[Bug 1241156] Review Request: go-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Golang packages for various architectures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241156 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1243922 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243922 [Bug 1243922] Add go-srpm-macros to redhat-rpm-config as a runtime dependency -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244102] Review Request: php-composer-spdx-licenses - SPDX licenses list and validation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244102 --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet --- No urgency... until https://github.com/composer/composer/pull/4264 is merged... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244102] Review Request: php-composer-spdx-licenses - SPDX licenses list and validation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244102 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||composer/spdx-licenses -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244102] New: Review Request: php-composer-spdx-licenses - SPDX licenses list and validation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244102 Bug ID: 1244102 Summary: Review Request: php-composer-spdx-licenses - SPDX licenses list and validation library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/c40107535873bb656d74b808436d9d8fdf4df389/php/php-composer-spdx-licenses/php-composer-spdx-licenses.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-composer-spdx-licenses-1.0.0-1.20150717git572abf7.remi.src.rpm Description: SPDX licenses list and validation library. Originally written as part of composer/composer, now extracted and made available as a stand-alone library. Fedora Account System Username: remi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241383] Review Request: mkchroot - Fedora Chroot Directory Maker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241383 --- Comment #7 from Mosaab Alzoubi --- Where is 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 1231262] Review Request: debbuild - Build Debian-compatible .deb packages from RPM .spec files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231262 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- debbuild-0.11.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/debbuild-0.11.2-1.el7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1231262] Review Request: debbuild - Build Debian-compatible .deb packages from RPM .spec files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231262 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- debbuild-0.11.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/debbuild-0.11.2-1.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 1231262] Review Request: debbuild - Build Debian-compatible .deb packages from RPM .spec files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231262 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- debbuild-0.11.2-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/debbuild-0.11.2-1.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1231262] Review Request: debbuild - Build Debian-compatible .deb packages from RPM .spec files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231262 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- debbuild-0.11.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/debbuild-0.11.2-1.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228865] Review Request: gdouros-anaktoria-fonts - A font based on "Grecs du roi" and the "First Folio Edition of Shakespeare"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228865 --- Comment #6 from Alexander Ploumistos --- Thank you for taking the time to review this. Source rpm and spec file updated. (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #5) > Where is the license specified? There never was a license file. See here, bottom of the page: https://web.archive.org/web/20150625020428/http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/ > %description seems to contain a private use unicode character (1480 > 1561). Thanks, there was a funny-looking zero, I fixed it in both the spec file and the metainfo.xml file. By the way, which tool picked that up? > [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: %defattr present but not needed But I don't have a %defattr directive, where is this coming from? > [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 808960 bytes in 1 files. > That's borderline. A bit too small to create a separate package. See comments 1 & 4 here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208842 > Appdata file should be validated in %check > [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData]. Does this apply to metainfo.xml files? I thought it was just for the appdata.xml ones. > $ appstream-util validate-relax > /usr/share/appdata/gdouros-anaktoria.metainfo.xml > /usr/share/appdata/gdouros-anaktoria.metainfo.xml: FAILED: > • markup-invalid: does not have correct extension for kind > • tag-missing : is not present > Validation of files failed On an F22 system, I'm getting this: $ appstream-util validate-relax rpmbuild/SOURCES/gdouros-anaktoria.metainfo.xml rpmbuild/SOURCES/gdouros-anaktoria.metainfo.xml: OK I can't understand why there would be a problem with the id tag or why the extends tag would be needed, it does not extend anything. On what system did you run fedora-review? I've just noticed that fedora-review on this system creates an F21 package even though I fed it an F23 source rpm built in mock, is there a setting someplace that I've missed? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1203018] Review Request: baculum - WebGUI tool for Bacula Community program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203018 --- Comment #22 from Marcin Haba --- Hello, I moved more work to Makefile for make Spec easier. Here are latest changes: - Remove source files: baculum.users, baculum-apache.conf baculum-lighttpd.conf and baculum-lighttpd.service - Use reorganized upstream Makefile Spec URL: http://bacula.pl/downloads/baculum/baculum.spec SRPM URL: http://bacula.pl/downloads/baculum/baculum-7.0.6-0.4.b.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 1228090] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-graph - Zeta Graph Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228090 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- php-zetacomponents-graph-1.5.2-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1219905] Review Request: python-cliff-tablib - Tablib formatters for python-cliff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219905 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-cliff-tablib-1.1-1.e ||l7 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-07-16 19:43:33 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-cliff-tablib-1.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1230274] Review Request: mpssh - Parallel ssh tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230274 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- mpssh-1.3.3-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1212318] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-serf- Service orchestration and management tool http://www.serfdom.io
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212318 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-hashicorp-serf-0-0.1.git4bd6183.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228091] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-console-tools - Zeta ConsoleTools Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228091 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- php-zetacomponents-console-tools-1.7-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208616] Review Request: consul - Tool for service discovery, monitoring and configuration http://www.consul.io
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208616 --- Comment #13 from Jan Chaloupka --- List of dependencies in deps directory. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244014] Review Request: python-ddt - Data-Driven/Decorated Tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244014 --- Comment #1 from Carl George --- [carl@george python-ddt]$ rpmlint \ > SPECS/python-ddt.spec \ > SRPMS/python-ddt-1.0.0-1.fc22.src.rpm \ > RPMS/python-ddt-1.0.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm \ > RPMS/python3-ddt-1.0.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244014] Review Request: python-ddt - Data-Driven/Decorated Tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244014 Carl George changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1049250 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049250 [Bug 1049250] python-falcon-0.3.0 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244014] New: Review Request: python-ddt - Data-Driven/Decorated Tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244014 Bug ID: 1244014 Summary: Review Request: python-ddt - Data-Driven/Decorated Tests Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: carl.geo...@rackspace.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://carlgeorge.fedorapeople.org/python-ddt/SPECS/python-ddt.spec SRPM URL: https://carlgeorge.fedorapeople.org/python-ddt/SRPMS/python-ddt-1.0.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: DDT (Data-Driven Tests) allows you to multiply one test case by running it with different test data, and make it appear as multiple test cases. Fedora Account System Username: carlgeorge I need this package in order to update python-falcon (bug 1049250). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 877096] Review Request: perl-Fsdb - A set of commands for manipulating flat-text databases from the shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877096 John Heidemann 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 1212318] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-serf- Service orchestration and management tool http://www.serfdom.io
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212318 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-hashicorp-serf-0-0.1.git4bd6183.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-hashicorp-serf-0-0.1.git4bd6183.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 1212318] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-serf- Service orchestration and management tool http://www.serfdom.io
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212318 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-hashicorp-serf-0-0.1.git4bd6183.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-hashicorp-serf-0-0.1.git4bd6183.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 1212318] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-serf- Service orchestration and management tool http://www.serfdom.io
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212318 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-hashicorp-serf-0-0.1.git4bd6183.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-github-hashicorp-serf-0-0.1.git4bd6183.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 1212318] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-serf- Service orchestration and management tool http://www.serfdom.io
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212318 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 1241293] Review Request: php-symfony-psr-http-message-bridge - Symfony PSR HTTP message bridge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241293 --- Comment #2 from Shawn Iwinski --- Nice find! I couldn't quickly find a fix so I opened a ticket upstream -- https://github.com/symfony/psr-http-message-bridge/issues/8 . The issue is in the SYmfony HttpFoundation component which has recently been merged into symfony master -- https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/15249 . I will need to update the Symfony pkg with that patch for this pkg. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1231459] Review Request: libosimum - Fast and flexible C++ library for working with OpenStreetMap data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231459 --- Comment #8 from Tom Hughes --- Just noticed a bundled header file (from boost, to support old versions, so not needed on Fedora) so here's a new version with it removed. Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium-2.2.0-4.fc22.src.rpm New scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10381529 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228865] Review Request: gdouros-anaktoria-fonts - A font based on "Grecs du roi" and the "First Folio Edition of Shakespeare"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228865 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- OK. I guess that's fine: the font is open source and either the author will re-post it or it will pop up somewhere else. Where is the license specified? %description seems to contain a private use unicode character (1480 1561). [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 808960 bytes in 1 files. That's borderline. A bit too small to create a separate package. Appdata file should be validated in %check [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData]. $ appstream-util validate-relax /usr/share/appdata/gdouros-anaktoria.metainfo.xml /usr/share/appdata/gdouros-anaktoria.metainfo.xml: FAILED: • markup-invalid: does not have correct extension for kind • tag-missing : is not present Validation of files failed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1216279] Review Request: cppformat - Small, safe and fast formating library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1216279
--- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande ---
- Exist some hidden directories in the -doc package.
Please check if they can be removed.
- Source0 link is not valid; use this form:
https://github.com/cppformat/cppformat/archive/1.1.0.zip#/%{name}-%{version}.zip
- cppformat.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/libformat.so.1.1.0 libformat.so.1()(64bit)
See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues?rd=PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#private-shared-object-provides
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 33
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1216279-cppformat/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
See comment#6.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note
[Bug 1234654] Package Review: python-gammu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234654 --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- I can review it, but please fix the issues from #c1 first. See https://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-configparser.spec for an example of standard python %prep, %build, and %install. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243249] Review Request: python-nbformat - The Jupyter Notebook format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243249 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Orion Poplawski --- More thanks :) New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-nbformat Short Description: The Jupyter Notebook format Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/nbformat Owners: orion Branches: f23 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 1242709] Review Request: python-jupyter_core - Core Jupyter functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242709 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski --- Thanks again and good catch. Passed along upstream. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-jupyter_core Short Description: Core Jupyter functionality Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/jupyter_core Owners: orion Branches: f23 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 1243249] Review Request: python-nbformat - The Jupyter Notebook format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243249 José Matos changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jama...@fc.up.pt QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |jama...@fc.up.pt Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from José Matos --- The package is straightforward and well done. :-) The review is the same lines of the dependent packages: python-ipython_genutils python-traitlets python-jupyter_core This package is approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1174290] Review Request: scalasca - Toolset for scalable performance analysis of large-scale parallel applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174290 --- Comment #10 from Dave Love --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #9) > It fails to build in rawhide: > configure: error: provided interface version '7' of cube not sufficient for > Scalasca, provide '5' or compatible. > cube-config --interface-version says 7:2:0. > I don't know if it backwards compatible. That's fixed by the current version, built in copr, but I haven't actually tested it, and I want to get the updated cube into EPEL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1234654] Package Review: python-gammu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234654 --- Comment #4 from Sergio Monteiro Basto --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3) > So, what's the status here? Can you review it ? I need fix python3 subpackage etc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242709] Review Request: python-jupyter_core - Core Jupyter functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242709 José Matos changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jama...@fc.up.pt Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jama...@fc.up.pt Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from José Matos --- In the same line of the previous reviews there is nothing to point other than (something that when I read did not notice): spelling-error %description -l en_US inhertited -> inherited The package is approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243499] Review Request: python-configparser - Backport of python 3 configparser module to python 2.7 (and 2.6)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243499 --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- - latest version - license has been clarified ;) - packaging is standard for Python modules - no conflicts - guidelines are followed Package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242098] Review Request: python-traitlets - A lightweight derivative of Enthought Traits for configuring Python objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242098
José Matos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||jama...@fc.up.pt
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jama...@fc.up.pt
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from José Matos ---
OK. Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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.
[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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI i
[Bug 1241614] Review Request: perl-Text-Reflow - Perl module for reflowing text files using Knuth's paragraphing algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241614 --- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- ... or the other way around, following https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#License_tag: License: GPL+ or Artistic -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242098] Review Request: python-traitlets - A lightweight derivative of Enthought Traits for configuring Python objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242098 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Orion Poplawski --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-traitlets Short Description: A lightweight derivative of Enthought Traits for configuring Python objects Upstream URL: https://github.com/ipython/traitlets Owners: orion Branches: f23 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 1241614] Review Request: perl-Text-Reflow - Perl module for reflowing text files using Knuth's paragraphing algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241614 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Are you sure about the license? http://search.cpan.org/dist/Text-Reflow/ says "Perl 5 license (artistic 1 and gpl 1)". Source files seem to say "Artistic or GPLv3+". So License should probably be: License: GPLv3+ or Artistic. - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Text See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228865] Review Request: gdouros-anaktoria-fonts - A font based on "Grecs du roi" and the "First Folio Edition of Shakespeare"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228865 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Ploumistos --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3) > Sources cannot be found any more! In protest of the recent events in Europe and Greece, the creator has removed all of his fonts (including seven that are already in Fedora). I have written to him urging him to reconsider his decision, but I have not heard back. Meanwhile, I have uploaded the latest source packages for the fonts I maintain to our cvs and for the ones under review it's just what you see in the source rpms. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243061] Review Request: dex-autostart - Generate and execute DesktopEntry files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243061 Marcin Haba changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marcin.h...@bacula.pl --- Comment #2 from Marcin Haba --- Hello, In manual page there is described "dex" command. EXAMPLES manual section also uses "dex" e.g: dex -a -s /etc/xdg/autostart/:~/.config/autostart/ When is already installed "dex" text editor package (not dex-autostart) package, then the commands from dex-autostart manual be using /usr/bin/dex binary instead of /usr/bin/dex-autostart I think that better could be just replace "dex" in man page into "dex-autostart". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1225241] Review Request: stlink - STM32 discovery line Linux programmer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225241
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
A note for the future: if you decide to install the udev rules, use
%{_udevrulesdir} and not /etc/udev/rules.d as the stlink documentation
suggests.
Also, what about the gdbserver part?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1225241] Review Request: stlink - STM32 discovery line Linux programmer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225241
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
[x] - OK
[-] - not applicable
[?] - question
[!] - todo
Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
There are some questions inline below.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package 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". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1225241-stlink/licensecheck.txt
[?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
I think %configure should be used instead of ./configure to get proper flags.
[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.
What about the gui part? There seems to be some gtk app which is not built.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 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:
[-]: 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.
I cannot test it, but at least the binaries run.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary se
[Bug 1228865] Review Request: gdouros-anaktoria-fonts - A font based on "Grecs du roi" and the "First Folio Edition of Shakespeare"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228865 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Sources cannot be found any more! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243915] Review Request: perl-Pinto - Curate a repository of Perl modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243915 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243499] Review Request: python-configparser - Backport of python 3 configparser module to python 2.7 (and 2.6)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243499 --- Comment #4 from José Matos --- I have updated the description and the information regarding the license: * Thu Jul 16 2015 José Matos - 3.5.0b2-0.2 - Improve description to make it clear that this package in only needed for python 2.7 - Make the license tag information more explicit. Spec URL: https://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-configparser.spec SRPM URL: https://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-configparser-3.5.0b2-0.2.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 1241383] Review Request: mkchroot - Fedora Chroot Directory Maker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241383 --- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- To Mosaab. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1224390] Review Request: ignition-math - Small, Fast, High Performance Math Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224390
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Questions and suggestion
What is the relation to ignition_math2? Does it supersede this version?
%check is present, but the result is ignored. Is there a reason to ignore the
result?
I suggest using %global _docdir_fmt %{name}.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = question
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
ASL 2.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 6
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/var/tmp/1224390-ignition-math/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
-devel requires the main package.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/lib64/pkgconfig(pkgconfig), /usr/lib64/cmake(pulseaudio-libs-
devel, phonon-devel, cmake, qt5-qtlocation, qt5-qtbase)
OK.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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]: 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]: Uses parallel m
[Bug 1243783] Review Request: nodejs-util-deprecate - The Node.js `util.deprecate()` function with browser support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243783 Parag changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Parag --- Thank you Zuzana for quick review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-util-deprecate Short Description: The Node.js `util.deprecate()` function with browser support Upstream URL: https://github.com/TooTallNate/util-deprecate Owners: pnemade Branches: f21 f22 f23 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1235305] Review Request: hitch - Network proxy that terminates TLS/SSL connections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1235305 --- Comment #11 from Ingvar Hagelund --- (In reply to Jeff Backus from comment #7) > Hi folks, > > I've done a formal review. Here are the highlights, with the formal review > below: Thanks, Jeff New .src.rpm: http://users.linpro.no/ingvar/varnish/hitch/hitch-1.0.0-0.3.3.beta3.fc22.src.rpm New .spec: http://users.linpro.no/ingvar/varnish/hitch/hitch.spec > * BR redhat-rpm-config isn't needed, however, as there is an on-going > discussion about what should go in the minimum buildroot, I won't insist > this is removed. Any reason this was added? It used to be a requirement for hardened build, but that is probably long gone. Fixed. > * Even though BuildRequires allows multiple listings on one line, please > only provide one. Specifically, line 25... Fixed > * Please add comments above %check section explaining why it is disabled by > default and how to use it. Your explanation above is sufficient, just add it > to the .spec file. Fixed > * Missed the -p when installing hitch.conf on line 98. As the file is generated at build time, as was a bit unsure if this was necessary. Fixed > * Please remove the commented %setup macro in %prep. Fixed > * Please remove the commented commands in %build Fixed > * While you're making changes, the description has "It's" but should be > "Its"... :) This was dumped from an upstream description, but still; "It is" -> "Its"??? I'll use "It is", to avoid any confusion. > Overall, looks good. Please address the above and I'll approve it. Great, thanks! Ingvar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241383] Review Request: mkchroot - Fedora Chroot Directory Maker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241383 --- Comment #5 from Marcin Haba --- @Zbigniew Is it question to Mosaab or 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 1225648] Review Request: compat-libvpx1 - Compat package with libvpx libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225648
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Issues:
===
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
I guess that you might want to change that in libvpx first to keep differences
to minimum.
- URL is wrong:
compat-libvpx1.i686: W: invalid-url URL:
http://www.webmproject.org/tools/vp8-sdk/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found
- formatting:
compat-libvpx1.src:120: W: macro-in-comment %doc
compat-libvpx1.src:5: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab:
line 5)
Rest of rpmlint output (nothing interesting):
compat-libvpx1.i686: W: no-documentation
compat-libvpx1.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/libvpx.so.1.3.0
0775L
srpm/compat-libvpx1.spec:61: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
srpm/compat-libvpx1.spec:63: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
Please fix those minor issues at your convenience. Package is APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241156] Review Request: go-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Golang packages for various architectures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241156 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- go-srpm-macros-1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/go-srpm-macros-1-1.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241156] Review Request: go-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Golang packages for various architectures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241156 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 1243915] New: Review Request: perl-Pinto - Curate a repository of Perl modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243915 Bug ID: 1243915 Summary: Review Request: perl-Pinto - Curate a repository of Perl modules Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jples...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Pinto/perl-Pinto.spec SRPM URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Pinto/perl-Pinto-0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Pinto is an application for creating and managing a custom CPAN-like repository of Perl modules. The purpose of such a repository is to provide a stable, curated stack of dependencies from which you can reliably build, test, and deploy your application using the standard Perl tool chain. Pinto supports various operations for gathering and managing distribution dependencies within the repository, so that you can control precisely which dependencies go into your application. Fedora Account System Username: jples...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241156] Review Request: go-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Golang packages for various architectures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241156 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- go-srpm-macros-1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/go-srpm-macros-1-1.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1234654] Package Review: python-gammu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234654 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- So, what's the status here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241383] Review Request: mkchroot - Fedora Chroot Directory Maker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241383 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Why --nogpgcheck? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1230274] Review Request: mpssh - Parallel ssh tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230274 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- mpssh-1.3.3-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mpssh-1.3.3-2.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241922] Review Request: perl-Test-LWP-UserAgent - LWP::UserAgent suitable for simulating and testing network calls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241922 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||perl-Test-LWP-UserAgent-0.0 ||29-1.fc24 --- Comment #7 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243499] Review Request: python-configparser - Backport of python 3 configparser module to python 2.7 (and 2.6)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243499 --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- (In reply to José Matos from comment #2) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > > I was worried about issues with backwards compatiblity. But this package > > does not override the module in Python 2.7 stdlib because the name is > > different (configparser vs. ConfigParser). I think a note about this should > > be added to %description, to avoid confusion. > > OK. I will add a note. > > > You make the package only for Python 2.7, so any mention of other versions > > should be removed from %description. > > I disagree. The idea of the sentence is that the code can be used unchanged > from versions 2.6 to 3.5 (btw excluding 3.0 and 3.1). This is relevant. > > What I agree that it can be done is to improve the last remark and say > something like this this: > > "This package is not available for python 3 since it belongs to standard > library starting from python 3.2 so it is already installed with python 3." > > I welcome improvements to the sentence above. :-) Maybe make it explicit: "In Fedora, this package is only provided for Python 2 because a recent version is already installed as part of the Python 3 standard library." > > There is no license file. > > Also, I think licensing might be wrong. CPython is licensed under PYTHON > > SOFTWARE FOUNDATION LICENSE VERSION 2, and configparser is directly derived > > from that, so should also be licensed the same. I think that licensing it as > > MIT might be a mistake, unless configparser is indpendently derived from a > > different source. Upstream maintainer of configparser in cpython prepared > > the stand-alone configparser module, so it's possible that he is simply has > > copyright to the code and decided to provide it under a different license. > > Either way, please confirm the license, and ask upstream to include a > > license file. > > I took the time to confirm the license. In a sense for me that is the most > important check that needs to be done while packaging. :-) > > The source for the license is the pypi package whose the index > responsibility is from author of the code (the same that is in python > standard library). > > The license there is MIT. Yes. But I think that *that* license might be wrong. (Although the difference between MIT and PSFL is cosmetic, so there's little practical difference.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1227701] Review Request: eclipse-launchbar - Alternative launcher toolbar for Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227701 Sopot Cela changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-07-16 07:12:33 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1134020] Review Request: python-pykalman - Kalman Filter, Smoother, and EM Algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134020 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- python-pykalman-0.9.5-4.20140827git2aeb4ad.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pykalman-0.9.5-4.20140827git2aeb4ad.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 1134020] Review Request: python-pykalman - Kalman Filter, Smoother, and EM Algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134020 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- python-pykalman-0.9.5-4.20140827git2aeb4ad.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pykalman-0.9.5-4.20140827git2aeb4ad.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 1243782] Review Request: nodejs-process-nextick-args - The process.nextTick() but always with args
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243782
Zuzana Svetlikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zsvet...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zsvet...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Zuzana Svetlikova ---
Looks fine, but the package is missing license.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %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". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/kasicka/fedora-review/1243782-nodejs-
process-nextick-args/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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %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, /bi
[Bug 1243783] Review Request: nodejs-util-deprecate - The Node.js `util.deprecate()` function with browser support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243783
Zuzana Svetlikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zsvet...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zsvet...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Zuzana Svetlikova ---
Seem fine, APPROVED.
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/kasicka/fedora-review/1243783-nodejs-
util-deprecate/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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %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
[Bug 1243783] Review Request: nodejs-util-deprecate - The Node.js `util.deprecate()` function with browser support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243783 Parag changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243783] Review Request: nodejs-util-deprecate - The Node.js `util.deprecate()` function with browser support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243783 --- Comment #1 from Parag --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10378003 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243783] New: Review Request: nodejs-util-deprecate - The Node.js `util.deprecate()` function with browser support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243783 Bug ID: 1243783 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-util-deprecate - The Node.js `util.deprecate()` function with browser support Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pnem...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-util-deprecate.spec SRPM URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-util-deprecate-1.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: In Node.js, this module simply re-exports the util.deprecate() function. In the web browser (i.e. via browserify), a browser-specific implementation of the util.deprecate() function is used. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243782] Review Request: nodejs-process-nextick-args - The process.nextTick() but always with args
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243782 Parag changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243782] New: Review Request: nodejs-process-nextick-args - The process.nextTick() but always with args
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243782 Bug ID: 1243782 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-process-nextick-args - The process.nextTick() but always with args Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pnem...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-process-nextick-args.spec SRPM URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-process-nextick-args-1.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Always be able to pass arguments to process.nextTick, no matter the platform. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243782] Review Request: nodejs-process-nextick-args - The process.nextTick() but always with args
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243782 --- Comment #1 from Parag --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10378002 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243507] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-LUHN - Calculate the Modulus 10 Double Add Double checksum
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243507
Petr Šabata changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||psab...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Petr Šabata ---
Bill, Athos,
there are actually some issues with this package.
* The perl version constraint (buildtime dependency) has no practical efect.
* The package calls `find', `make', `rm' and `rmdir', yet doesn't depend on
packages providing these commands. Note Fedora Packaging Guidelines no longer
list any packages guaranteed to be present in every buildroot. Add
`coreutils', `findutils' and `make' as build dependencies.
* The minimum required version of ExtUtils::MakeMaker is 6.30. (Makefile.PL:8)
* Some perl build dependencies are missing:
- strict, used in Makefile.PL, tests and the tested code
- Test, used in tests
- warnings, used in Makefile.PL and the tested code
* The Exporter runtime dependency is autodetected and doesn't need to be
explicitly Require'd.
* Modern EU::MM supports DESTDIR. This can be used in place of
PERL_INSTALL_ROOT.
* Line 34 is unnecessary. (find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {}
2>/dev/null \;)
* The `dist.ini' file has zero value for the end user and I would advise
against packaging 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 1228090] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-graph - Zeta Graph Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228090 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- php-zetacomponents-graph-1.5.2-3.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-zetacomponents-graph-1.5.2-3.el7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228090] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-graph - Zeta Graph Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228090 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- php-zetacomponents-graph-1.5.2-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-zetacomponents-graph-1.5.2-3.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 1228090] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-graph - Zeta Graph Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228090 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- php-zetacomponents-graph-1.5.2-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-zetacomponents-graph-1.5.2-3.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228090] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-graph - Zeta Graph Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228090 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 1228090] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-graph - Zeta Graph Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228090 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- php-zetacomponents-graph-1.5.2-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-zetacomponents-graph-1.5.2-3.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243758] Review Request: apacheds-jdbm - ApacheDS specific JDBM Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758 gil cattaneo 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 1243761] Review Request: mavibot - ApacheDS MVCC BTree implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243761 gil cattaneo 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 1243506] Review Request: perl-Net-HL7 - Simple perl API for HL7 messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243506 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata --- This Beerware variant doesn't appear to be free since the drink is mandatory: BEER-WARE LICENSE Version 666, July 2012 You can use this stuff and do whatever you like with it on the following condition: 0. Would you ever be in a situation where you are able to offer us, or one of us, a beer, or if unavailable, an alcoholic beverage of your choice, you must do so. Wyldebeast & Wunderliebe Compare to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Beerware Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228091] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-console-tools - Zeta ConsoleTools Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228091 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- php-zetacomponents-console-tools-1.7-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-zetacomponents-console-tools-1.7-3.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228091] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-console-tools - Zeta ConsoleTools Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228091 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- php-zetacomponents-console-tools-1.7-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-zetacomponents-console-tools-1.7-3.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228091] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-console-tools - Zeta ConsoleTools Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228091 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- php-zetacomponents-console-tools-1.7-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-zetacomponents-console-tools-1.7-3.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 1228091] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-console-tools - Zeta ConsoleTools Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228091 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 1228091] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-console-tools - Zeta ConsoleTools Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228091 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- php-zetacomponents-console-tools-1.7-3.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-zetacomponents-console-tools-1.7-3.el7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243761] New: Review Request: mavibot - ApacheDS MVCC BTree implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243761 Bug ID: 1243761 Summary: Review Request: mavibot - ApacheDS MVCC BTree implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: punto...@libero.it QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/mavibot.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/mavibot-1.0.0-0.1.M7.fc22.src.rpm Description: Mavibot is a Multi Version Concurrency Control (MVCC) BTree in Java. It is expected to be a replacement for JDBM (The current back-end for the Apache Directory Server), but could be a good fit for any other project in need of a Java MVCC BTree implementation. Fedora Account System Username: gil Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10362775 ApacheDS 2.0.0-M20 Build/Requires -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243758] New: Review Request: apacheds-jdbm - ApacheDS specific JDBM Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758 Bug ID: 1243758 Summary: Review Request: apacheds-jdbm - ApacheDS specific JDBM Implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: punto...@libero.it QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-jdbm.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-jdbm-2.0.0-0.1.M3.fc22.src.rpm Description: A JDBM entry store which does not have any dependency on core interfaces. The JDBM partition will use this store and build on it to adapt this to server specific partition interfaces. Having this separate module without dependencies on core interfaces makes it easier to avoid cyclic dependencies between modules. This is especially important for use within the bootstrap plugin which needs to build the schema partition used for bootstrapping the server. Fedora Account System Username: gil ApacheDS 2.0.0-M20 Build/Requires Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10363372 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241412] Review Request: python-ldap3 - Strictly RFC 4511 conforming LDAP V3 pure Python client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241412 --- Comment #8 from Michal Cyprian --- It was really not possible to compile this package, thank you for the notice. Patch was made for GitHub sources and I tried to apply it to ldap3 sources from PyPI. I didn't test it properly, I am sorry. I think %check section is not necessary here. I've made new patch that works with PyPI sources. Spec URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/python-ldap3.spec SRPM URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/python-ldap3-0.9.8.6-1.fc22.src.rpm It should be alright 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 1228090] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-graph - Zeta Graph Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228090 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #11 from Remi Collet --- Seems auto-fixed... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243506] Review Request: perl-Net-HL7 - Simple perl API for HL7 messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243506 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||psab...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228091] Review Request: php-zetacomponents-console-tools - Zeta ConsoleTools Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228091 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #10 from Remi Collet --- Seems auto-fixed... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243499] Review Request: python-configparser - Backport of python 3 configparser module to python 2.7 (and 2.6)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243499 --- Comment #2 from José Matos --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > I was worried about issues with backwards compatiblity. But this package > does not override the module in Python 2.7 stdlib because the name is > different (configparser vs. ConfigParser). I think a note about this should > be added to %description, to avoid confusion. OK. I will add a note. > You make the package only for Python 2.7, so any mention of other versions > should be removed from %description. I disagree. The idea of the sentence is that the code can be used unchanged from versions 2.6 to 3.5 (btw excluding 3.0 and 3.1). This is relevant. What I agree that it can be done is to improve the last remark and say something like this this: "This package is not available for python 3 since it belongs to standard library starting from python 3.2 so it is already installed with python 3." I welcome improvements to the sentence above. :-) > There is no license file. > Also, I think licensing might be wrong. CPython is licensed under PYTHON > SOFTWARE FOUNDATION LICENSE VERSION 2, and configparser is directly derived > from that, so should also be licensed the same. I think that licensing it as > MIT might be a mistake, unless configparser is indpendently derived from a > different source. Upstream maintainer of configparser in cpython prepared > the stand-alone configparser module, so it's possible that he is simply has > copyright to the code and decided to provide it under a different license. > Either way, please confirm the license, and ask upstream to include a > license file. I took the time to confirm the license. In a sense for me that is the most important check that needs to be done while packaging. :-) The source for the license is the pypi package whose the index responsibility is from author of the code (the same that is in python standard library). The license there is MIT. FWIW both debian and Arch maintainer agree with this assessment: http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/c/configparser/configparser_3.3.0r2-2_copyright https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python2-configparser/ In any case agree that, according to "The Zen of Python", "Explicit is better than implicit." So I will ask the author to add a license file to the code. > No issues with packaging otherwise. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241419] Review Request: nodejs-native-or-bluebird - Use either the native Promise or Bluebird
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241419 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-native-or-bluebird-1.2.0-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-native-or-bluebird-1.2.0-2.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1241419] Review Request: nodejs-native-or-bluebird - Use either the native Promise or Bluebird
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241419 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 1193878] Review Request: qmasterpassword - Stateless Master Password Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193878 Beat Küng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #15 from Beat Küng --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: qmasterpassword Short Description: Stateless Master Password Manager Upstream URL: https://github.com/bkueng/qMasterPassword Owners: bkueng Branches: f21 f22 f23 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 1231459] Review Request: libosimum - Fast and flexible C++ library for working with OpenStreetMap data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231459 --- Comment #7 from Tom Hughes --- New version using %cmake: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium-2.2.0-3.fc22.src.rpm New scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10376148 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1222926] Review Request: nunit - unit-testing framework for .Net/mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222926 Timotheus Pokorra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-07-16 03:07:32 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
