[Bug 1270322] Review Request: chromium - A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270322



--- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa  ---
@Tom: I think it would be valuable to split ffmpegsumo back out, if it's
possible.

From what I've observed, the usage of Chrome is pretty much because we don't
provide Chromium. I think it would be a disservice to our users to not provide
them a capability to enhance Chromium for their needs and force them to use
Chrome when all they want to do is just have more codecs supported.

My hope is that such a thing won't have to last too long, as Samsung appears to
be working rather hard on implementing a fully functional GStreamer backend in
Chromium[0]. I hope it gets to a merge-able state soon and the Chromium guys
accept it.

[0]: https://github.com/Samsung/ChromiumGStreamerBackend

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039299] Review Request: jackson-module-afterburner - Jackson module that uses byte-code generation to further speed up data binding

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039299

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275048] Review Request: jackson-module-paranamer - Jackson Paranamer Extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275048

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127



--- Comment #14 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
jamesodhunt's scratch build of procenv-0.41-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 failed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11577344

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039299] Review Request: jackson-module-afterburner - Jackson module that uses byte-code generation to further speed up data binding

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039299



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-module-afterburner.spec
SRPM URL:
http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-module-afterburner-2.6.3-1.fc22.src.rpm

- update to 2.6.3

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275048] Review Request: jackson-module-paranamer - Jackson Paranamer Extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275048



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11577279

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127



--- Comment #12 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
jamesodhunt's scratch build of procenv-0.41-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 failed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11577322

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127



--- Comment #15 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
jamesodhunt's scratch build of procenv-0.41-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11577350

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1272652] Review Request: tktable - Table/matrix widget extension to Tcl/Tk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272652



--- Comment #8 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #7)
> Issues:
> ===
> 1. The existence of -fomit-frame-pointer in tclconfig/tcl.m4 concerns me a
>little.  Maybe it doesn't matter, as I believe that is the default on
> x86_64
>these days anyway, but I'm not sure that it is the default (and won't harm
>the quality of the debuginfo) on other architectures.  What do you think
>about removing that?

Removed; it's turned on with -O2 optimization but disabled:

$ gcc -c -Q -O2 --help=optimizers | grep fomit
  -fomit-frame-pointer[disabled]

> 
> 2. The tests fail on x86_64, but the %check script doesn't notice.  Please
>make %check fail if the tests fail, then figure out why the tests are
>failing.  It looks trivial: "bad relief" versus "bad relief type".  I'm
>more concerned that %check succeeded anyway.

Yes, i know; i have signaled to upstream but still none reply.
http://sourceforge.net/p/tktable/mailman/tktable-users/?viewmonth=201510

Those two tests do not fail in EPEL.

> 
> 3. Since a python source file is included in the package, it should
>BuildRequires: python2-devel or python3-devel as appropriate.
> 
> 4. Speaking of the python file, should it really be in
>%{_libdir}/tcl8.6/Tktable2.10, or should it be installed where python
> files
>usually go?

It's a wrapper for Python2; i have packaged as a python sub-package.

> 
> 5. html/tkTable.html and README.txt are in both %{_libdir}/tcl8.6/Tktable2.10
>and /usr/share/doc/tktable.  Does they need to be both places?
> 
> 6. Similarly, license.txt is in both %{_libdir}/tcl8.6/Tktable2.10 and in
>/usr/share/licenses/tktable.  Does it need to be both places?
> 

Fixed.
Thanks.

Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/tktable/tktable.spec
SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/tktable/tktable-2.10-6.fc22.src.rpm

- Remove duplicated documentation
- Install python wrapper
- Remove potentially bad flag

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039299] Review Request: jackson-module-afterburner - Jackson module that uses byte-code generation to further speed up data binding

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039299



--- Comment #7 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
gil's scratch build of jackson-module-afterburner-2.6.3-1.fc22.src.rpm for
rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11577221

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275048] New: Review Request: jackson-module-paranamer - Jackson Paranamer Extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275048

Bug ID: 1275048
   Summary: Review Request: jackson-module-paranamer - Jackson
Paranamer Extension
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: punto...@libero.it
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-module-paranamer.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-module-paranamer-2.6.3-1.fc22.src.rpm
Description:
Jackson extension that implements custom AnnotationIntrospectors that
use Paranamer to introspect names of constructor (and factory method)
parameters.
Fedora Account System Username: gil

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127



--- Comment #13 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
jamesodhunt's scratch build of procenv-0.41-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 failed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11577328

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275057] New: Review Request: python-appstream - Parse AppStream files when you don't have libappstream-glib

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275057

Bug ID: 1275057
   Summary: Review Request: python-appstream - Parse AppStream
files when you don't have libappstream-glib
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: rb...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-appstream.spec
SRPM URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-appstream-0.2-1.fc22.src.rpm

Description:
If you want to parse AppStream files in Python you probably should
just install libappstream-glib, and use the GObjectIntrospection bindings
for that. AppStreamGlib is a much better library than this and handles
many more kinds of component.

If AppStreamGlib is not available to you (e.g. you're trying to run in an
OpenShift instance on RHEL 6.2), this project might be somewhat useful.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275057] Review Request: python-appstream - Parse AppStream files when you don't have libappstream-glib

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275057



--- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean  ---
This package built on koji: 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11577332

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275057] Review Request: python-appstream - Parse AppStream files when you don't have libappstream-glib

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275057



--- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean  ---
I only intend to build this for epel-6 and the 0.2 release from upstream has
problems on python-2.7 (so, any Fedora release).  For whoever reviews this,
you'll need to use an el6 buildroot.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127



--- Comment #16 from James Hunt  ---
Yay - koji is now happy :-)

The failing koji builds were caused by missing BuildRequires, specifically:

- autoconf
- automake
- libtool.

I have now updated the files in comment 11 to include these builddeps (my
originals are still in
https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/orig/).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127



--- Comment #18 from James Hunt  ---
Updated files in comment 11 once again to include 'check-devel' rather than
'check' BuildRequires.

Updated koji run: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11577708

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127



--- Comment #17 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
jamesodhunt's scratch build of procenv-0.41-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11577708

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275005] Review Request: nodejs-tough-cookie - RFC6265 Cookies and Cookie Jar for Node.js

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275005



--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes  ---
The test failure is because our vows is too old. If you use 0.8.1 then it
passes.

My only concern here is licensing the lib/pubsuffix.js code is generated from
the public_suffix_list.dat file, which is under MPL 2.0 so the license tag on
the RPM should reflect that.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275075] Review Request: nodejs-mime-type - The ultimate JavaScript content-type utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275075
Bug 1275075 depends on bug 1275074, which changed state.

Bug 1275074 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-mime-db - Media Type Database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275074

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275074] Review Request: nodejs-mime-db - Media Type Database

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275074

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||t...@compton.nu
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2015-10-25 12:51:34



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1269658 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275075] Review Request: nodejs-mime-type - The ultimate JavaScript content-type utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275075

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||t...@compton.nu
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2015-10-25 12:51:24



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1269670 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1269658] Review Request: nodejs-mime-db - Database of all mime types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269658

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1275075
 CC||piotr1...@gmail.com



--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes  ---
*** Bug 1275074 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275075
[Bug 1275075] Review Request: nodejs-mime-type - The ultimate JavaScript
content-type utility
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1269670] Review Request: nodejs-mime-types - The ultimate javascript content-type utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269670

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||994934
 CC||piotr1...@gmail.com



--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes  ---
*** Bug 1275075 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994934
[Bug 994934] nodejs-request-2.65.0 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 1275075] Review Request: nodejs-mime-type - The ultimate JavaScript content-type utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275075

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1269658




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269658
[Bug 1269658] Review Request: nodejs-mime-db - Database of all mime types
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275005] Review Request: nodejs-tough-cookie - RFC6265 Cookies and Cookie Jar for Node.js

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275005

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||t...@compton.nu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)", "Unknown or
 generated", "MPL (v2.0) BSD (3 clause)". 9 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1275005-nodejs-tough-
 cookie/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 30720 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 

[Bug 1275069] Review Request: nodejs-stringstream - Encode and decode streams into string streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||t...@compton.nu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: 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". 6 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1275069
 -nodejs-stringstream/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 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: 

[Bug 1275069] Review Request: nodejs-stringstream - Encode and decode streams into string streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069



--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes  ---
So this is a bit insane, but the LICENSE.txt doesn't actually contain the text
of the license, rather it just has a link to it...

Unfortunately as it's MIT that is not acceptable because the license requires
that the text be included, so we're going to need to tell upstream and patch it
in locally until they fix 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 1275069] New: Review Request: nodejs-stringstream - Encode and decode streams into string streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069

Bug ID: 1275069
   Summary: Review Request:  nodejs-stringstream - Encode and
decode streams into string streams
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: piotr1...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-stringstream.spec
SRPM URL:
https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-stringstream-0.0.4-1.fc22.src.rpm
Description: Encode and decode streams into string streams
Fedora Account System Username: piotrp

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1094015] Review Request: cwtex-q-fonts - a series of modern traditional Chinese fonts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094015

Cheng-Chia Tseng  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(pswo10680@gmail.c |
   |om) |



--- Comment #22 from Cheng-Chia Tseng  ---
I'm sorry that I got a new job that taking about all of my time and even have
to work on Saturday until noon.

I have to admit that I rarely have time to do work on package reviews, so I
won't apply for sponsoring in next 2 years. I am going to remove the 
FE-NEEDSPONSOR tag.

However, I will update this package to catch up the new upstream version in
next 2 weeks, and keep refreshing this font package. I think that is what I can
do now in this period. Thanks for notifying me! :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275069] Review Request: nodejs-stringstream - Encode and decode streams into string streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||994934




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994934
[Bug 994934] nodejs-request-2.65.0 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 1094015] Review Request: cwtex-q-fonts - a series of modern traditional Chinese fonts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094015

Cheng-Chia Tseng  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 1275074] New: Review Request: nodejs-mime-db - Media Type Database

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275074

Bug ID: 1275074
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-mime-db - Media Type Database
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: piotr1...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-mime-db.spec
SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-mime-db-1.19.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
Description: Media Type Database
Fedora Account System Username: piotrp

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098965



--- Comment #24 from Stefan Cornelius  ---
Hi,

Thank you very much for the review and sorry for the late response - this bug
wasn't part of my work-pipeline, so it slipped through the cracks. Feel free to
set needinfo, that should get my attention.

I believe I've fixed all problems (add dist, change to git) in this new
version:
https://scorneli.fedorapeople.org/capstone.spec
https://scorneli.fedorapeople.org/capstone-3.0.4-3.src.rpm

COPR builds completed successfully for all platforms:
https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/scorneli/capstone/build/130237/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275074] Review Request: nodejs-mime-db - Media Type Database

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275074

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275075] New: Review Request: nodejs-mime-type - The ultimate JavaScript content-type utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275075

Bug ID: 1275075
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-mime-type - The ultimate
JavaScript content-type utility
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: piotr1...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-mime-types.spec
SRPM URL:
https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-mime-types-2.1.7-1.fc22.src.rpm
Description: The ultimate JavaScript content-type utility
Fedora Account System Username: piotrp

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275075] Review Request: nodejs-mime-type - The ultimate JavaScript content-type utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275075

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||994934
 Depends On||1275074




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994934
[Bug 994934] nodejs-request-2.65.0 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275074
[Bug 1275074] Review Request: nodejs-mime-db - Media Type Database
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275074] Review Request: nodejs-mime-db - Media Type Database

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275074

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1275075




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275075
[Bug 1275075] Review Request: nodejs-mime-type - The ultimate JavaScript
content-type utility
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1273579] Review Request: nest - The neural simulation tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273579



--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
Updated srpm with improvements:
https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/neuroscience-research-copr/nest-2.8.0-2.gitdc21fdc.fc23.src.rpm

Spec: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/neuroscience-research-copr/nest.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 1275069] Review Request: nodejs-stringstream - Encode and decode streams into string streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes  ---
Looks good. 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 1275090] Review Request: nodejs-caseless - Encode and decode streams into string streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275090

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||994934, 956806
   ||(nodejs-reviews)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994934
[Bug 994934] nodejs-request-2.65.0 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 1275090] New: Review Request: nodejs-caseless - Encode and decode streams into string streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275090

Bug ID: 1275090
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-caseless - Encode and decode
streams into string streams
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: piotr1...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-caseless.spec
SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-caseless-0.11.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
Description: Encode and decode streams into string streams
Fedora Account System Username: piotrp

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1269670] Review Request: nodejs-mime-types - The ultimate javascript content-type utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269670



--- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Missed that this was already packaged and in review.. 

Comparing my version to this one, please consider:

- Use github source guidelines [1]
- We should build from source, see [2]
- Don't think that src dir needs to be packaged

Thanks for packaging

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services
[2] https://github.com/jshttp/mime-db/blob/master/package.json#L43

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1269670] Review Request: nodejs-mime-types - The ultimate javascript content-type utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269670



--- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Sorry, my last comment was targeted at nodejs-mime-db, not this 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 1275005] Review Request: nodejs-tough-cookie - RFC6265 Cookies and Cookie Jar for Node.js

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275005



--- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Thanks, updated package, same urls.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275069] Review Request: nodejs-stringstream - Encode and decode streams into string streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069



--- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Good catch. Done a PR and patched license in. Updated spec and srpm.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275005] Review Request: nodejs-tough-cookie - RFC6265 Cookies and Cookie Jar for Node.js

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275005

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes  ---
Great. Package approved then.

I've got an updated vows building in rawhide now
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11577813) so once that is
done you should be able to enable the tests as well.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1275069] Review Request: nodejs-stringstream - Encode and decode streams into string streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069



--- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
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 1275005] Review Request: nodejs-tough-cookie - RFC6265 Cookies and Cookie Jar for Node.js

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275005



--- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Nice, will enable tests. Thank you!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review