[Bug 1113301] Review Request: nova-image-builder - Utility for building OpenStack Glance images inside OpenStack Nova instances
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113301 --- Comment #5 from Miroslav Suchý --- Ping. Any progress? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228146] Review Request: lettuce - Scalable Java Redis client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228146 jiri vanek changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from jiri vanek --- missed one line: [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. Hello Gil! Form my side package is o to go, unless you wont follow Mark's hint from #1. From minor nits you may wont to improve: lettuce.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asyncronous -> asynchronous I think in this case this mostly wrong check is right :) Also may you enable check, or write an comment to spec why it is disabled? (so why -f is needed ) I have not tried, but it whole looks so simple, that -f seems not necessary. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228146] Review Request: lettuce - Scalable Java Redis client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228146
--- Comment #2 from jiri vanek ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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
[ ]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lettuce-
javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compi
[Bug 1228146] Review Request: lettuce - Scalable Java Redis client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228146 Mark Paluch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpal...@paluch.biz --- Comment #1 from Mark Paluch --- Fyi: wg/lettuce is outdated and no longer maintained. Spring Data Redis switches from wg/lettuce to mp911de/lettuce within https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-data-redis/pull/144 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1231318] Review Request: php-zordius-lightncandy - An extremely fast PHP implementation of handlebars and mustache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231318 --- Comment #8 from Remi Collet --- (In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #7) > (In reply to Remi Collet from comment #6) > > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > > see phpcompatinfo report, Missing > > Requires: php-pcre php-spl php-reflection > > Please explain why these are Requires. The php(language) requires draws in > the same packages. Do I need 3 duplicate Requires entries? If so, where is > this in the Packaging Guidelines? From https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Extensions_Requires "... on all of the dependent extensions ..." Explanation: current layout (which package provide which ext.) have changed (more sub-packages, more shared extensions) and could change again in the future. And some ext can disappear (mysql, mssql, sybase_ct in php 7) or move to pecl. Summary: package name are not reliable, only extension names are "stable". > > > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > > Please used normalized github URL > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github > > Except that this project produces a release tarball. The Source URL is OK. The used URL is the "tag" URL which is exactly what the Guidelines explain to not use. Feel free to raise discussion to FPC for clarification. > > [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. > > While /usr/share/php/lightncandy is fine for now (and seems ok with curent > > Guildelines) > > /usr/share/php/zordius-lightncandy or /usr/share/php/zordius/lightncandy > > seems better > > (this single class is not PSR-0 compliant...) > > I'm willing to change the directory structure to whatever is more > appropriate. Pending other changes I will use > /usr/share/php/zordius/lightncandy. > > > An autoload is "perhaps" not required for a single class.. but this can > > change in > > the future (other classes, dependency), so could have some value. This is only a "could". > This stuff (speaking in general here) is not declared in the Packaging > Guidelines and I had no idea that loaders were available outside of composer. > > 1. Please get composer in Fedora. See #1225134 But this will have no impact on packaging. Composer is designed to duplicate everything on every project, not something we want. > 2. Please change the PHP Packaging Guidelines. Again, feel free to open a proposal to FPC > 3. If there is documentation I have not seen, please share it. There is no specific documentation about autoloader, only experience: - keep providing autoloader which were available in PEAR channel (don't break) - moving various packages to github sources (symfony, ZF, ezc, bartlett...) - packaging various "app" which use system libraries (see phpunit, phpcompatinfo, composer...) - trying to make things easy to use And perhaps in the future this experience will be proposed as a Guidelines (each library must provide a autloader file to be easily consumed...) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228942] Review Request: python-frappe - Meta data driven web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228942 --- Comment #1 from Eduardo Mayorga --- python-jinja2 requires python-babel and python-markupsafe. python-geoip-geolite2 requires python-GeoIP. python-dateutil requires python-six. python-rauth requires python-requests, and this requires python-chardet. python-celery and python-babel require pytz. babel requires python-babel. python-ipython requires ipython. You can drop all those redundant dependencies. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228924] Review Request: megatools - Command line client for MEGA website
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228924 Gerald Cox changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-06-18 00:37:53 --- Comment #16 from Gerald Cox --- Rawhide, F22 Builds complete. Submitted to Bodhi for 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 1228924] Review Request: megatools - Command line client for MEGA website
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228924 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- megatools-1.9.95-4.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/megatools-1.9.95-4.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 1228924] Review Request: megatools - Command line client for MEGA website
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228924 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098480] Review Request: fts-rest - The REST interface for FTS (File Transfer Service V3)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098480 Alejandro Alvarez changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs- --- Comment #13 from Alejandro Alvarez --- Package Change Request == Package Name: fts-rest New Branches: epel7 Owners: aalvarez -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098480] Review Request: fts-rest - The REST interface for FTS (File Transfer Service V3)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098480 Alejandro Alvarez 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 1220779] Review Request: 7kaa - Seven Kingdoms: Ancient Adversaries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220779
--- Comment #16 from Ding-Yi Chen ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #14)
> licensecheck.txt:
>
> GPL (v2 or later)
> -
> …
>
> GPL (v3 or later)
> -
> /home/builder/fedora-review/1220779-7kaa/upstream-unpacked/Source0/7kaa-2.14.
> 5/include/gettext.h
It looks like upstream grab gettext.h from gettext-0.19.4 then modify from
there. See diff below. The others files looks like GPLv2.
I don't think upstream can change the license of gettext.h, how should I
address this problem?
=== Begin diff
19a20,71
> /* Disable gettext if compiling with MSVC. */
> #ifdef _MSC_VER
>
> #include
> #include
>
> /* c99_snprintf and c99_vsnprintf implementations taken from:
> http://stackoverflow.com/a/8712996 */
> #define snprintf c99_snprintf
>
> inline
> int
> c99_vsnprintf (char *str, size_t size, const char *format, va_list ap)
> {
> int count = -1;
>
> if (size != 0)
> count = _vsnprintf_s(str, size, _TRUNCATE, format, ap);
> if (count == -1)
> count = _vscprintf(format, ap);
>
> return count;
> }
>
> inline
> int
> c99_snprintf (char *str, size_t size, const char *format, ...)
> {
> int count;
> va_list ap;
>
> va_start(ap, format);
> count = c99_vsnprintf(str, size, format, ap);
> va_end(ap);
>
> return count;
> }
>
> # undef gettext
> # define gettext(Msgid) ((const char *) (Msgid))
> # undef ngettext
> # define ngettext(Msgid1, Msgid2, N) \
> ((N) == 1 \
> ? ((void) (Msgid2), (const char *) (Msgid1)) \
> : ((void) (Msgid1), (const char *) (Msgid2)))
> # undef pgettext
> # define pgettext(Msgctxt, Msgid) ((const char *) (Msgid))
> # define _(String) gettext (String)
> # define N_(String) (String)
>
> #else
>
108a161,164
> /* Additional keywords. */
> #define _(String) gettext (String)
> #define N_(String) gettext_noop (String)
>
285a342,343
>
> #endif /* _MSC_VER */
=== End diff
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155829] Review Request: openvas-gsa - Greenbone Security Assistant (GSA) is GUI to the OpenVAS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155829 --- Comment #6 from Michal Ambroz --- SPEC: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/openvas-gsa.spec SRPM: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/openvas-gsa-6.0.3-2.fc21.src.rpm Bump to Openvas version 8 (available in 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 1196037] Review Request: google-http-java-client - Google HTTP Client Library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196037 Bug 1196037 depends on bug 1196043, which changed state. Bug 1196043 Summary: Review Request: datanucleus-maven-plugin - DataNucleus Maven Plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196043 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196043] Review Request: datanucleus-maven-plugin - DataNucleus Maven Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196043 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2015-06-17 20:07:36 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo --- already available http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/datanucleus-maven-parent.git -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1196039] Review Request: google-oauth-java-client - Google OAuth Client Library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196039 Bug 1196039 depends on bug 1196043, which changed state. Bug 1196043 Summary: Review Request: datanucleus-maven-plugin - DataNucleus Maven Plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196043 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232645] Review Request: nodejs-path-is-inside - Tests whether one path is inside another path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232645 --- Comment #8 from Zuzana Svetlikova --- And 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 1232645] Review Request: nodejs-path-is-inside - Tests whether one path is inside another path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232645 --- Comment #7 from Tom Hughes --- That looks the same as before to me? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232645] Review Request: nodejs-path-is-inside - Tests whether one path is inside another path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232645 --- Comment #6 from Zuzana Svetlikova --- I somehow uploaded wrong spec file. Is it okay 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 1232947] Review Request: okio - A modern I/O API for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232947 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #1) > Another project that include its own Base64, will try to unbundle this No, in this case it is not advisable. this Base64 is part of the okio project and it has nothing to do with net.iharder:base64 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232947] Review Request: okio - A modern I/O API for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232947 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- hi okio is already available http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/okio.git/ https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/okio/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232947] Review Request: okio - A modern I/O API for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232947 --- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim --- Another project that include its own Base64, will try to unbundle this -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232947] Review Request: okio - A modern I/O API for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232947 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232947] Review Request: okio - A modern I/O API for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232947 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) 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 1232947] New: Review Request: okio - A modern I/O API for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232947 Bug ID: 1232947 Summary: Review Request: okio - A modern I/O API for Java Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: heg...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hegjon/okio-rpm/master/okio.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hegjon/okio-rpm/master/okio-1.4.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Okio is a new library that complements java.io and java.nio to make it much easier to access, store, and process your data. Fedora Account System Username: jonny Koji build link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10115931 I need a sponsor. This is my fourth package, but my other packages have not been accepted yet. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232645] Review Request: nodejs-path-is-inside - Tests whether one path is inside another path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232645 --- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes --- That's not quite right - that installs path-is-inside.js in the top level. You either need to create the lib dir in the target directory first and then copy to it, or just copy the whole lib directory in the install 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 1232645] Review Request: nodejs-path-is-inside - Tests whether one path is inside another path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232645 --- Comment #4 from Zuzana Svetlikova --- Thanks for such a fast review. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs/nodejs-path-is-inside/nodejs-path-is-inside.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs/nodejs-path-is-inside/nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.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 1194897] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-util-property - Grunt util for getting and setting properties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194897 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes --- That looks good now - package 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 1194897] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-util-property - Grunt util for getting and setting properties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194897 --- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch --- Thank you, added the license. new spec+srpm no version bump: Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-grunt-util-property.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-grunt-util-property-0.0.1-1.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 1231318] Review Request: php-zordius-lightncandy - An extremely fast PHP implementation of handlebars and mustache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231318 --- Comment #7 from Michael Cronenworth --- (In reply to Remi Collet from comment #6) > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > see phpcompatinfo report, Missing > Requires: php-pcre php-spl php-reflection Please explain why these are Requires. The php(language) requires draws in the same packages. Do I need 3 duplicate Requires entries? If so, where is this in the Packaging Guidelines? > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > Please used normalized github URL > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github Except that this project produces a release tarball. The Source URL is OK. > [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. > While /usr/share/php/lightncandy is fine for now (and seems ok with curent > Guildelines) > /usr/share/php/zordius-lightncandy or /usr/share/php/zordius/lightncandy > seems better > (this single class is not PSR-0 compliant...) I'm willing to change the directory structure to whatever is more appropriate. Pending other changes I will use /usr/share/php/zordius/lightncandy. > An autoload is "perhaps" not required for a single class.. but this can > change in > the future (other classes, dependency), so could have some value. This stuff (speaking in general here) is not declared in the Packaging Guidelines and I had no idea that loaders were available outside of composer. 1. Please get composer in Fedora. 2. Please change the PHP Packaging Guidelines. 3. If there is documentation I have not seen, please share 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 1208582] Review Request: trojita - IMAP e-mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208582 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1224265] Review Request: udiskie - Automounter for removable media
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224265 --- Comment #5 from Raphael Groner --- Why no python3 for Fedora 20? Well, it will be EOL in some weeks, so why care about that at all? Maybe remove the conditional and build always for Python3. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1217957] Review Request: python-relogger - A syslog sender, relay and receiver.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217957 --- Comment #5 from Arie Bregman --- sorry @Raphael. I appreciate the time you took to review my request. It just that I'm little bit busy at work =/. I hope I'll have some time soon enough to make the improvements needed. thank you!. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1217957] Review Request: python-relogger - A syslog sender, relay and receiver.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217957 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|projects...@smart.ms|nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner --- No response since weeks. :( -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232226] Review Request: golang-github-go-mgo-mgo - The MongoDB driver for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232226 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-go-mgo-mgo-0-0.1.git3569c88.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-go-mgo-mgo-0-0.1.git3569c88.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232226] Review Request: golang-github-go-mgo-mgo - The MongoDB driver for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232226 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-go-mgo-mgo-0-0.1.git3569c88.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-go-mgo-mgo-0-0.1.git3569c88.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 1232226] Review Request: golang-github-go-mgo-mgo - The MongoDB driver for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232226 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-go-mgo-mgo-0-0.1.git3569c88.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-go-mgo-mgo-0-0.1.git3569c88.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 1232226] Review Request: golang-github-go-mgo-mgo - The MongoDB driver for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232226 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1194916] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-util-process - Grunt util for processing values in an object
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194916 --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes --- License needs to be added locally until upstream responds. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1194916] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-util-process - Grunt util for processing values in an object
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194916
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||t...@compton.nu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1194916-nodejs-grunt-util-
process/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile an
[Bug 1194897] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-util-property - Grunt util for getting and setting properties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194897 --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes --- As this is MIT licensed you will need to add the license text yourself until upstream responds to your request to add 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 1194897] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-util-property - Grunt util for getting and setting properties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194897
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1194897-nodejs-grunt-util-
property/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
Note: Found : Packager: Tom Hughes
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a
[Bug 1232374] Review Request: python-jwcrypto - Implements JWK,JWS,JWE specifications using python-cryptography
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232374 --- Comment #7 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Sorry, wrong scratch build link. Correct one: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10109413 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1194897] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-util-property - Grunt util for getting and setting properties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194897 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t...@compton.nu Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |nodejs-grunt-util-propery - |nodejs-grunt-util-property |Grunt util for getting and |- Grunt util for getting |setting properties |and setting properties -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232374] Review Request: python-jwcrypto - Implements JWK,JWS,JWE specifications using python-cryptography
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232374 --- Comment #6 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//python-jwcrypto.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//python-jwcrypto-0.2.0-4.fc21.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10103696 changelog: - Ship readme and license with python3 subpackage - Move tests to %check The 403s are caused by github's CDN not working well with curl, but they work with wget. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232645] Review Request: nodejs-path-is-inside - Tests whether one path is inside another path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232645 --- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes --- There's an rpmlint warning: nodejs-path-is-inside.src:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 9) Other than that, just one small problem... You haven't actuallu included lib/path-is-inside.js in the package you generate ;-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232645] Review Request: nodejs-path-is-inside - Tests whether one path is inside another path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232645
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||t...@compton.nu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1232645-nodejs-path-is-
inside/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and bu
[Bug 1220779] Review Request: 7kaa - Seven Kingdoms: Ancient Adversaries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220779 --- Comment #15 from Raphael Groner --- [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/7kaa, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor => You have to add Requires: hicolor-icon-theme I do not know why you install the converted icon under /usr/share/icons/hicolor folder. This folder and all of its subfolders are managed in the hicolor-icon-theme package, so you have to add it as a Require. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_also_owned_by_a_package_implementing_required_functionality_of_your_package Alternative is to install the icon into /usr/share/pixmaps (legacy). http://standards.freedesktop.org/icon-theme-spec/icon-theme-spec-latest.html#directory_layout -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1220779] Review Request: 7kaa - Seven Kingdoms: Ancient Adversaries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220779 --- Comment #14 from Raphael Groner --- licensecheck.txt: GPL (v2 or later) - … GPL (v3 or later) - /home/builder/fedora-review/1220779-7kaa/upstream-unpacked/Source0/7kaa-2.14.5/include/gettext.h Unknown or generated /home/builder/fedora-review/1220779-7kaa/upstream-unpacked/Source0/7kaa-2.14.5/include/OSE.h /home/builder/fedora-review/1220779-7kaa/upstream-unpacked/Source0/7kaa-2.14.5/include/RESOURCE.h /home/builder/fedora-review/1220779-7kaa/upstream-unpacked/Source0/7kaa-2.14.5/src/client/OHILLRES.cpp /home/builder/fedora-review/1220779-7kaa/upstream-unpacked/Source0/7kaa-2.14.5/src/client/OPLANT.cpp /home/builder/fedora-review/1220779-7kaa/upstream-unpacked/Source0/7kaa-2.14.5/src/client/ORACERES.cpp /home/builder/fedora-review/1220779-7kaa/upstream-unpacked/Source0/7kaa-2.14.5/src/client/ORAWRES.cpp /home/builder/fedora-review/1220779-7kaa/upstream-unpacked/Source0/7kaa-2.14.5/src/client/OTECHRES.cpp /home/builder/fedora-review/1220779-7kaa/upstream-unpacked/Source0/7kaa-2.14.5/src/client/OTOWNRES.cpp /home/builder/fedora-review/1220779-7kaa/upstream-unpacked/Source0/7kaa-2.14.5/src/client/OWALLRES.cpp /home/builder/fedora-review/1220779-7kaa/upstream-unpacked/Source0/7kaa-2.14.5/src/imgfun/asm/ALL.inc /home/builder/fedora-review/1220779-7kaa/upstream-unpacked/Source0/7kaa-2.14.5/src/imgfun/asm/COLCODE.inc /home/builder/fedora-review/1220779-7kaa/upstream-unpacked/Source0/7kaa-2.14.5/src/imgfun/asm/IMGFUN.inc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232234] Review Request: golang-github-10gen-openssl - OpenSSL bindings for Go (forked from github.com/spacemonkeygo/openssl)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232234 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-10gen-openssl-0-0.1.git4c6dbaf.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-10gen-openssl-0-0.1.git4c6dbaf.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 1232234] Review Request: golang-github-10gen-openssl - OpenSSL bindings for Go (forked from github.com/spacemonkeygo/openssl)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232234 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232234] Review Request: golang-github-10gen-openssl - OpenSSL bindings for Go (forked from github.com/spacemonkeygo/openssl)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232234 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-10gen-openssl-0-0.1.git4c6dbaf.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-10gen-openssl-0-0.1.git4c6dbaf.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 894609] Review Request: coin-or-OS - Optimization Services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894609 Paulo Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Paulo Andrade --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: coin-or-OS Short Description: Optimization Services Upstream URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS Owners: pcpa Branches: f21 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 894609] Review Request: coin-or-OS - Optimization Services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894609 --- Comment #16 from Paulo Andrade --- Thanks for the review Antonio! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1212046] Review Request: golang-github-armon-gomdb - Go wrapper for LMDB - OpenLDAP Lightning Memory-Mapped Database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212046 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-armon-gomdb Short Description: Go wrapper for LMDB - OpenLDAP Lightning Memory-Mapped Database Upstream URL: https://github.com/armon/gomdb Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1212047] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-go-syslog - Golang syslog wrapper, cross-compile friendly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212047 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-hashicorp-go-syslog Short Description: Golang syslog wrapper, cross-compile friendly Upstream URL: https://github.com/hashicorp/go-syslog Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1212059] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-hcl- HCL is a configuration language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212059 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-hashicorp-hcl Short Description: HCL is a configuration language Upstream URL: https://github.com/hashicorp/hcl Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1212065] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-memberlist- Golang package for gossip based membership and failure detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212065 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-hashicorp-memberlist Short Description: Golang package for gossip based membership and failure detection Upstream URL: https://github.com/hashicorp/memberlist Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1212068] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-raft- Golang implementation of the Raft consensus protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212068 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-hashicorp-raft Short Description: Golang implementation of the Raft consensus protocol Upstream URL: https://github.com/hashicorp/raft Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1212075] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-net-rpc-msgpackrpc- Library for creating Go RPC client/server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212075 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-hashicorp-net-rpc-msgpackrpc Short Description: Library for creating Go RPC client/server Upstream URL: https://github.com/hashicorp/net-rpc-msgpackrpc Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1212113] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-scada-client- Implements a Golang client to the HashiCorp SCADA system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212113 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-hashicorp-scada-client Short Description: Implements a Golang client to the HashiCorp SCADA system Upstream URL: https://github.com/hashicorp/scada-client Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1212105] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-raft-boltdb- Raft backend implementation using BoltDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212105 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-hashicorp-raft-boltdb Short Description: Raft backend implementation using BoltDB Upstream URL: https://github.com/hashicorp/raft-boltdb Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1212124] Review Request: golang-github-ryanuber-columnize- Easy column formatted output for golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212124 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-ryanuber-columnize Short Description: Easy column formatted output for golang Upstream URL: https://github.com/ryanuber/columnize Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1212346] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-raft-mdb - LMDB backend for Raft
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212346 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-hashicorp-raft-mdb Short Description: LMDB backend for Raft Upstream URL: https://github.com/hashicorp/raft-mdb Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1212350] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-consul-migrate - Consul server data migrator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212350 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-hashicorp-consul-migrate Short Description: Consul server data migrator Upstream URL: https://github.com/hashicorp/consul-migrate Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1232433] Review Request: python-certifi - Python package for providing Mozilla's CA Bundle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232433 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Underwood --- Note the guidelines for unretiring a package as well: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Claiming_Ownership_of_an_Orphaned_Package_Procedure -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1212653] Review Request: golang-github-samuel-go-zookeeper - Native ZooKeeper client for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212653 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-samuel-go-zookeeper Short Description: Native ZooKeeper client for Go Upstream URL: https://github.com/samuel/go-zookeeper Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1214892] Review Request: golang-github-smartystreets-go-aws-auth - Signs requests to Amazon Web Services (AWS)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214892 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-smartystreets-go-aws-auth Short Description: Signs requests to Amazon Web Services (AWS) Upstream URL: https://github.com/smartystreets/go-aws-auth Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1214913] Review Request: golang-github-google-go-querystring - Go library for encoding structs into URL query parameters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214913 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-google-go-querystring Short Description: Go library for encoding structs into URL query parameters Upstream URL: https://github.com/google/go-querystring Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1214934] Review Request: golang-github-tent-http-link-go - HTTP Link parsing in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214934 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-tent-http-link-go Short Description: HTTP Link parsing in Go Upstream URL: https://github.com/tent/http-link-go Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1215104] Review Request: golang-github-digitalocean-godo - DigitalOcean Go API client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215104 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: golang-github-digitalocean-godo Short Description: DigitalOcean Go API client Upstream URL: https://github.com/digitalocean/godo Owners: jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 el6 InitialCC: golang-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 1232433] Review Request: python-certifi - Python package for providing Mozilla's CA Bundle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232433
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Underwood ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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/python-certifi
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
---> Package was previously orphaned.
- Package bundles cacerts (n the wrong location) - better to symlink
to system cacert bundle, and add appropriate Requires.
- Package contains files with shellbangs at the top which need
removing - see rpmlint output below.
- Other issues below.
= 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.
The spec file has the License field specifying ISC as the license. But
the LICENSE file in the source states:
This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License,
v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain
one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
So, I think the license field is incorrect.
Also, the LICENSE file doesn't actually contain the full text of the
license, just merely a URL to download it from. Packaging guidelines
state that a full copy of the LICENSE file is included with the
source, so you'll need to work with upstream to include the full license.
[!]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/jgu/Fedora/1232433-python-
certifi/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
The LICENSE file isn't installed (even though it has the problem
mentioned above).
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Unbundling the certs will require adding an extra Require to pull in
the cacerts.
[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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
See above.
[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 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
[Bug 1212124] Review Request: golang-github-ryanuber-columnize- Easy column formatted output for golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212124 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@redhat.com Assignee|mskal...@redhat.com |l...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - specfile conforms to current golang packaging draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed for now package 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 1212047] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-go-syslog - Golang syslog wrapper, cross-compile friendly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212047 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|podv...@redhat.com |l...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - specfile conforms to current golang packaging draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed for now package 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 1212046] Review Request: golang-github-armon-gomdb - Go wrapper for LMDB - OpenLDAP Lightning Memory-Mapped Database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212046 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-github-armon-gomdb- |golang-github-armon-gomdb - |Go wrapper for LMDB - |Go wrapper for LMDB - |OpenLDAP Lightning |OpenLDAP Lightning |Memory-Mapped Database |Memory-Mapped Database -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232433] Review Request: python-certifi - Python package for providing Mozilla's CA Bundle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232433 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Underwood --- Note also that this package actually was previously in Fedora, and has been orphaned and remove. dead.package contains: 2014-06-04 - This package was already retired in pkgdb/blocked in koji, but no dead.package file existed. The original retirement reason is unclear. pkgdb entry: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-certifi/ Un-orphaning it requires a package review anyway, and your packaging is much better as it adds in py3 support. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1212047] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-go-syslog - Golang syslog wrapper, cross-compile friendly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212047 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||l...@redhat.com Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-github-hashicorp-go- |golang-github-hashicorp-go- |syslog- Golang syslog |syslog - Golang syslog |wrapper, cross-compile |wrapper, cross-compile |friendly|friendly -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1212046] Review Request: golang-github-armon-gomdb- Go wrapper for LMDB - OpenLDAP Lightning Memory-Mapped Database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212046 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@redhat.com Assignee|podv...@redhat.com |l...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - specfile conforms to current golang packaging draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed for now package 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 1214862] Review Request: golang-github-smartystreets-goconvey - Behavioral testing in the browser, integrates with go test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214862 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-smartystreets-goconvey-0-0.1.git43652d6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-smartystreets-goconvey-0-0.1.git43652d6.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1214862] Review Request: golang-github-smartystreets-goconvey - Behavioral testing in the browser, integrates with go test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214862 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-smartystreets-goconvey-0-0.1.git43652d6.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-smartystreets-goconvey-0-0.1.git43652d6.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 1214862] Review Request: golang-github-smartystreets-goconvey - Behavioral testing in the browser, integrates with go test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214862 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-smartystreets-goconvey-0-0.1.git43652d6.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-smartystreets-goconvey-0-0.1.git43652d6.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 1214862] Review Request: golang-github-smartystreets-goconvey - Behavioral testing in the browser, integrates with go test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214862 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232433] Review Request: python-certifi - Python package for providing Mozilla's CA Bundle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232433 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Underwood --- Yes, that does seem like a good approach. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223887] Review Request: atomicapp - Reference implementation of the Nulecule container application Specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223887 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jan Chaloupka --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: atomicapp Short Description: Reference implementation of the Nulecule container application Specification Upstream URL: https://github.com/projectatomic/atomicapp Owners: vpavlin jchaloup Branches: f22 f21 InitialCC: golang-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 1232231] Review Request: golang-github-spacemonkeygo-spacelog - Hierarchical, leveled, and structured logging library for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232231 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-spacemonkeygo-spacelog-0-0.1.gitae95ccc.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-spacemonkeygo-spacelog-0-0.1.gitae95ccc.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232374] Review Request: python-jwcrypto - Implements JWK,JWS,JWE specifications using python-cryptography
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232374 --- Comment #5 from Pierre-YvesChibon --- rpmlint python-jwcrypto-0.2.0-3.fc21.noarch.rpm python3-jwcrypto-0.2.0-3.fc21.noarch.rpm python-jwcrypto-0.2.0-3.fc21.src.rpm python3-jwcrypto.noarch: W: no-documentation python-jwcrypto.src: W: invalid-url Source1: https://github.com/simo5/jwcrypto/releases/download/v0.2.0/jwcrypto-0.2.0.tar.gz.sha512sum.txt HTTP Error 403: Forbidden python-jwcrypto.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/simo5/jwcrypto/releases/download/v0.2.0/jwcrypto-0.2.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 403: Forbidden The two 403 are odd, but I could download them manually just fine, so let's ignore these for now. * sha256 did not change from previous revision ! the py3 subpackage should ship the doc and license as well ! The tests would better be ran in %check (this way they can also be skipped) The tests are not a requirement anyway, so I won't block the review on this. Please fix the license and doc for the py3 subpackage and I will approve 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 1232433] Review Request: python-certifi - Python package for providing Mozilla's CA Bundle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232433 --- Comment #2 from William Moreno --- Look like I can remove the bundle certificate and use a symlink, in python-requests if done in this way: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-requests.git/tree/python-requests.spec But I will wait for aditional comments. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232231] Review Request: golang-github-spacemonkeygo-spacelog - Hierarchical, leveled, and structured logging library for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232231 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-spacemonkeygo-spacelog-0-0.1.gitae95ccc.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-spacemonkeygo-spacelog-0-0.1.gitae95ccc.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 1232231] Review Request: golang-github-spacemonkeygo-spacelog - Hierarchical, leveled, and structured logging library for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232231 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-spacemonkeygo-spacelog-0-0.1.gitae95ccc.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-spacemonkeygo-spacelog-0-0.1.gitae95ccc.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 1232231] Review Request: golang-github-spacemonkeygo-spacelog - Hierarchical, leveled, and structured logging library for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232231 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232374] Review Request: python-jwcrypto - Implements JWK,JWS,JWE specifications using python-cryptography
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232374 --- Comment #4 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//python-jwcrypto.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//python-jwcrypto-0.2.0-3.fc21.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10103696 changelog: - Fix F21 build error by adding buildrequire python-setuptools - Move files into python3-jwcrypto subpackage - Run test suite - Do not install test suite - Fix summary and description of python3-jwcrypto -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232777] Review Request: nodejs-spdx-license-ids - A list of SPDX license identifiers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232777 Zuzana Svetlikova changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1232816 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232816 [Bug 1232816] Review Request: nodejs-spdx - SPDX License Expression Syntax parser -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232816] Review Request: nodejs-spdx - SPDX License Expression Syntax parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232816 Zuzana Svetlikova changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1232777 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232777 [Bug 1232777] Review Request: nodejs-spdx-license-ids - A list of SPDX license identifiers -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1232816] New: Review Request: nodejs-spdx - SPDX License Expression Syntax parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232816 Bug ID: 1232816 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-spdx - SPDX License Expression Syntax parser Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: zsvet...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs/nodejs-spdx/nodejs-spdx.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs/nodejs-spdx/nodejs-spdx-0.4.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: SPDX License Expression Syntax parser Fedora Account System Username: zvetlik -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1220779] Review Request: 7kaa - Seven Kingdoms: Ancient Adversaries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220779 --- Comment #13 from Ding-Yi Chen --- Spec URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/7kaa.spec SRPM URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/7kaa-2.14.5-5.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 1212350] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-consul-migrate - Consul server data migrator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212350 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - spec file conforms to current golang packaging draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed for now package 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 1212346] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-raft-mdb - LMDB backend for Raft
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212346 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - spec file conforms to current golang packaging draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed for now package 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 1212113] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-scada-client- Implements a Golang client to the HashiCorp SCADA system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212113 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - spec file conforms to current golang packaging draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed for now package 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 1212105] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-raft-boltdb- Raft backend implementation using BoltDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212105 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - spec file conforms to current golang packaging draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed for now package 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 1223887] Review Request: atomicapp - Reference implementation of the Nulecule container application Specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223887
Tomas Radej changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||tra...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tra...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Tomas Radej ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/tradej/development/reviews/1223887-atomicapp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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]: 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
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:
[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]: 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 and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should t
