[Bug 1270405] Review Request: native_client - Google Native Client Toolchain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270405 --- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- SPEC URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/native_client.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/native_client-46.0.2490.71-2.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 1270364] Review Request: nacl-arm-binutils - A GNU collection of binary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270364 --- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- SPEC URL:https://spot.fedorapeople.org/nacl-arm-binutils.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-1.gitcde986c.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 1270322] Review Request: chromium - A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270322 --- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- SPEC URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/chromium.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/chromium-46.0.2490.71-1.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 1272194] Review Request: target-isns - An iSNS client for the Linux LIO iSCSI target
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272194
Chris Leech changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Chris Leech ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/cleech/review/1272194-target-
isns/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: ta
[Bug 1272235] Review Request: distribution-gpg-keys - Keys of various Linux distributions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272235 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- BTW, I think that this package is useful. It also meets packaging guidelines. I'll wait a few more days for the discussion on the mailing list to wind down though. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272235] Review Request: distribution-gpg-keys - Keys of various Linux distributions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272235 --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- (In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #2) > > I think it is very useful and increases security of various cross-distro > > installation. I wonder though whether not to remove Fedora and EPEL keys > > from this, since they will be included in fedora-repos, or maybe to add a > > check to make sure that they are identical in both packages. > > bug 1246701 speaks just about old fedora keys, not about epel IIRC. Oh, right, fedora-repos is only about Fedora repos and keys. > > Regarding packaging: > > - why not use a github tarball directly? It's much nicer than to force a git > > clone and additional steps. > > Because github tarball checksum was not stable in past (not sure if this > changed recently). Also the URL is changing nearly each year. At least the > URL we should use as suggested by Fedora Guidelines. > And I do not use or create tar.gz at all. I just wrote > tito --srpm > and it will craft (binary identical) tar.gz for me. The tarballs are stable, and are actually recommended by the guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Tags -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223673] Review Request: llvm35 - The Low Level Virtual Machine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223673 --- Comment #16 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- Another thing: to build Julia using the versioned LLVM 3.3, I had to fix the includedir reported by llvm-config, which was still pointing at /usr/include. You may want to do the same. See http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/llvm33.git/commit/?id=833ba633af3f1544baea55960f12c827f11f8819 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1202063] Review Request: Classified ads - Internet messaging done right
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202063 --- Comment #16 from Antti Järvinen --- Spec URL: http://katiska.org/classified_ads/srpm/classified-ads.spec SRPM URL: http://katiska.org/classified_ads/srpm/classified-ads-0.09-1.fc24.src.rpm Updated to latest upstream release (mostly bugfixes, minor feature additions), packaging is almost the same: spec file is not the same as in 0.09 github tag, it has %lang(..) additions to make rpmlint keep quiet, otherwise as in 0.09 tag. Fedora-review tool is happy, except for the upstream .tar.gz checksum as is expected. Still looking for a sponsor for this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546 --- Comment #25 from Gustavo Lima Chaves --- The second build just above failed because it now include make checks and it fails on i686. I'll fix that and re-submit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272606] New: Review Request: arb - Arbitrary-precision floating point ball arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272606 Bug ID: 1272606 Summary: Review Request: arb - Arbitrary-precision floating point ball arithmetic Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/arb/arb.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/arb/arb-2.7.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Arb is a C library for arbitrary-precision floating-point ball arithmetic. It supports efficient high-precision computation with polynomials, power series, matrices and special functions over the real and complex numbers, with automatic, rigorous error control. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098965] Review Request: capstone - Multi-platform, multi-architecture disassembly framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098965 Michal Ambroz 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 1098965] Review Request: capstone - Multi-platform, multi-architecture disassembly framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098965
Michal Ambroz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |needinfo?(adel.gadllah@gmai
||l.com)
--- Comment #20 from Michal Ambroz ---
Hello,
so I would like to take over the review for capstone package.
If I understand it right this package is being submitted by Adel Gadllah
(drago01) as owner and Stefan Cornelius (scorneli) as co-maintainer.
So I can take updates from you guys both as valid for the review right?
Guys I know the SPEC file from the current version is in this bug's
attachments,
but it should be here as a link. Also the SRPM is gone purged from koji. Please
just to follow the formal procedure and simplify the review, can you upload the
current (3.0.4) SPEC and SRPM somewhere and put the link here?
As project has publicly available git repository I would recommend taking the
snapshot directly from there (https://github.com/aquynh/capstone) with using:
%global gituser aquynh
%global gitname capstone
%global commit e710e4fcf40302c25d7bdc28da93571a61f21f5d
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
Source0:
https://github.com/%{gituser}/%{gitname}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{version}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz
%prep
%setup -q -n %{gitname}-%{commit}
Best regards
Michal Ambroz
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 #24 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- glchaves's scratch build of soletta-0.0.1-0.1.beta7.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11479077 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #23 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- glchaves's scratch build of soletta-0.0.1-0.1.beta7.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11478871 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265885] Review Request: zeal - Offline documentation browser inspired by Dash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265885 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- zeal-0.1.1-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update zeal' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c4ab19fa91 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1269576] Review Request: golang-github-MakeNowJust-heredoc - Package heredoc provides the here-document with keeping inden
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269576 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-MakeNowJust-heredoc-0-0.1.git1d91351.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update golang-github-MakeNowJust-heredoc' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6590d7d655 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272054] Review Request: perl-Roman - Functions for converting between Roman and Arabic numerals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272054 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Roman-1.24-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update perl-Roman' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c5f7e658d0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1269579] Review Request: golang-github-RangelReale-osincli - Golang OAuth2 client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269579 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-RangelReale-osincli-0-0.1.git23618ea.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update golang-github-RangelReale-osincli' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-100de1c9c6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1223673] Review Request: llvm35 - The Low Level Virtual Machine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223673
--- Comment #15 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
I just noticed we both did a small mistake when calling alternative: the
command lacks the version suffix. Should be:
%posttrans devel
alternatives \
--install \
%{_bindir}/llvm-config \
llvm-config \
%{_bindir}/llvm-config-%{__isa_bits}-%{major_version} \
%{__isa_bits}
%postun devel
if [ $1 -eq 0 ]; then
alternatives --remove llvm-config \
%{_bindir}/llvm-config-%{__isa_bits}-%{major_version}
fi
exit 0
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098965] Review Request: capstone - Multi-platform, multi-architecture disassembly framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098965 Michal Ambroz changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|re...@seznam.cz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #10 from Orion Poplawski --- FYI - perl-JSON-PP is in RHEL7. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1268372] Review Request: openstack-app-catalog-ui - openstack horizon plugin for the openstack app-catalog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268372 Kevin Fox changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(kevin@pnnl.go | |v) | --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fox --- Thanks for the reviews. I merged in all of Matthias's suggestions. I also updated it to work with the final 1.0.0 release. The links are updated below: Spec URL: http://efox.cc/temp/openstack-app-catalog-ui.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8038/11478038/openstack-app-catalog-ui-1.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: This package provides an OpenStack Horizon plugin to allow easy access to assets stored in the OpenStack App Catalog. Fedora Account System Username: kfox -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272248] Review Request: heketi - RESTful based volume management framework for GlusterFS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272248
--- Comment #6 from Luis Pabón ---
(In reply to Jan Chaloupka from comment #5)
> Hi Luis,
>
> spec files looks fine. Just some nits:
> - for license, %license tag can be used when redefining the tag explicitly
> for el6.
> - for %{gopath}/src/%{import_path} directory, it is better to include it in
> devel.file-list file as the root directory could contain both source files
> and tests file. Thus resulting in multiple ownership of the directory.
> - when building heketi from bundled deps, it fails to build due to missing
> heketi source codes
> - when building with debuginfo, bundled build is missing BUILD_ID
Hi Jan, Do you mind providing line numbers to the first two? Any suggestions on
how to fix any of these issues are welcomed. I used gofed, then based the rest
of my changes on etcd.spec.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1015775] Review Request: tuxcut - Arpspoof attacks protector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015775 pawan kumar v changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pawaa...@gmail.com --- Comment #37 from pawan kumar v --- working fine with fedora 22 packagename: tuxcut -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #29 from Susmit --- I have seen it once, but as you said, I couldn't reproduce it. I'll let upstream know. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #28 from Antonio Trande --- Have you never seen an error like this + build/unit-tests Running 607 test cases... ../tests/unit-tests/util/dns.t.cpp(79): fatal error: in "UtilDns/AsynchronousV6": Resolution should not have failed *** 1 failure is detected in the test module "ndn-cxx Unit Tests" ? It's not always reproducible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1268372] Review Request: openstack-app-catalog-ui - openstack horizon plugin for the openstack app-catalog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268372 --- Comment #6 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- kfox's scratch build of openstack-app-catalog-ui-1.0.0-0.1rc1.el7.centos.src.rpm for f24 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11477584 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1270211] Review Request: golang-github-miekg-pkcs11 - Pkcs11 wrapper for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270211 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - specfile conforms to current golang packaging draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1270063] Review Request: golang-github-spf13-cast - Safe and easy casting from one type to another in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270063 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - specfile conforms to current golang packaging draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1270063] Review Request: golang-github-spf13-cast - Safe and easy casting from one type to another in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270063 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||l...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@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 1270064] Review Request: golang-github-spf13-viper - Go configuration with fangs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270064 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - specfile conforms to current golang packaging draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1270061] Review Request: golang-github-spf13-jWalterWeatherman - So you always leave a note
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270061 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - specfile conforms to current golang packaging draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1270056] Review Request: golang-github-mattn-go-sqlite3 - Sqlite3 driver for go that using database/sql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270056 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - specfile conforms to current golang packaging draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1270055] Review Request: golang-github-mitchellh-go-homedir - Go library for detecting and expanding the user's home directory without cgo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270055 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - specfile conforms to current golang packaging draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1270054] Review Request: golang-github-magiconair-properties - Java properties scanner for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270054 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - specfile conforms to current golang packaging draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1270051] Review Request: golang-github-lib-pq - Pure Go Postgres driver for database/sql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270051 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - specfile conforms to current golang packaging draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1270050] Review Request: golang-github-jinzhu-gorm - ORM library for Golang, aims to be developer friendly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270050 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - specfile conforms to current golang packaging draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1272194] Review Request: target-isns - An iSNS client for the Linux LIO iSCSI target
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272194 Andy Grover changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(agro...@redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #2 from Andy Grover --- Corrected spec and src rpm: Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~grover/new/target-isns.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~grover/new/target-isns-0.5-2.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1255973] Review Request: libndn-cxx - C++ library, implementing Named Data Networking (NDN) primitives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255973 --- Comment #27 from Susmit --- Reposting this for package-review tool. SRPM: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx-0.3.4-4.fc22.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #26 from Susmit --- Thanks for the help. http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx-0.3.4-4.fc22.src.rpm http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #25 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- susmit's scratch build of libndn-cxx-0.3.4-4.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11476016 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272465] Review Request: golang-github-prometheus-common - Go libraries shared across Prometheus components and libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272465 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- - spec file conforms to current golang draft - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1272530] New: Review Request: python-mistralclient - python client for Mistral REST API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272530 Bug ID: 1272530 Summary: Review Request: python-mistralclient - python client for Mistral REST API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: asteroid...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mos-outside/python-mistralclient/rpm-master/python-mistralclient.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/openstack/python-mistralclient/tree/stable/liberty Description: Python client for Mistral REST API. Includes python library for Mistral API and Command Line Interface (CLI) library. https://review.gerrithub.io/#/c/249802/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272527] Review Request: python-muranoclient - is a client library for Murano
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272527 --- Comment #1 from Daniil --- https://review.gerrithub.io/#/c/249766/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272527] New: Review Request: python-muranoclient - is a client library for Murano
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272527 Bug ID: 1272527 Summary: Review Request: python-muranoclient - is a client library for Murano Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: asteroid...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mos-outside/python-muranoclient/rpm-master/python-muranoclient.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/openstack/python-muranoclient/tree/stable/liberty Description: python-muranoclient is a client library for Murano built on the Murano API. It provides a Python API (the muranoclient module) and a command-line tool (murano). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1098965] Review Request: capstone - Multi-platform, multi-architecture disassembly framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098965 --- Comment #19 from Stefan Cornelius --- (In reply to Michal Ambroz from comment #17) > Hello, > I can see that Siddharth Sharma (siddharth@gmail.com) was originally > doing the review. Then it moved to falo...@redhat.com then to you. > If nobody else is interested, then I can take over the review. Is that OK? > Mik Hi, I a review would be excellent. Please have a look and let me know if/what needs fixing. Thank you very 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 1271582] Review Request: libbytesize - A library for working with sizes in bytes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271582 --- Comment #6 from Šimon Lukašík --- That's it. I do not see any other blocker. Please fix these two issues and release the version upstream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1271582] Review Request: libbytesize - A library for working with sizes in bytes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271582 --- Comment #5 from Šimon Lukašík --- Quote from the Packaging:Python > [...] the subpackage containing he python2 version must provide > python2-example. [...] Please either rename python-bytesize to python2-bytesize or add the Provides. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242723] Review Request: perl-Alien-Packages - Find information of installed packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242723 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Alien-Packages-0.003-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 1271582] Review Request: libbytesize - A library for working with sizes in bytes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271582 --- Comment #4 from Šimon Lukašík --- (In reply to Vratislav Podzimek from comment #3) > I also changed the licence of the package (and upstream) to LGPLv2+. I am not sure if this change has any meaningful impact. There is still one file in the project licensed under GPLv3 (gettext.h). And since rest of the source code is LGPLv2+ (plus sign is important here), the gettext.h forces the other files to be actually licensed under LGPLv3. See: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html Please either change the license back to LGPLv3 (in the specfile) or bundle gettext.h from other source (gnulib contains same file with LGPLv2+). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1269609] Review Request: ari-backup - A wrapper around rdiff-backup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269609 --- Comment #14 from Randy Barlow --- Hi Richard! I haven't forgotten that I need to do some more reviews. I've been traveling for the past week, and will be traveling until mid next week as well. I'll be sure to do a few more when I return home! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272054] Review Request: perl-Roman - Functions for converting between Roman and Arabic numerals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272054 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Roman-1.24-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c5f7e658d0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1269813] Review Request: golang-github-dgrijalva-jwt-go - Golang implementation of JSON Web Tokens (JWT)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269813 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-dgrijalva-jwt-go-2.2.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update golang-github-dgrijalva-jwt-go' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-a76e0f23fb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272054] Review Request: perl-Roman - Functions for converting between Roman and Arabic numerals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272054 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||perl-Roman-1.24-1.fc24 --- Comment #3 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 915006] Review Request: qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 - QtWebKit components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915006 Bug 915006 depends on bug 967234, which changed state. Bug 967234 Summary: Review Request: angleproject - Almost Native Graphics Layer Engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967234 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- 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 967234] Review Request: angleproject - Almost Native Graphics Layer Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967234 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2015-10-16 10:10:35 --- Comment #9 from Rex Dieter --- Due to recent policy changes to make bundling more permissive, and the fact this review has been sitting here for 2+ years, I'm no longer personally interested in persuing this. closing -> notabug I'll try to keep it around on my space at http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qt5 semi-indefinitely, in case anyone else is interested in picking this up. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1269576] Review Request: golang-github-MakeNowJust-heredoc - Package heredoc provides the here-document with keeping inden
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269576 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-MakeNowJust-heredoc-0-0.1.git1d91351.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0415afb5d5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1269579] Review Request: golang-github-RangelReale-osincli - Golang OAuth2 client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269579 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-RangelReale-osincli-0-0.1.git23618ea.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-46e9f6df50 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1269579] Review Request: golang-github-RangelReale-osincli - Golang OAuth2 client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269579 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-RangelReale-osincli-0-0.1.git23618ea.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-2ba7fd2746 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1269579] Review Request: golang-github-RangelReale-osincli - Golang OAuth2 client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269579 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-RangelReale-osincli-0-0.1.git23618ea.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-3f2c29f7db -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1269579] Review Request: golang-github-RangelReale-osincli - Golang OAuth2 client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269579 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 1269579] Review Request: golang-github-RangelReale-osincli - Golang OAuth2 client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269579 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-RangelReale-osincli-0-0.1.git23618ea.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-100de1c9c6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1269576] Review Request: golang-github-MakeNowJust-heredoc - Package heredoc provides the here-document with keeping inden
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269576 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-MakeNowJust-heredoc-0-0.1.git1d91351.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6590d7d655 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1269576] Review Request: golang-github-MakeNowJust-heredoc - Package heredoc provides the here-document with keeping inden
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269576 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 1269576] Review Request: golang-github-MakeNowJust-heredoc - Package heredoc provides the here-document with keeping inden
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269576 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-MakeNowJust-heredoc-0-0.1.git1d91351.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c3ccc700db -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1269576] Review Request: golang-github-MakeNowJust-heredoc - Package heredoc provides the here-document with keeping inden
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269576 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-MakeNowJust-heredoc-0-0.1.git1d91351.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-f84a2e4864 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1269813] Review Request: golang-github-dgrijalva-jwt-go - Golang implementation of JSON Web Tokens (JWT)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269813 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-dgrijalva-jwt-go-2.2.0-1.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 golang-github-dgrijalva-jwt-go' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-f0cadbf1f2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272134] Review Request: python-journal-brief - Find new systemd journal entries since last run
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272134 Tim Waugh changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-10-16 09:32:35 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1271954] Review Request: php-hamcrest - PHP port of Hamcrest Matchers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271954 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1119446 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119446 [Bug 1119446] update to 5.2.1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1242723] Review Request: perl-Alien-Packages - Find information of installed packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242723 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Alien-Packages-0.003-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 1242727] Review Request: perl-MooX-Roles-Pluggable - Moo eXtension for pluggable roles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242727 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- perl-MooX-Roles-Pluggable-0.003-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499
--- Comment #20 from Jiri Popelka ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
[!]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in netresolve-core, netresolve-compat,
netresolve-backends-compat, netresolve-backends-aresdns, netresolve-
backends-avahi, netresolve-backends-ubdns
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
[!]: 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
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: baskends/asyncns.c is LGPLv2+ licensed
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Note: you need %license COPYING in each %files section
(except the main package and -tools/-compat subpackages AFAICT)
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: It'd better to replace for example
- Requires: netresolve-core
+ Requires: netresolve-core%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
(the same for all subpackages)
= 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]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
baskends/asyncns.c is LGPLv2+ licensed
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
you need %license COPYING in each %files section
(except the main package and -tools/-compat subpackages AFAICT)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[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]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
It'd better to replace for example
- Requires: netresolve-core
+ Requires: netresolve-core%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
(for all subpackages)
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[Bug 1272465] Review Request: golang-github-prometheus-common - Go libraries shared across Prometheus components and libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272465 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1272438 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272438 [Bug 1272438] etcd-v2.2.1 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 1272465] New: Review Request: golang-github-prometheus-common - Go libraries shared across Prometheus components and libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272465 Bug ID: 1272465 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-prometheus-common - Go libraries shared across Prometheus components and libraries Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jchal...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-prometheus-common/golang-github-prometheus-common.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-prometheus-common/golang-github-prometheus-common-0-0.1.gitffe929a.fc20.src.rpm Description: Go libraries shared across Prometheus components and libraries Fedora Account System Username: jchaloup Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11474065 $ rpmlint golang-github-prometheus-common-0-0.1.gitffe929a.fc20.src.rpm golang-github-prometheus-common-devel-0-0.1.gitffe929a.fc20.noarch.rpm golang-github-prometheus-common-unit-test-devel-0-0.1.gitffe929a.fc20.x86_64.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272248] Review Request: heketi - RESTful based volume management framework for GlusterFS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272248
--- Comment #5 from Jan Chaloupka ---
Hi Luis,
spec files looks fine. Just some nits:
- for license, %license tag can be used when redefining the tag explicitly for
el6.
- for %{gopath}/src/%{import_path} directory, it is better to include it in
devel.file-list file as the root directory could contain both source files and
tests file. Thus resulting in multiple ownership of the directory.
- when building heketi from bundled deps, it fails to build due to missing
heketi source codes
- when building with debuginfo, bundled build is missing BUILD_ID
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272248] Review Request: heketi - RESTful based volume management framework for GlusterFS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272248 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment|0 |1 #1083620 is|| obsolete|| --- Comment #4 from Jan Chaloupka --- Created attachment 1083638 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1083638&action=edit update 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 1272248] Review Request: heketi - RESTful based volume management framework for GlusterFS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272248 --- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka --- Created attachment 1083621 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1083621&action=edit patch Makefile -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272248] Review Request: heketi - RESTful based volume management framework for GlusterFS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272248 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment|0 |1 #1083553 is|| obsolete|| --- Comment #2 from Jan Chaloupka --- Created attachment 1083620 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1083620&action=edit update 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 1272134] Review Request: python-journal-brief - Find new systemd journal entries since last run
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272134 --- Comment #7 from Tim Waugh --- Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272134] Review Request: python-journal-brief - Find new systemd journal entries since last run
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272134
Jiri Popelka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Jiri Popelka ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[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]: 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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Package is Approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272134] Review Request: python-journal-brief - Find new systemd journal entries since last run
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272134 Jiri Popelka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jpope...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jpope...@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 1223673] Review Request: llvm35 - The Low Level Virtual Machine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223673 Milan Bouchet-Valat changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- OK, good to go. This is the occasion to clean the original llvm package apparently! ;-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #32 from Jens Petersen --- Sorry this drifted off my radar again... been too busy, but had been meaning to get back to this. I don't see any real issues with this package relative to the llvm and llvm34 packages. From the llvm35 review I filed several bugs against llvm to improve its packaging. I think it is good that the llvmXY packages stay close and compatible to the original llvm version packagings. So I am going ahead finally and approving this - looks good enough to me. 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 1223673] Review Request: llvm35 - The Low Level Virtual Machine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223673 --- Comment #13 from Jens Petersen --- (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #9) > So what happens when llvm and llvm33/llvm34/llvm35 are installed, could we > get conflicts about LLVMgold.so, BugpointPasses.so, libLTO.so and > readline.so? I don't think so, or it wouldn't have worked. I don't know. I am not aware of any problems, right. I don't even know which of the programs if any are using them. I couldn't see anything linking to libLTO for example (of course something could be dlopen'ing them). > > So I also feel we could waive this like was done for llvm34. > Sure, let's investigate this for llvm first. Yes - bug filed (comment 12). > > > - Minor point: I realized each subpackage creates its own directory > > > under /usr/share/doc/. Since they contain very few files and most apply > > > to all subpackages (e.g. LICENSE.txt), wouldn't it be better to put > > > everthing > > > under a common llvm dir? > > > > This is true and also true for many other packages I think. > > I'd rather just leave it for simplicity - though in principle > > I agree with you completely, but I feel this is more a deficiency > > of rpm. > Not a big deal, but I think RPM handles this if you make the directory owned > by llvm35-libs, which AFAICT all subpackages depend on. I happy to take patch if you want to do that. Sorry I don't really have time/energy/motivation to do it. :) And again it is true for the main llvm package too I believe, right? > > Hmm, isn't "runtime" pretty standard? > Yeah, but I would do anything to shut down an annoying warning. :-) These warnings are very frequent across many packages. The spelling dictionaries are really too limited or don't cover such technical usage. I feel it is good to stay close to the original llvm.spec too as far as possible. > > Good question - perhaps Fedora could grab a patch from Debian? > > Again I think this should be done first for the llvm package. > > I opened bug 1258760 for that. > Or, better, the manpages could be submitted upstream if Debian has some. But > definitely not an issue for llvm35. Yep (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #11) > Yes, a small comment wouldn't hurt. I think the guidelines say that -03 > should generally be avoided unless you can be sure it really improves > performance. Apparently it was added without comment in this commit: commit be655c46e5d3707531fb8bef5430a9c064653197 Author: Jan Vcelak Date: Tue Nov 12 21:48:50 2013 +0100 update to 3.3, add compiler-rt and lldb : Not sure how much thought was put into it. I sent a mail to Jan asking about it. I opened bug 1272394 to track this too! We can wait for his reply or go ahead I guess since I consider this a backport from the llvm package. Can you live with the current spec file or what do you think must be changed still for approval? I hope I didn't miss anything. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272248] Review Request: heketi - RESTful based volume management framework for GlusterFS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272248 --- Comment #1 from Jan Chaloupka --- Created attachment 1083553 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1083553&action=edit Update license and %files section -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272248] Review Request: heketi - RESTful based volume management framework for GlusterFS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272248 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 1272116] Review Request: golang-github-auth0-go-jwt-middleware - A Middleware for Go Programming Language to check for JWTs on HTTP requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272116 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Jan Chaloupka --- Sorry, I switched wrong flag. Thanks Parag. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272134] Review Request: python-journal-brief - Find new systemd journal entries since last run
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272134 --- Comment #5 from Tim Waugh --- Updated package now at URL in comment #0. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272134] Review Request: python-journal-brief - Find new systemd journal entries since last run
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272134 --- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- twaugh's scratch build of python-journal-brief-1.1.1-1.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11471937 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272134] Review Request: python-journal-brief - Find new systemd journal entries since last run
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272134 --- Comment #3 from Tim Waugh --- Looks like I missed some dependencies. Will fix. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272134] Review Request: python-journal-brief - Find new systemd journal entries since last run
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272134 --- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- twaugh's scratch build of python-journal-brief-1.1.1-1.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11471622 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1269813] Review Request: golang-github-dgrijalva-jwt-go - Golang implementation of JSON Web Tokens (JWT)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269813 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-dgrijalva-jwt-go-2.2.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update golang-github-dgrijalva-jwt-go' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0161e398ec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272054] Review Request: perl-Roman - Functions for converting between Roman and Arabic numerals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272054 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: 3080375bf5f96cb15310d1870a75472dc1fd2371273c6a546b81401b6f674a28). License verified from lib/Roman.pm, README. Ok. Summary verified from lib/Roman.pm. Ok Description verified from lib/Roman.pm. Ok. No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok. TODO: Constrain `perl(Exporter)' BuildRequires with `>= 5.57' (META.json:39). All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-Roman.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Roman-1.24-1.fc24.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Roman-1.24-1.fc24.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint is Ok. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Roman-1.24-1.fc24.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Oct 16 09:52 /usr/share/doc/perl-Roman -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 757 Oct 16 09:52 /usr/share/doc/perl-Roman/Changes -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1395 Oct 16 09:52 /usr/share/doc/perl-Roman/README -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2145 Oct 16 09:52 /usr/share/man/man3/Roman.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3920 Mar 1 2015 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Roman.pm File permissions and layout are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Roman-1.24-1.fc24.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.22.0) 1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.6.0 1 perl(Exporter) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(warnings) 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 TODO: Constrain `perl(Exporter)' Requires with `>= 5.57' (META.json:39). $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Roman-1.24-1.fc24.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 perl(Roman) = 1.24 1 perl-Roman = 1.24-1.fc24 Binary provides are Ok. $ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Roman-1.24-1.fc24.noarch.rpm Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok. Package builds in F24 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11470869). Ok. Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Please consider fixing the `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 1272054] Review Request: perl-Roman - Functions for converting between Roman and Arabic numerals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272054 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- ppisar's scratch build of perl-Roman-1.24-1.fc24.src.rpm for f24 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11470869 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272235] Review Request: distribution-gpg-keys - Keys of various Linux distributions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272235 --- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchý --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246701 is about including more > Fedora keys in fedora-repos. Interresting. But still it will miss all others (centos/epel/rpmfusion...) I can add those old keys too. > I think it is very useful and increases security of various cross-distro > installation. I wonder though whether not to remove Fedora and EPEL keys > from this, since they will be included in fedora-repos, or maybe to add a > check to make sure that they are identical in both packages. bug 1246701 speaks just about old fedora keys, not about epel IIRC. > Regarding packaging: > - why not use a github tarball directly? It's much nicer than to force a git > clone and additional steps. Because github tarball checksum was not stable in past (not sure if this changed recently). Also the URL is changing nearly each year. At least the URL we should use as suggested by Fedora Guidelines. And I do not use or create tar.gz at all. I just wrote tito --srpm and it will craft (binary identical) tar.gz for me. > - GPL, seriously? I'm all for GPL, but in this case CC-0 seems a much better > choice. After all, this should be freely copied. Good point. License changed to CC-0. Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/distribution-gpg-keys.spec SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/distribution-gpg-keys-1.2-1.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 219036] Review Request: perl-Roman - Roman module from CPAN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=219036 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1272054 -- 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 1272054] Review Request: perl-Roman - Functions for converting between Roman and Arabic numerals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272054 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=219036 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272054] Review Request: perl-Roman - Functions for converting between Roman and Arabic numerals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272054 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 1271954] Review Request: php-hamcrest - PHP port of Hamcrest Matchers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271954 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1062888 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062888 [Bug 1062888] php-deepend-Mockery-0.9.4 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 1265885] Review Request: zeal - Offline documentation browser inspired by Dash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265885 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- zeal-0.1.1-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c4ab19fa91 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
