request: nodejs-defaults - A simple one level options merge utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196289 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|nodejs-defaults-1.0.2-2.fc2 |nodejs-defaults-1.0.2-2.fc2 |2 |0 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-defaults-1.0.2-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196289] Review Request: nodejs-defaults - A simple one level options merge utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196289 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|nodejs-defaults-1.0.2-2.fc2 |nodejs-defaults-1.0.2-2.fc2 |0 |1 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-defaults-1.0.2-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215074] Review Request: mysema-commons-lang - Mysema Commons Lang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215074 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||mysema-commons-lang-0.2.4-1 ||.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-06-09 11:20:59 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mysema-commons-lang-0.2.4-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||nodejs-normalize-git-url-1. ||0.1-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-06-09 10:58:23 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-normalize-git-url-1.0.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fixed In Version|nodejs-normalize-git-url-1. |nodejs-normalize-git-url-1. |0.1-1.fc20 |0.1-1.fc21 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-normalize-git-url-1.0.1-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1217857] Review Request: bandit - A framework for performing security analysis of Python source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217857 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@scrye.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- I don't see it even in pkgdb. Resetting fedora-cvs so I can try and add it again... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1221272] Review Request: nodejs-hosted-git-info - Provides metadata and conversions from repository urls for Github, Bitbucket and Gitlab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221272 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|nodejs-hosted-git-info-2.1. |nodejs-hosted-git-info-2.1. |4-1.fc22|4-1.fc20 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-hosted-git-info-2.1.4-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177958] Review Request: libsbw - C++ Broker library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177958 --- Comment #12 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Static library may be needed to COPASI. I will remove it next time if not necessary. Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw-2.11.1-5.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199285] Review request: nodejs-inflight - Add callbacks to requests in flight to avoid async duplication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199285 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||nodejs-inflight-1.0.4-5.fc2 ||1 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-06-09 10:59:04 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-inflight-1.0.4-5.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1221545] Review Request: nodejs-umask - convert umask from string - number
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221545 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||nodejs-umask-1.1.0-2.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-06-09 10:58:57 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-umask-1.1.0-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Fixed In Version|nodejs-fs-write-stream-atom |nodejs-fs-write-stream-atom |ic-1.0.3-1.fc22 |ic-1.0.3-1.fc20 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fs-write-stream-atomic-1.0.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1221212] Review Request: nodejs-ansi-regex - Regular expression for matching ANSI escape codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221212 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||nodejs-ansi-regex-1.1.1-1.f ||c22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-06-09 11:13:49 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-ansi-regex-1.1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177958] Review Request: libsbw - C++ Broker library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177958 --- Comment #16 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw-2.11.1-7.fc22.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 1177958] Review Request: libsbw - C++ Broker library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177958 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- No more issues. Package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177958] Review Request: libsbw - C++ Broker library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177958 --- Comment #14 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- OK. But it still needs a separate package. Can you remove the other two header files in %prep too? https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw-2.11.1-5.fc21.src.rpm This gives 404. Sorry, i'm doing more things in the same time Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw-2.11.1-6.fc22.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 1223623] Review Request: python-num2words - Modules to convert numbers to words
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223623 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-num2words-0.5.2-6.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-num2words-0.5.2-6.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 1229518] Unretiring gdesklets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229518 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- can you take this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228162 ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177958] Review Request: libsbw - C++ Broker library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177958 --- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- libsbw-static must require libsbw-devel because it's not usable on it's own (missing headers). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177958] Review Request: libsbw - C++ Broker library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177958 --- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #12) Static library may be needed to COPASI. I will remove it next time if not necessary. OK. But it still needs a separate package. Can you remove the other two header files in %prep too? https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw-2.11.1-5.fc21.src.rpm This gives 404. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1219905] Review Request: python-cliff-tablib - Tablib formatters for python-cliff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219905
Lon Hohberger l...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Lon Hohberger l...@redhat.com ---
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.
Lon: Apache License 2.0; verified upstream
[-]: 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.
Lon: Source tarball release does not contain license file
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: Unknown or generated. 32 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/lhh/1219905-python-cliff-
tablib/licensecheck.txt
Lon: Apache License 2.0; verified upstream
[-]: 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 573440 bytes in 76 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.
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is
[Bug 1219905] Review Request: python-cliff-tablib - Tablib formatters for python-cliff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219905 Lon Hohberger l...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@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 1177958] Review Request: libsbw - C++ Broker library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177958 --- Comment #18 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Thank you very much. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libsbw Short Description: C++ Broker library Upstream URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/sbw/ Owners: sagitter Branches: f22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177958] Review Request: libsbw - C++ Broker library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177958 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1209366] Review Request: qmapshack - GPS mapping and management tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209366 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|anto.tra...@gmail.com | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228162] Review Request: redis-protocol - Java client and server implementation of Redis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228162 Sergio Monteiro Basto ser...@serjux.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ser...@serjux.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 1229518] Unretiring gdesklets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229518
--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in gdesklets
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
IGNORE: already done
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- 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.
Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Please, fix
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
IGNORE: already done
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/gdesklets
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
- update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in gdesklets
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
database
Please, fix
= 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.
[-]: 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 is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
Please, fix license field should be GPLv2+
[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: GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect
FSF address), Unknown or generated. 192 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/gil/1229518-gdesklets/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48,
/usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/mimetypes, /usr/share/icons/gnome
[?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gdesklets/Displays
(gdesklets-quote-of-the-day, gdesklets), /usr/share/gdesklets
(gdesklets-quote-of-the-day, gdesklets)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
Note: Especially check following dirs for bundled code:
/home/gil/1229518-gdesklets/upstream-
unpacked/Source0/gdesklets-0.36.3/Sensors/External
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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 143360 bytes in 5 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
[Bug 1229518] Unretiring gdesklets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229518 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 1209366] Review Request: qmapshack - GPS mapping and management tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209366 --- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Poppler library required by 'gdal-libs' are currently missing. BuildRequires package requests are not satisfied for now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1229704] Review Request: truth - The java truth framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229704 --- Comment #5 from Noa Resare n...@resare.com --- Thank you for the review. Just for the learning experience I have updated the spec to resolve the rpmlint warnings clarifying and expanding on the summary and description slightly. The issue of there not being an upstream URL for the release version of the software is an issue I have raised with upstream here: https://github.com/google/truth/issues/182 The updated spec and src.rpm is available here: https://resare.com/noa/fedora-submissions/2015-06-09_3/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1219905] Review Request: python-cliff-tablib - Tablib formatters for python-cliff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219905 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- Thanks Lon! For the record, I sent a pull request upstream to add LICENSE in source tarball https://github.com/dreamhost/cliff-tablib/pull/3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1219905] Review Request: python-cliff-tablib - Tablib formatters for python-cliff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219905 --- Comment #3 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-cliff-tablib Short Description: Tablib formatters for python-cliff Upstream URL: https://github.com/dreamhost/cliff-tablib Owners: hguemar apevec jruzicka 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 1229518] Unretiring gdesklets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229518
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
seem there are some issues:
1. in install section unneeded rm -rf %{buildroot}
2. see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData
If a package contains a GUI application, then it SHOULD also install a
.appdata.xml file into %{_datadir}/appdata/. Installed .appdata.xml files MUST
follow the AppData specification page.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1222270] Review Request: php-stack-builder - Builder for stack middlewares based on HttpKernelInterface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=170 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Created attachment 1036927 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1036927action=edit review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1222270] Review Request: php-stack-builder - Builder for stack middlewares based on HttpKernelInterface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=170 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||fed...@famillecollet.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Created attachment 1036926 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1036926action=edit phpci.log phpCompatInfo version 4.2.0 DB built May 19 2015 11:12:39 CEST static analyze results -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1229518] Unretiring gdesklets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229518 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- an other issues: you must use %license macro for COPYING file -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1222270] Review Request: php-stack-builder - Builder for stack middlewares based on HttpKernelInterface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=170 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Everything seems ok. No blocker === 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 1229704] Review Request: truth - The java truth framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229704 Noa Resare n...@resare.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Noa Resare n...@resare.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: truth Short Description: An assertion framework for Java unit tests Upstream URL: https://github.com/google/truth Owners: noa mizdebsk Branches: f23 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 1229704] Review Request: truth - The java truth framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229704 --- Comment #6 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Noa Resare from comment #5) Thank you for the review. Just for the learning experience I have updated the spec to resolve the rpmlint warnings clarifying and expanding on the summary and description slightly. The issue of there not being an upstream URL for the release version of the software is an issue I have raised with upstream here: https://github.com/google/truth/issues/182 Rpmlint warnings are harmless, I should've been more clear about that. Package is approved now, you can proceed with requesting SCM and building the package in Koji. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1219905] Review Request: python-cliff-tablib - Tablib formatters for python-cliff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219905 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228162] Review Request: redis-protocol - Java client and server implementation of Redis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228162 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: redis-protocol Short Description: Java client and server implementation of Redis Upstream URL: http://github.com/spullara/redis-protocol Owners: gil Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1229886] New: Review Request: pynote - Manage notes on the commandline
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229886 Bug ID: 1229886 Summary: Review Request: pynote - Manage notes on the commandline Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: williamjmore...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://rmsconsultoresnicaragua.com/rpmdev/pynote.spec SRPM URL: http://rmsconsultoresnicaragua.com/rpmdev/pynote-1.0.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Manage notes on the commandline Fedora Account System Username: williamjmorenor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1229886] Review Request: pynote - Manage notes on the commandline
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229886 --- Comment #1 from William Moreno williamjmore...@gmail.com --- Request a manpage upstream https://github.com/rumpelsepp/pynote/issues/33 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228162] Review Request: redis-protocol - Java client and server implementation of Redis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228162
Sergio Monteiro Basto ser...@serjux.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Sergio Monteiro Basto ser...@serjux.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: Unknown or generated. 78 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/sergio/fedora-scm/gdesklets/1228162
-redis-protocol/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[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:
[ ]: 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
[Bug 1223623] Review Request: python-num2words - Modules to convert numbers to words
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223623 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-num2words-0.5.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-num2words-0.5.3-1.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 1223623] Review Request: python-num2words - Modules to convert numbers to words
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223623 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-num2words-0.5.3-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-num2words-0.5.3-1.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
