[Bug 1263600] Review Request: perl-Log-Log4perl-Appender-Socket-UNIX - Log4perl appender for writing to UNIX domain sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263600 Jan Holcapek changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Jan Holcapek --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Log-Log4perl-Appender-Socket-UNIX Short Description: Log4perl appender for writing to UNIX domain sockets Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Log-Log4perl-Appender-Socket-UNIX/ Owners: holcapek Branches: f21 f22 f23 el6 epel7 InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751119] Review Request: perl-Judy - Perl wrapper for Judy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751119 Jan Holcapek changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from Jan Holcapek --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Judy Short Description: Perl wrapper for Judy Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Judy/ Owners: holcapek Branches: f21 f22 f23 el6 epel7 InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 751119] Review Request: perl-Judy - Perl wrapper for Judy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751119 --- Comment #17 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- holcapek's scratch build of perl-Judy-0.41-3.fc21.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11222466 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 445067] Review Request: ocaml-ounit - Unit test framework for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445067 Ding-Yi Chen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dc...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Ding-Yi Chen --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ocaml-ounit Short Description: Unit test framework for OCaml Owners: rjones dchen Branches: epel7 el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266336] Review Request: Mass review exception : php-zendframework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266336 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1259002] Review Request: rudiments - C++ class library for developing systems and applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259002 --- Comment #10 from David Muse --- updates: * applied Jens' patch * updated fsf address in 2 files where it was wrong * updated COPYING and spec to be very specific about what licenses different parts of the distribution are covered by - mainly LGPL, various other files covered by GPL, example code covered by FSF Unlimited License (FSFUL). Updated Spec: http://rudiments.sourceforge.net/rpm/rudiments.spec Updated SRPM: http://rudiments.sourceforge.net/rpm/rudiments-0.53-4.fc22.src.rpm f22 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11221591 f23 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11221664 f24 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11221780 Is an update to a newer version of the LGPL required for a successful review? If so, I'll look into it. I've considered updating to a newer version of the LGPL before though. The legal nuances between the different versions are daunting to analyze and Rudiments has been covered by LGPL2 for 15 years without incident. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1259002] Review Request: rudiments - C++ class library for developing systems and applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259002 --- Comment #9 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- davidleemuse's scratch build of rudiments-0.53-4.fc22.src.rpm for f22 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11221591 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266336] Review Request: Mass review exception : php-zendframework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266336 --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ** see above list ** Short Description: Zend Framework Upstream URL: http://framework.zend.com/ Owners: remi siwinski Branches: f23 InitialCC: Packages list: php-zendframework php-zendframework-zend-authentication php-zendframework-zend-barcode php-zendframework-zend-cache php-zendframework-zend-captcha php-zendframework-zend-code php-zendframework-zend-config php-zendframework-zend-console php-zendframework-zend-crypt php-zendframework-zend-db php-zendframework-zend-debug php-zendframework-zend-di php-zendframework-zend-dom php-zendframework-zend-escaper php-zendframework-zend-eventmanager php-zendframework-zend-feed php-zendframework-zend-file php-zendframework-zend-filter php-zendframework-zend-form php-zendframework-zend-http php-zendframework-zend-i18n php-zendframework-zend-i18n-resources php-zendframework-zend-inputfilter php-zendframework-zend-json php-zendframework-zend-ldap php-zendframework-zend-loader php-zendframework-zend-log php-zendframework-zend-mail php-zendframework-zend-math php-zendframework-zend-memory php-zendframework-zend-mime php-zendframework-zend-modulemanager php-zendframework-zend-mvc php-zendframework-zend-navigation php-zendframework-zend-paginator php-zendframework-zend-permissions-acl php-zendframework-zend-permissions-rbac php-zendframework-zend-progressbar php-zendframework-zend-serializer php-zendframework-zend-server php-zendframework-zend-servicemanager php-zendframework-zend-session php-zendframework-zend-soap php-zendframework-zend-stdlib php-zendframework-zend-tag php-zendframework-zend-test php-zendframework-zend-text php-zendframework-zend-uri php-zendframework-zend-validator php-zendframework-zend-version php-zendframework-zend-view php-zendframework-zendxml php-zendframework-zend-xmlrpc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265329] Review Request: nodejs-parse-json - Parse JSON with more helpful errors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265329 Parag Nemade changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1261475 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1261475 [Bug 1261475] nodejs-got-4.2.0 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 1266336] New: Review Request: Mass review exception : php-zendframework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266336 Bug ID: 1266336 Summary: Review Request: Mass review exception : php-zendframework 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 See https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/572 Spec files: https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/tree/master/php/zend -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265326] Review Request: nodejs-node-error-ex - Easy error subclassing and stack customization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265326 --- Comment #5 from Parag Nemade --- Thank you Tom for your review. Here is update that changed package name and that comment. Spec URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-error-ex.spec SRPM URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-error-ex-1.2.0-1.fc23.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 241473] Review Request: ocaml-ssl - SSL bindings for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241473 Ding-Yi Chen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dc...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Ding-Yi Chen --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ocaml-ssl Short Description: SSL bindings for OCaml Owners: rjones dchen Branches: epel7 el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1246903] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-openweather - an extension to display weather information from many locations in the world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246903 --- Comment #41 from Richard Shaw --- I think it would be worth expanding the packaging guidelines here as: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28gnome_shell_extensions.29 Doesn't say much :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1262807] Review Request: php-udan11-sql-parser - A validating SQL lexer and parser with a focus on MySQL dialect
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262807 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- php-udan11-sql-parser-1.0.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update php-udan11-sql-parser' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8185 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1261537] Review Request: libs3 - C Library and Tools for Amazon S3 Access
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1261537 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- libs3-2.0-0.2.20150902git247ba1b.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update libs3' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8199 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223887] Review Request: atomicapp - Reference implementation of the Nulecule container application Specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223887 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- atomicapp-0.1.10-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update atomicapp' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8206 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265484] Review Request: google-roboto-slab-fonts - Google Roboto Slab fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265484 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- google-roboto-slab-fonts-1.100263-0.3.20150923git.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update google-roboto-slab-fonts' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8210 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 481528] Review Request: perl-DBIx-Safe - Safer access to your database through a DBI database handle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481528 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|ERRATA |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- perl-DBIx-Safe-1.2.5-25.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update perl-DBIx-Safe' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8209 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 481527] Review Request: bucardo - asynchronous PostgreSQL replication system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481527 Bug 481527 depends on bug 481528, which changed state. Bug 481528 Summary: Review Request: perl-DBIx-Safe - Safer access to your database through a DBI database handle https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481528 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|ERRATA |--- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265636] Review Request: google-roboto-mono-fonts - Google Roboto Mono fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265636 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- google-roboto-mono-fonts-2.000986-0.1.20150923git.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update google-roboto-mono-fonts' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8211 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1262807] Review Request: php-udan11-sql-parser - A validating SQL lexer and parser with a focus on MySQL dialect
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262807 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- php-udan11-sql-parser-1.0.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update php-udan11-sql-parser' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8186 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1261537] Review Request: libs3 - C Library and Tools for Amazon S3 Access
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1261537 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- libs3-2.0-0.2.20150902git247ba1b.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update libs3' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8198 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1261537] Review Request: libs3 - C Library and Tools for Amazon S3 Access
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1261537 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- libs3-2.0-0.2.20150902git247ba1b.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update libs3' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8200 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266273] Review Request: python-unicodecsv - Drop-in replacement for csv module which supports unicode strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266273 Alan Pevec changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1243533 ||(RDO-LIBERTY-REVIEWS) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243533 [Bug 1243533] (RDO) Tracker: Review requests for new RDO Liberty packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266273] New: Review Request: python-unicodecsv - Drop-in replacement for csv module which supports unicode strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266273 Bug ID: 1266273 Summary: Review Request: python-unicodecsv - Drop-in replacement for csv module which supports unicode strings Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ape...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://apevec.fedorapeople.org/fedora/python-unicodecsv.spec SRPM URL: https://apevec.fedorapeople.org/fedora/python-unicodecsv-0.14.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: The unicodecsv is a drop-in replacement for Python 2's csv module which supports unicode strings without a hassle. Fedora Account System Username: apevec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1236565] Review Request: nodejs-builtins - List of node.js builtin modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1236565 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-builtins-1.0.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1264656] Review Request: rubygem-ace-rails-ap - The Ajax.org Cloud9 Editor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264656 --- Comment #2 from Ilya Gradina --- (In reply to Upstream Release Monitoring from comment #1) > jgrulich's scratch build of > kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 for f22-candidate and > git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/ > kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 completed > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11212117 It is mistake? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1246903] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-openweather - an extension to display weather information from many locations in the world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246903 --- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System --- gnome-shell-extension-openweather-1-0.4.20150924gite55253e.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-b1d32ed839 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1246903] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-openweather - an extension to display weather information from many locations in the world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246903 --- Comment #39 from Kalev Lember --- Thanks, and welcome to Fedora! :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1246903] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-openweather - an extension to display weather information from many locations in the world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246903 --- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System --- gnome-shell-extension-openweather-1-0.4.20150924gite55253e.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-bcb0b726a9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1246903] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-openweather - an extension to display weather information from many locations in the world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246903 --- Comment #37 from Jens Lody --- Thanks Kalev ! I just fixed this and just pushed my first package to testing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1250833] Review Request: helm - Polyphonic software synth with lots of modulation and easy to use UI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250833 --- Comment #10 from L.L.Robinson --- An informational note that the next upstream version will not require patching to make the build verbose. https://github.com/mtytel/helm/issues/30#issuecomment-141542740 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1246903] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-openweather - an extension to display weather information from many locations in the world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246903 --- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System --- gnome-shell-extension-openweather-1-0.4.20150924gite55253e.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-9fd324e09e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1246903] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-openweather - an extension to display weather information from many locations in the world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246903 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 1266258] Review Request: python-URLObject - A utility class for manipulating URLs.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266258 Pete Walter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||walter.p...@yandex.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Pete Walter --- I will not repeat the fedora-review noise here. Looks nice and clean, just a few small things: > python-URLObject.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A utility class for > manipulating URLs. > python-URLObject.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A utility class for > manipulating URLs. rpmlint is right here. Summary shouldn't end with a full stop. > BuildRequires: python-devel This should be python2-devel as per latest guidelines. > %doc UNLICENSE Please use %license for license files instead. Also, might be a good idea to use the same name as the debian package uses and go for all lower case letters for the package name: https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/python-urlobject What do you think? Can you build a Python 3 subpackage as well? Debian seems to have managed it, so it must be possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266258] Review Request: python-URLObject - A utility class for manipulating URLs.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266258
--- Comment #1 from John Dulaney ---
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Dist tag is present.
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
Note: License file UNLICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-python-URLObject/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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]: 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:
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upst
[Bug 1266258] New: Review Request: python-URLObject - A utility class for manipulating URLs.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266258 Bug ID: 1266258 Summary: Review Request: python-URLObject - A utility class for manipulating URLs. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jdula...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://rpms.jdulaney.com/review/python-URLObject.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.jdulaney.com/review/python-URLObject-2.4.0-1.src.rpm Description: A utility class for manipulating URLs. Fedora Account System Username: jdulaney -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1246903] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-openweather - an extension to display weather information from many locations in the world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246903
--- Comment #35 from Kalev Lember ---
It's probably easiest if you depend on gnome-shell unconditionally on all
Fedora versions -- it's a gnome-shell extension after all and it makes sense to
have a hard dep.
And then in %files, do
%if 0%{?fedora} < 23
%dir %{_datadir}/gnome-shell/extensions
%endif
Beyond this small issue, great work :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546 --- Comment #20 from Gustavo Lima Chaves --- After second round of reviews, here we are: New spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/solettaproject/soletta-packaging/v4/rpm/soletta.spec New SRPM URL: https://github.com/solettaproject/soletta-packaging/releases/download/v4/soletta-0.0.1-0.1.beta5.fc22.src.rpm Successful koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11215899 Successful copr build: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/glchaves/soletta/build/118188/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1246903] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-openweather - an extension to display weather information from many locations in the world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246903
Kalev Lember changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||klem...@redhat.com
--- Comment #34 from Kalev Lember ---
> # In Fedora >= 24 %%{_datadir}/gnome-shell/extensions/ is owned by
> gnome-shell,
> # before it was owned by gnome-shell-extension-common
> %if 0%{?fedora} >= 24
> Requires: gnome-shell >= 3.12.0
> %else
> Requires: gnome-shell-extension-common >= 3.12.0
> %endif
Depending on gnome-shell-extension-common is wrong, please don't do that. It's
an internal subpackage for gnome-shell-extensions srpm and ships translations
and a few other things for packages that come from that srpm. It is not meant
for other packages to depend on. Just use multiple directory ownership on F22
and older as per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
and depend on gnome-shell on 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 871339] Review Request: jmtpfs - FUSE and libmtp based file system for accessing MTP devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871339 Siddharth Sharma changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2015-09-24 16:43:19 --- Comment #4 from Siddharth Sharma --- I am in no plan to maintain or go ahead with this, hence closing this bug now. If any one interested feel free to ship 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 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546 --- Comment #19 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- glchaves's scratch build of soletta-0.0.1-0.1.beta5.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11215899 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266200] Review Request: python-dulwich99 - A python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols--compat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266200
--- Comment #5 from John Dulaney ---
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: python-dulwich99 : /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-
packages/dulwich/stdint.h
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated",
"*No copyright* GPL". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-python-
dulwich99/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-
packages/dulwich(python-dulwich), /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-
packages/dulwich/contrib(python-dulwich)
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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 102400 bytes in 18 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 doe
[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546 --- Comment #18 from Gustavo Lima Chaves --- > That's *not* what the warning is about. "Tue Sep 2" is bogus, because either > it's "Wed Sep 2" or "Tue Sep 1". Watch this: Yes, Michael, I knew that and had a local fix already. BTW, I suppose it's OK to have the 1st spec in with just an initial changelog entry, right? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546 --- Comment #17 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- glchaves's scratch build of soletta-0.0.1-0.1.beta5.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11215731 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266200] Review Request: python-dulwich99 - A python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols--compat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266200 --- Comment #4 from John Dulaney --- Spec URL: http://rpms.jdulaney.com/review/python-dulwich99.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.jdulaney.com/review/python-dulwich99-0.9.9-3.fc24.src.rpm Fixed the naming on the spec file -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546 --- Comment #16 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) --- > warning: bogus date in %changelog > Just add an space between "Sep" and "2", or change it to "Sep 02" if > you prefer that notation. That's *not* what the warning is about. "Tue Sep 2" is bogus, because either it's "Wed Sep 2" or "Tue Sep 1". Watch this: $ date -d 'Tue Sep 2 2015' Wed Sep 2 00:00:00 CEST 2015 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266200] Review Request: python-dulwich99 - A python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols--compat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266200 --- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jdulaney's scratch build of python-dulwich99-0.9.9-2.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11215486 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265322] Review Request: nodejs-encoding - Convert encodings, uses iconv by default and fallbacks to iconv-lite if needed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265322 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1265321 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321 [Bug 1265321] Review Request: nodejs-gettext-parser - Parse and compile gettext po and mo files to/from json, nothing more, nothing less -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265321] Review Request: nodejs-gettext-parser - Parse and compile gettext po and mo files to/from json, nothing more, nothing less
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265321 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t...@compton.nu Depends On||1265322 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265322 [Bug 1265322] Review Request: nodejs-encoding - Convert encodings, uses iconv by default and fallbacks to iconv-lite if needed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266200] Review Request: python-dulwich99 - A python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols--compat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266200 Jiri Kastner changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266200] Review Request: python-dulwich99 - A python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols--compat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266200 Jiri Kastner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jkast...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jkast...@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 1266200] Review Request: python-dulwich99 - A python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols--compat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266200 --- Comment #2 from John Dulaney --- This is needed in order to package kallithea -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266200] Review Request: python-dulwich99 - A python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols--compat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266200 --- Comment #1 from John Dulaney --- Note that this is a compat version necessary for another package I would like to include. Scratch build may be found here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11214620 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266200] New: Review Request: python-dulwich99 - A python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols--compat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266200 Bug ID: 1266200 Summary: Review Request: python-dulwich99 - A python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols--compat Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jdula...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://rpms.jdulaney.com/review/python-dulwich.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.jdulaney.com/review/python-dulwich99-0.9.9-2.fc24.src.rpm Description: Dulwich is a pure-Python implementation of the Git file formats and protocols. The project is named after the village in which Mr. and Mrs. Git live in the Monty Python sketch. Fedora Account System Username: jdulaney -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546 --- Comment #15 from Gustavo Lima Chaves --- Thanks, guys. I'm working on the spec to test it against rawhide too. It should not take long to post the update stuff 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 1255973] Review Request: libndn-cxx - C++ library, implementing Named Data Networking (NDN) primitives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255973 --- Comment #14 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- susmit's scratch build of libndn-cxx-0.3.4-1.fc22.src.rpm for f22 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11214318 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546 --- Comment #14 from Piotr Popieluch --- Version lgtm now. See my build logs here: https://gist.github.com/piotr1212/a8ed3ffc34bba9c88794 Package reviews should be against rawhide (f24 currently). Please check if your mock config points to rawhide: ➜ ls -l /etc/mock/default.cfg lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 35 Aug 28 21:18 /etc/mock/default.cfg -> /etc/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue Sep 2 2015 Gustavo Lima Chaves - 0.0.1-beta5 This one should be easy to fix. Just add an space between "Sep" and "2", or change it to "Sep 02" if you prefer that notation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1255973] Review Request: libndn-cxx - C++ library, implementing Named Data Networking (NDN) primitives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255973 --- Comment #13 from Susmit --- Thanks. Updated spec and SRPM: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx.spec http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx-0.3.4-1.fc22.src.rpm Scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11214536 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546 --- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) --- You are supposed to test-build against Rawhide and review for Rawhide. > [ is this true or moot? ]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories The fedora-review tool is pretty good at finding so-called "unowned directories". If you want to verify such issues, run "rpmls … | grep ^d" on the built package and check that every directory is included. As the next step, review the subpackage dependency chain and verify that the packages providing those directory entries are pulled in. Skimming over the spec file, it seems you have the directory ownership for various dirs in the -devel package, but the many subpackages don't depend on the -devel package. Based on that I suggest you move the directory ownership or create a -common or -filesystem subpackage (as per the linked guidelines, see the yellow box). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546 Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|NEW Version|22 |rawhide -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265322] Review Request: nodejs-encoding - Convert encodings, uses iconv by default and fallbacks to iconv-lite if needed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265322 --- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes --- Package install fails - it needs a nodejs_fixdup for iconv-lite: DEBUG util.py:393: Error: nothing provides npm(iconv-lite) >= 0.4.4 needed by nodejs-encoding-0.1.11-1.fc24.noarch Lint error: nodejs-encoding.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fallbacks -> fallback, callbacks, fullbacks Should be "falls back" not "fallbacks". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265727] Review Request: libcacard - CAC (Common Access Card) library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265727 Cole Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|crobi...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Cole Robinson --- Marc-Andre Lureau from comment #1) > There is one issue with debuginfo package that I don't know how to handle: > > Error: Transaction check error: > file /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/vscclient.debug from install of > libcacard-debuginfo-3:2.5.0-1.fc22.x86_64 conflicts with file from package > qemu-debuginfo-2:2.4.0-0.2.rc4.fc22.x86_64 > file /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libcacard.so.0.0.0.debug from install of > libcacard-debuginfo-3:2.5.0-1.fc22.x86_64 conflicts with file from package > qemu-debuginfo-2:2.4.0-0.2.rc4.fc22.x86_64 I think proper package conflicts + requires will fix this, see below. Summary of issues, more details below: * Use %license for COPYING * Yeah package name already exists, but to unretire a package requires a re-review anyways so I think we are fine here. * Add a version to the changelog before building. * For handling the qemu conflict: I think we wait to build this until qemu 2.5.0-rc0 is out, and only do it in rawhide. This package will have: Conflicts: qemu-common < 2.5.0 and the qemu 2.5.0 package will have Requires: libcacard >= 2.5.0 I _think_ that's what's required but this stuff always confuses me. FWIW I'm looking here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Splitting_Packages But our case isn't specifically described. fedora-review output on f21 (fedora-review is hanging for me on f23, hitting dnf somehow) 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 COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/libcacard See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names = 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/localcole/1265727-libcacard/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. [!]: 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 30720 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]: 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
[Bug 1265322] Review Request: nodejs-encoding - Convert encodings, uses iconv by default and fallbacks to iconv-lite if needed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265322
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||t...@compton.nu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes ---
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1265322-nodejs-
encoding/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms o
[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546
Gustavo Lima Chaves changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #12 from Gustavo Lima Chaves ---
Thanks, Piotr.
> fedora-review fails to build, could you please run fedora-review yourself
> first > and fix the issues.
I builds fine here. Would it be that I'm under f22 and you're running a >
version? Note that I target f22 in this bug. I'll eventually put conditionals
for exchanging Soletta's config file for fedoras >= 23.
Let's see if you or someone can help with this fedora-review tool's output,
though (just manual stuff, I got no ! entries).
[ is this true or moot? ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/soletta/flow/descriptions, /usr/share/soletta/flow
Now rpmlint:
libsoletta.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/soletta/modules/linux-micro/network-up.so 775
I'm sure that under a virtual machine I get this file listed as 755 after
installation. Is that any difference of umask during the tool's processing or
what?
> The beta5 can also be problematic as this is not numerical and rpm won't be
> able to compare with newer version. Please see guidelines:
Mm, thanks. I'm now with the following schema, as read on the guidelines:
%global soletta_major 0
%global soletta_minor 0
%global soletta_build 1
%global soletta_tag beta5
%global soletta_duktape_tag beta2
Summary: A framework for making IoT devices
Name: soletta
Version: %{soletta_major}.%{soletta_minor}.%{soletta_build}
Release: 0.1.%{soletta_tag}%{?dist}
> There are also guidelines on the Source, please see this section for the
> source packaging guidelines:
Fixed, thanks a lot.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265326] Review Request: nodejs-node-error-ex - Easy error subclassing and stack customization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265326 --- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes --- Package name should be nodejs-error-ex not nodejs-node-error-ex. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265326] Review Request: nodejs-node-error-ex - Easy error subclassing and stack customization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265326 --- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes --- Also comment about coffee-script is wrong - it is packaged but it is too old to have the register.js file that mocha needs. It needs to be updated before the tests can work. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258062] Review Request: nodejs-requestretry - Request-retry wrap nodejs request to retry http(s) requests in case of error
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258062 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1266167 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266167 [Bug 1266167] Requires npm(requestentry) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265326] Review Request: nodejs-node-error-ex - Easy error subclassing and stack customization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265326
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||t...@compton.nu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1265326-nodejs-node-error-
ex/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).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and bui
[Bug 1266186] Review Request: jeromq - Pure Java implementation of libzmq
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266186 Mikolaj Izdebski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1266067 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266067 [Bug 1266067] log4j-2.4 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 1266186] New: Review Request: jeromq - Pure Java implementation of libzmq
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266186 Bug ID: 1266186 Summary: Review Request: jeromq - Pure Java implementation of libzmq Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mizde...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/jeromq/jeromq.spec SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/jeromq/jeromq-0.3.5-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Pure Java implementation of libzmq. Fedora Account System Username: mizdebsk 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 1020292] Review Request: bitcoin - Peer-to-peer digital currency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020292 --- Comment #30 from Warren Togami --- http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/011182.html Release schedule for Bitcoin Core 0.12 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265329] Review Request: nodejs-parse-json - Parse JSON with more helpful errors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265329 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t...@compton.nu Depends On||1265326 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265326 [Bug 1265326] Review Request: nodejs-node-error-ex - Easy error subclassing and stack customization -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265326] Review Request: nodejs-node-error-ex - Easy error subclassing and stack customization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265326 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1265329 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265329 [Bug 1265329] Review Request: nodejs-parse-json - Parse JSON with more helpful errors -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266124] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS - Algorithm::Diff with XS core loop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266124 Jon Ciesla 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 1266142] Review Request: perl-Crypt-GCrypt - Perl interface to libgcrypt library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266142 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266124] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS - Algorithm::Diff with XS core loop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266124 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266142] Review Request: perl-Crypt-GCrypt - Perl interface to libgcrypt library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266142 Jon Ciesla 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 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546 --- Comment #11 from Piotr Popieluch --- I'm sorry but am not a sponsor either. Best way to get sponsored fast is to do a lot of informal package reviews so you will show you understand the package guidelines. Then link to the reviews from this bug. Potential sponsors will notice the reviews. Other option is to find a packager willing to maintain this package, you could then become co-maintainer without going through the sponsoring process. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957339] Review Request: openerp7 - Business Applications Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957339 Wolfgang Ulbrich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-09-24 13:13:12 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1249702] Review Request: custodia - A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702 --- Comment #6 from Simo Sorce --- I updated the spec and srpm files in place. Please recheck -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266142] Review Request: perl-Crypt-GCrypt - Perl interface to libgcrypt library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266142 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Crypt-GCrypt Short Description: Perl interface to libgcrypt library Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Crypt-GCrypt/ Owners: ppisar jplesnik psabata Branches: InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266124] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS - Algorithm::Diff with XS core loop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266124 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS Short Description: Algorithm::Diff with XS core loop Upstream URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Algorithm-Diff-XS/ Owners: psabata jplesnik ppisar Branches: f22 f23 InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266142] Review Request: perl-Crypt-GCrypt - Perl interface to libgcrypt library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266142 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata --- * You could also run the POD tests, t/03-pod.t, t/04-podcoverage.t. BuildRequire perl(Test::Pod) >= 1.00 and perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) >= 1.00 if you decide to do so. * Also consider running t/05-size.t which requires perl(Devel::Size). No real issues. Approving. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266124] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS - Algorithm::Diff with XS core loop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266124 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar --- URL and Source0 are usable. Ok. Source archive is original (SHA-256: cea89b47e1f70fa78f55f3c405491ce36d3effd9980f5c5491edffa31aa77153). Ok. License verified from README, ppport.h, and lib/Algorithm/Diff/XS.pm. Ok. Summary verified from lib/Algorithm/Diff/XS.pm. Ok Description is Ok. TODO: I recommend appending to __requires_exclude macro instead of redefining it even if it is the first occurrence in the spec file. The macro could already be initialized in some other macro file. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS-0.04-1.fc24.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS-0.04-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint is Ok. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS-0.04-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 24 17:31 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Algorithm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 24 17:31 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Algorithm/Diff -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3562 Oct 24 2008 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Algorithm/Diff/XS.pm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 24 17:31 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Algorithm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 24 17:31 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Algorithm/Diff drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 24 17:31 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Algorithm/Diff/XS -rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot15416 Sep 24 17:31 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Algorithm/Diff/XS/XS.so drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Sep 24 17:31 /usr/share/doc/perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 571 Oct 24 2008 /usr/share/doc/perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS/Changes -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1694 Oct 24 2008 /usr/share/doc/perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS/README -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1870 Sep 24 17:31 /usr/share/man/man3/Algorithm::Diff::XS.3pm.gz File layout and permissions are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS-0.04-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 libc.so.6()(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) 1 libperl.so.5.22()(64bit) 1 perl >= 0:5.006 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.22.0) 1 perl(Algorithm::Diff) >= 1.19 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(vars) 1 perl(warnings) 1 perl(XSLoader) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 1 rtld(GNU_HASH) Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS-0.04-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 perl(Algorithm::Diff::XS) = 0.04 1 perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS = 0.04-1.fc24 1 perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS(x86-64) = 0.04-1.fc24 Binary provides are Ok. $ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS-0.04-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok. Package builds in F24 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11212636). Ok. The package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Please consider fixing `TODO' items before building the package. Resolution: Package APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266124] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS - Algorithm::Diff with XS core loop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266124 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- ppisar's scratch build of perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS-0.04-1.fc24.src.rpm for f24 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11212636 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266149] Review Request: LibrePilot - Ground Control Station
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266149 Roy Bekken changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1116024] Review Request: rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions - Extensions for the Elasticsearch Rubygem.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116024 --- Comment #4 from Troy Dawson --- Well that's weird. I wonder why doing a scratch build of a different package would show up 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 1266149] New: Review Request: LibrePilot - Ground Control Station
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266149 Bug ID: 1266149 Summary: Review Request: LibrePilot - Ground Control Station Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: roy.bek...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://rbekken.fedorapeople.org/review/LibrePilot.spec SRPM URL: https://rbekken.fedorapeople.org/review/LibrePilot-15.10-1.fc24.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: rbekken Description: LibrePilot is a next-generation Open Source UAV autopilot created by the Community. It is a highly capable platform for multirotors, helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, and other vehicles. It has been designed from the ground up by a community of passionate developers from around the globe, with its core design principles being quality, safety, and ease of use. Main GIT repository: https://bitbucket.org/librepilot/ Hello, This will be the first package I submit, so I'll need a sponsor. I am upstream and this is a pre release build and dont represent the final package I want to submit, but I would like to deal with any problems before the stable release is published, for a smoother package acceptance into Fedora. Things to notice: Source1 is a prebuild archive of the flight controller firmwares. Firmware will only build with gcc-arm-none-eabi from launchpad.net. It is build with command: $make QMAKE=qmake-qt5 fw_dist false rpmlint: explicit-lib-dependency libusbx false rpmlint: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath (multiple) false rpmlint: devel-file-in-non-devel-package (multiple) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1090933] Review Request : fusioninventory-agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090933 maria...@tuxette.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-09-24 11:28:59 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266142] Review Request: perl-Crypt-GCrypt - Perl interface to libgcrypt library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266142 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 1266124] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Diff-XS - Algorithm::Diff with XS core loop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266124 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@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 560732] Review Request: plasmoid-publictransport - Applet that shows departure/arrival board for a given stop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=560732 Kevin Kofler changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2015-09-24 11:14:14 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Kofler --- This review request is clearly abandoned (the spec link is dead). In addition, the upstream code has not been ported to Plasma 5 and does thus not work on Fedora 22 and newer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 735672] Review Request: ruby-build - simple way to compile and install different versions of Ruby on UNIX-like systems.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735672 --- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jgrulich's scratch build of kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 for f22-candidate and git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11212117 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1123645] Review Request: mingw-libgee - GObject collection library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123645 --- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jgrulich's scratch build of kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 for f22-candidate and git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11212117 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1161035] Review Request: nodejs-i18n-node-angular - i18n-node in an AngularJS application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161035 --- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jgrulich's scratch build of kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 for f22-candidate and git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11212117 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 597322] Review Request: hts-preprocess - High-Throughput Sequencing preprocessing scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597322 --- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jgrulich's scratch build of kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 for f22-candidate and git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11212117 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 895073] Review Request: dnscrypt - Tool for securing communications between a client and a DNS resolver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895073 --- Comment #12 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jgrulich's scratch build of kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 for f22-candidate and git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11212117 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266142] New: Review Request: perl-Crypt-GCrypt - Perl interface to libgcrypt library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266142 Bug ID: 1266142 Summary: Review Request: perl-Crypt-GCrypt - Perl interface to libgcrypt library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Crypt-GCrypt/perl-Crypt-GCrypt.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Crypt-GCrypt/perl-Crypt-GCrypt-1.26-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Crypt::GCrypt provides a Perl interface to the libgcrypt cryptographic functions. It currently supports symmetric ciphers such as AES/Rijndael, Twofish, Triple DES, Arcfour etc. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1220103] Review Request: rubygem-espeak-ruby - API for utilizing ‘espeak’ to convert Text to audio file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220103 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jgrulich's scratch build of kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 for f22-candidate and git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11212117 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
