[Bug 1280343] Review Request: perl-Text-Bidi - Unicode bidirectional algorithm using libfribidi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280343 --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar --- I updated to package. After discussion with upstream, I install the misc/bidi file into urxvt plugin directory and I package it into a sub-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 1274503] Review Request: nodejs-make-generator-function - Returns an arbitrary generator function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274503 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-make-arrow-function-1.1.0-1.fc23, nodejs-make-generator-function-1.1.0-1.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 nodejs-make-arrow-function nodejs-make-generator-function' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4047fd9dc5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 995433] Review Request: glassfish-ejb-api - Java EJB 3.2 API Design Specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995433 Bug 995433 depends on bug 1258274, which changed state. Bug 1258274 Summary: Review Request: glassfish-jaxrpc-api - The Java API for XML-Based RPC (JAX-RPC) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258274 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1274504] Review Request: nodejs-make-arrow-function - Function that returns an arbitrary arrow function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274504 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-make-arrow-function-1.1.0-1.fc23, nodejs-make-generator-function-1.1.0-1.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 nodejs-make-arrow-function nodejs-make-generator-function' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4047fd9dc5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 995438] Review Request: tyrus - JSR 356: Java API for WebSocket - Reference Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995438 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- tyrus-1.12-2.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 tyrus' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-37ba0e669d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 995433] Review Request: glassfish-ejb-api - Java EJB 3.2 API Design Specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995433 Bug 995433 depends on bug 995435, which changed state. Bug 995435 Summary: Review Request: glassfish-transaction-api - Java JTA 1.2 API Design Specification https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995435 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1274501] Review Request: nodejs-is-symbol - Determine if a value is an ES6 Symbol or not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274501 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-is-symbol-1.0.1-1.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 nodejs-is-symbol' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-ae998ededf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 995435] Review Request: glassfish-transaction-api - Java JTA 1.2 API Design Specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995435 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- glassfish-transaction-api-1.2-1.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 glassfish-transaction-api' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-5f695e8315 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1259002] Review Request: rudiments - C++ class library for developing systems and applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259002 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- rudiments-0.53-4.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 rudiments' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c816143d56 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258274] Review Request: glassfish-jaxrpc-api - The Java API for XML-Based RPC (JAX-RPC)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258274 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- glassfish-jaxrpc-api-1.1.1-1.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 glassfish-jaxrpc-api' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1d54c3cb7e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 995444] Review Request: glassfish-websocket-api - JSR 356: Java API for WebSocket
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995444 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- glassfish-websocket-api-1.1-1.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 glassfish-websocket-api' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-be94439d02 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1274503] Review Request: nodejs-make-generator-function - Returns an arbitrary generator function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274503 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-make-arrow-function-1.1.0-1.fc22, nodejs-make-generator-function-1.1.0-1.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 nodejs-make-arrow-function nodejs-make-generator-function' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-54802797eb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1274504] Review Request: nodejs-make-arrow-function - Function that returns an arbitrary arrow function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274504 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-make-arrow-function-1.1.0-1.fc22, nodejs-make-generator-function-1.1.0-1.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 nodejs-make-arrow-function nodejs-make-generator-function' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-54802797eb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1274501] Review Request: nodejs-is-symbol - Determine if a value is an ES6 Symbol or not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274501 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-is-symbol-1.0.1-1.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 nodejs-is-symbol' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-72308a9a9c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1259002] Review Request: rudiments - C++ class library for developing systems and applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259002 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- rudiments-0.53-4.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 rudiments' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-a87ff17999 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1281664] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-smallsemi - GAP library of small semigroups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281664 Bug ID: 1281664 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-smallsemi - GAP library of small semigroups 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/gap-pkg-smallsemi/gap-pkg-smallsemi.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-smallsemi/gap-pkg-smallsemi-0.6.8-1.fc24.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: The Smallsemi package is a data library of semigroups of small size. It provides all semigroups with at most 8 elements as well as information of various kinds about these objects. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1113915] Review Request: micropython - Implementation of Python 3 with very low memory footprint
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113915 --- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- (In reply to John Dulaney from comment #10) > Is this still a thing? If I get no response in a week, I'm going to submit > my own review. I think you can go ahead. Nothing much has happened here in a long time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1275643] Review Request: octave-splines - Additional spline functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275643 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng --- I agree, you need to revise the guideline... Regarding that test error, I found the culprit, obviously it's the unexpected type mismatch. NaN -> Inf. I will upload a new SRPM soon, 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 1259460] Review Request: libu2f-server - Yubico Universal 2nd Factor (U2F) Server C Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259460 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- libu2f-server-1.0.1-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1155826] Review Request: libu2f-host - Yubico Universal 2nd Factor (U2F) Host C Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155826 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System --- libu2f-host-1.0.0-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1270322] Review Request: chromium - A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270322 --- Comment #20 from Andy Lutomirski --- u2f-hidraw-policy is now in f22 and f23 stable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1267189] Review Request: antimony - Computer-aided design CAD tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267189 --- Comment #8 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- zbyszek's scratch build of antimony-0.9.0-0.4.2015git12e9f8.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11808959 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155826] Review Request: libu2f-host - Yubico Universal 2nd Factor (U2F) Host C Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155826 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System --- libu2f-host-1.0.0-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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 1259460] Review Request: libu2f-server - Yubico Universal 2nd Factor (U2F) Server C Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259460 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- libu2f-server-1.0.1-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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 1155826] Review Request: libu2f-host - Yubico Universal 2nd Factor (U2F) Host C Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155826 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2015-10-26 23:37:48 |2015-11-12 18:28:59 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1259460] Review Request: libu2f-server - Yubico Universal 2nd Factor (U2F) Server C Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259460 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-11-12 18:29:25 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1277100] Review Request: perl-Cache-LRU - Simple, fast implementation of LRU cache in pure perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277100 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-11-12 18:28:50 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1277100] Review Request: perl-Cache-LRU - Simple, fast implementation of LRU cache in pure perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277100 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Cache-LRU-0.04-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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 1267009] Review Request: ola - a framework for controlling entertainment lighting equipment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267009 --- Comment #12 from John Dulaney --- You are still failing rpmlint: Checking: ola-0.9.8-3.fc23.x86_64.rpm ola-devel-0.9.8-3.fc23.x86_64.rpm python2-ola-0.9.8-3.fc23.noarch.rpm ola-rdm-tests-0.9.8-3.fc23.noarch.rpm ola-data-0.9.8-3.fc23.noarch.rpm ola-debuginfo-0.9.8-3.fc23.x86_64.rpm ola-0.9.8-3.fc23.src.rpm ola.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/lib64/libolacommon.so.0.0.0 ola.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ola_rdm_discover ola.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ola_rdm_set ola.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ola_set_dmx ola.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ola_rdm_get ola-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ola-devel.x86_64: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig python2-ola.noarch: W: no-documentation python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/DMXConstants.py 644 /usr/bin/env python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/ClientWrapper.py 644 /usr/bin/env ola-rdm-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ResponderTest.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestState.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestHelpers.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestLogger.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestRunner.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ExpectedResults.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestCategory.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/DMXSender.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ModelCollector.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdm_test_server.py ola-rdm-tests.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdm_responder_test.py ola-rdm-tests.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdm_model_collector.py ola-data.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C data for OLA ola-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml ola-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rdm -> rd, rm, rem ola-data.noarch: W: no-documentation ola.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/OpenLightingProject/ola/releases/download/0.9.8/ola-0.9.8.tar.gz HTTP Error 403: Forbidden Better, but still things to fix. I would start with the python non-executable-script errors next. That will clean up a lot of the scary. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1273164] Review Request: nodejs-argsparser - A tiny command line arguments parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273164 --- Comment #2 from Jared Smith --- Requested at https://github.com/kof/node-argsparser/issues/8. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1249786] Review Request: kaaedit - Console text editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249786 --- Comment #6 from William Moreno --- Rawhide build was failed, but all depencies are in place: Package python3-setuptools-18.5-2.fc24.noarch is already installed, skipping. Dependencies resolved. Package Arch VersionRepository Size Installing: kaadbg noarch 0.3.0-2.fc24 build 17 k ncurses-develx86_64 6.0-1.20150810.fc24build 500 k python-macrosnoarch 2.7.10-11.fc24 build 61 k python3-curses_exx86_64 0.3-3.fc24 build 13 k python3-develx86_64 3.5.0-3.fc24 build 1.0 M python3-pyjf3noarch 0.3-3.fc24 build 23 k python3-setproctitle x86_64 1.1.9-2.fc24 build 19 k -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1249786] Review Request: kaaedit - Console text editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249786 --- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- williamjmorenor's scratch build of kaaedit-0.44.0-2.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11808030 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1176595] Review Request: hypre - High performance matrix preconditioners
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176595 --- Comment #12 from Dave Love --- (In reply to José Matos from comment #11) > I am interested in reviewing hypre but the srpm is not available. > > Coud you, please, fix this? :-) Oh dear; I hadn't seen this, sorry. I've missed a number of mail items from bugzilla somehow. I don't know how I deleted the files, but they're back now. See also https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/loveshack/livhpc/package/hypre/ Thanks for the interest. However, that's now an old version. I don't think a later one was compatible with petsc at the time, but I think it is now. I have an attempt at 2.10.0b, but it doesn't seem to build everything according to the note from a while ago. I'll get back to it as soon as possible and have another look. Hope you're still interested! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1267009] Review Request: ola - a framework for controlling entertainment lighting equipment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267009 --- Comment #11 from Dave Olsthoorn --- i'm not exactly sure how it failed... or how i could resolve 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 1270394] Review Request: sharpziplib - Zip, GZip, Tar and BZip2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270394
Christian Dersch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #23 from Christian Dersch ---
Review done using F23 (due to broken rawhide deps), just missing: license
breakdown according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
Solution: Approved, as I think you can add this before SCM import and rest
looks fine :)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
Note: License file COPYING.txt is marked as %doc instead of %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
===> As in first review approach: false positive
- Add license breakdown to spec
= 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: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3
clause)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 174 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/review/1270394-sharpziplib/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
> Please add this using licensecheck output
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-]: %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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: 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]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned depend
[Bug 1267009] Review Request: ola - a framework for controlling entertainment lighting equipment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267009 --- Comment #10 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- daveo's scratch build of ola-0.9.8-3.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11807396 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1267009] Review Request: ola - a framework for controlling entertainment lighting equipment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267009 --- Comment #9 from Dave Olsthoorn --- disabled rpath again, I also made a separate noarch pacakge for the /usr/share directories: Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/daveo/OLA/ola.git/plain/ola.spec?id=508d4526f7111eb18d0de4985c23effdc7709b16 SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/daveo/OLA/fedora-21-i386/00139130-ola/ola-0.9.8-3.fc21.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 1270394] Review Request: sharpziplib - Zip, GZip, Tar and BZip2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270394 --- Comment #22 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- raphgro's scratch build of sharpziplib-0.86.0-0.3.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11807378 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1113915] Review Request: micropython - Implementation of Python 3 with very low memory footprint
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113915 --- Comment #14 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jdulaney's scratch build of micropython-1.5-0.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11807404 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1270394] Review Request: sharpziplib - Zip, GZip, Tar and BZip2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270394 --- Comment #21 from Raphael Groner --- nant is currently b0rken in rawhide. Use f23 - Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11807378 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1113915] Review Request: micropython - Implementation of Python 3 with very low memory footprint
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113915 --- Comment #13 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jdulaney's scratch build of micropython-1.5-0.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11807362 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1270394] Review Request: sharpziplib - Zip, GZip, Tar and BZip2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270394 --- Comment #20 from Raphael Groner --- Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/sharpziplib.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/sharpziplib-0.86.0-0.3.fc23.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11807329 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1270394] Review Request: sharpziplib - Zip, GZip, Tar and BZip2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270394 --- Comment #19 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- raphgro's scratch build of sharpziplib-0.86.0-0.3.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11807329 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1113915] Review Request: micropython - Implementation of Python 3 with very low memory footprint
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113915 --- Comment #12 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jdulaney's scratch build of micropython-1.5-0.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11807259 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1113915] Review Request: micropython - Implementation of Python 3 with very low memory footprint
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113915 --- Comment #11 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jdulaney's scratch build of micropython-1.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11807116 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1113915] Review Request: micropython - Implementation of Python 3 with very low memory footprint
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113915 John Dulaney changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jdula...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #10 from John Dulaney --- Is this still a thing? If I get no response in a week, I'm going to submit my own 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 1276880] Review Request: python-mne - Magnetoencephalography (MEG) and Electroencephalography (EEG) data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276880 --- Comment #18 from Julien Enselme --- Created attachment 1093436 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1093436&action=edit Correct the non-executable-scripts -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1276880] Review Request: python-mne - Magnetoencephalography (MEG) and Electroencephalography (EEG) data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276880
--- Comment #17 from Julien Enselme ---
I found what the problem is: in the code you use to remove the shebang, you use
two times %{modname} instead of one (see the attach patch).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1281562] Review Request: nodejs-os-tmpdir - Node.js os.tmpdir() ponyfill
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281562 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 1281562] Review Request: nodejs-os-tmpdir - Node.js os.tmpdir() ponyfill
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281562 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1103662 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103662 [Bug 1103662] nodejs-temp-0.8.3 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 1281562] New: Review Request: nodejs-os-tmpdir - Node.js os.tmpdir() ponyfill
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281562 Bug ID: 1281562 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-os-tmpdir - Node.js os.tmpdir() ponyfill 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-os-tmpdir.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-os-tmpdir-1.0.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Node.js os.tmpdir() ponyfill 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 970393] Review Request: foo2zjs - Driver for printers of various wire protocols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970393 --- Comment #20 from Christopher Atherton --- I've switched COPYING from %doc to %license. SPEC/SRPM have the same location, but for convenience... SPEC => https://www.dropbox.com/s/tp49pw6n5ycb4gc/foo2zjs.spec?dl=0 SRPM => https://www.dropbox.com/s/i8936cco5xt85jg/foo2zjs-0.2015-1.fc23.src.rpm?dl=0 -- 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 1259002] Review Request: rudiments - C++ class library for developing systems and applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259002 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- rudiments-0.53-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c816143d56 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1259002] Review Request: rudiments - C++ class library for developing systems and applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259002 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 1259002] Review Request: rudiments - C++ class library for developing systems and applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259002 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- rudiments-0.53-4.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-a87ff17999 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1281532] Review Request: Pagila - Example database for PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532
--- Comment #3 from Pavel Raiskup ---
Thanks for working on this!
We plan to build
- '%global pginstdir %{_libdir}/pgsql' -- this does not seem to be used
- Requires: postgresql-server(:MODULE_COMPAT_%{postgresql_major})
This won't work unless you install postgresql-devel:
$ rpm -qpR ./results/pagila-0.10.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
postgresql-server(:MODULE_COMPAT_%{postgresql_major})
But should be (only when really needed):
$ rpm -qpR ./results/pagila-0.10.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
postgresql-server(:MODULE_COMPAT_9.4)
Please, remove. We don't need postgresql-server to install this package,
neither postgresql.
- general EPEL5 leftovers we do not need %buildroot/Buildroot usage (rm -rf)
- %defattr is not needed even on EPEL5, the %attr is also neither needed
- would it be possible to try the sql scripts in %check phase? Start local
postgresql server and load those into the new database? (optional)
---
I'll check '$ fedora-review -b 1281532 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -d EPEL6'
and post the results once this is fixed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1267009] Review Request: ola - a framework for controlling entertainment lighting equipment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267009 --- Comment #8 from John Dulaney --- Checking: ola-0.9.8-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm ola-devel-0.9.8-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm python2-ola-0.9.8-2.fc23.noarch.rpm ola-rdm-tests-0.9.8-2.fc23.noarch.rpm ola-debuginfo-0.9.8-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm ola-0.9.8-2.fc23.src.rpm ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolaspicore.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolaserver.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolamilinst.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolaopendmx.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolashownet.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolagpio.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/lib64/libolacommon.so.0.0.0 ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolaopenpixelcontrol.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ola_usbpro ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ola_timecode ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolakarate.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolasandnet.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolausbdmx.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolakinet.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ola_artnet ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ola_rdm_get ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ola_trigger ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ola_uni_stats ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolarenard.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolastageprofi.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolaspi.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ola_rdm_discover ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolaespnet.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libola.so.1.0.1 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolausbpro.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ola_streaming_client ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolaartnet.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolapathport.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolagpiocore.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/rdmpro_sniffer ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/usbpro_firmware ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/olad ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolaserverplugininterface.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ola_dev_info ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ola_e131 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolauartdmx.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ola_recorder ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolae131.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libolatrigger.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/liboladummy.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] ola.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ola_rdm_discover ola.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ola_set_dmx ola.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ola_rdm_get ola.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ola_rdm_set ola-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ola-devel.x86_64: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig python2-ola.noarch: W: no-documentation python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/DMXConstants.py 644 /usr/bin/env python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/ClientWrapper.py 644 /usr/bin/env ola-rdm-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestCategory.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ExpectedResults.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ResponderTest.py 644 /usr/bin/python ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-
[Bug 1270394] Review Request: sharpziplib - Zip, GZip, Tar and BZip2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270394 --- Comment #18 from Christian Dersch --- So what is the current state? Doesn't build on rawhide now: INFO: mock.py version 1.2.13 starting (python version = 2.7.8)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run INFO: Start(/home/review/1270394-sharpziplib/srpm/sharpziplib-0.86.0-0.2.fc23.src.rpm) Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.13 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.13 Finish: chroot init Start: build phase for sharpziplib-0.86.0-0.2.fc23.src.rpm Start: build setup for sharpziplib-0.86.0-0.2.fc23.src.rpm ERROR: Exception(/home/review/1270394-sharpziplib/srpm/sharpziplib-0.86.0-0.2.fc23.src.rpm) Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) 2 minutes 15 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /home/review/1270394-sharpziplib/results ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf builddep --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 24 /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root//builddir/build/SRPMS/sharpziplib-0.86.0-0.2.fc24.src.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Failed to synchronize cache for repo '_local' from 'file:///var/lib/dnf/plugins/local': Cannot download repomd.xml: Cannot download repodata/repomd.xml: All mirrors were tried, disabling. Using metadata from Thu Nov 12 18:26:43 2015 (0:00:39 hours old) No matching package to install: 'nunit-runner = 2.6.4' Error: Not all dependencies satisfied -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1281538] Review Request: javadoc - Automated Drawing of UML Diagrams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281538 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1281451 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1281538] Review Request: umlgraph - Automated Drawing of UML Diagrams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281538 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: javadoc - |Review Request: umlgraph - |Automated Drawing of UML|Automated Drawing of UML |Diagrams|Diagrams -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1281538] Review Request: javadoc - Automated Drawing of UML Diagrams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281538 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: -|Diagrams -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1281538] New: Review Request: -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281538 Bug ID: 1281538 Summary: Review Request: - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: projects...@smart.ms QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/umlgraph/umlgraph.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/umlgraph/umlgraph-5.7.2-10.fc23.src.rpm Description: Automated Drawing of UML Diagrams Fedora Account System Username: raphgro Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11805920 The package is retired since Fedora 23 and should get back to live. I plan to build officially new packages for rawhide/f24 and maybe epel7, though javadoc generation fails with Java 7. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 995444] Review Request: glassfish-websocket-api - JSR 356: Java API for WebSocket
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995444 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- glassfish-websocket-api-1.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-be94439d02 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1258274] Review Request: glassfish-jaxrpc-api - The Java API for XML-Based RPC (JAX-RPC)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258274 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- glassfish-jaxrpc-api-1.1.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1d54c3cb7e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 995435] Review Request: glassfish-transaction-api - Java JTA 1.2 API Design Specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995435 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- glassfish-transaction-api-1.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-5f695e8315 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1281532] Review Request: Pagila - Example database for PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532 Pavel Kajaba changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(pkaj...@redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #2 from Pavel Kajaba --- Spec URL: https://pkajaba.fedorapeople.org/pagila.spec SRPM URL: https://pkajaba.fedorapeople.org/pagila-0.10.1-1.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 1281532] Review Request: Pagila - Example database for PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532 --- Comment #1 from Pavel Raiskup --- $ fedora-review -b 1281532 INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 1281532 INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 1281532 ERROR: 'Cannot find source rpm URL' -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1281532] Review Request: Pagila - Example database for PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532 Pavel Raiskup changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pkaj...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(pkaj...@redhat.co ||m) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1267009] Review Request: ola - a framework for controlling entertainment lighting equipment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267009 --- Comment #7 from John Dulaney --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath Better to fix the the issues that arise when you disable rpath. Am looking at the new build. Also, I note that if you do test builds, you should do them against rawhide. You can do this in mock if necessary. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1281532] Review Request: Pagila - Example database for PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532 Pavel Raiskup changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||prais...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|prais...@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 1281532] New: Review Request: Pagila - Example database for PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281532 Bug ID: 1281532 Summary: Review Request: Pagila - Example database for PostgreSQL Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pkaj...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://pkajaba.fedorapeople.org/pagila.spec SRPM URL: pkajaba.fedorapeople.org/pagila-0.10.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Example database for PostgreSQL repacked for fedora repos Fedora Account System Username: pkajaba -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1267009] Review Request: ola - a framework for controlling entertainment lighting equipment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267009 --- Comment #6 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- daveo's scratch build of ola-0.9.8-2.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11805731 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1267009] Review Request: ola - a framework for controlling entertainment lighting equipment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267009 --- Comment #5 from Dave Olsthoorn --- I have spoken with the developers and they say we would have to work with symlinks but they are open to the idea. also I made a new build where i fixed some stuff: Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/daveo/OLA/ola.git/plain/ola.spec?id=d67a74e7dbd1b9e9f8e4aa0610e6be6d4ca475f8 SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/daveo/OLA/fedora-21-i386/00139066-ola/ola-0.9.8-2.fc21.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 1267189] Review Request: antimony - Computer-aided design CAD tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267189 --- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #6) > No matter if the module is only private or not, I don't think this can work. > The module is currently in-importable, because _fabtypes is missing. Upstream maintainer confirmed to me that, at the moment, 'fab' module cannot be used separately, just with Antimony: https://github.com/mkeeter/antimony/issues/136 New release: Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/antimony/antimony.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/antimony/antimony-0.9.0-0.4.2015git12e9f8.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 1215354] Review Request: assimulo - Ordinary differential and differential algebraic equations solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215354 --- Comment #16 from Richard Shaw --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #14) > Hi Richard, > > originally, i was going to name this package 'python-assimulo', then i chose > just assimulo. Ok, well it looks like you have a formal reviewer now. My only feedback is that I think you were right in the first place, this is more of a python library, not an end user application so I think it must be prefixed with python-... per the Python guidelines. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1281245] Review Request: perl-DBIx-Class-DeploymentHandler - Extensible DBIx::Class deployment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281245 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-11-12 11:07:27 --- Comment #5 from Emmanuel Seyman --- Imported and built in rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 995438] Review Request: tyrus - JSR 356: Java API for WebSocket - Reference Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995438 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 995438] Review Request: tyrus - JSR 356: Java API for WebSocket - Reference Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995438 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- tyrus-1.12-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-37ba0e669d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1274501] Review Request: nodejs-is-symbol - Determine if a value is an ES6 Symbol or not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274501 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 1274501] Review Request: nodejs-is-symbol - Determine if a value is an ES6 Symbol or not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274501 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-is-symbol-1.0.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-ae998ededf --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-is-symbol-1.0.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-72308a9a9c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1274501] Review Request: nodejs-is-symbol - Determine if a value is an ES6 Symbol or not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274501 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-is-symbol-1.0.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-ae998ededf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #5 from gil cattaneo ---
issues:
- Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: nacl-arm-binutils. Illegal package name:
nacl-arm-binutils. Does not provide -static: nacl-arm-binutils.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
- 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: Cannot find copying.c in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-nacl.h
nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-vxworks.c
nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-nacl.c
nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-vxworks.h
Please, report the problem to upstream
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/arm-nacl, /usr/lib64
/usr/arm-nacl
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Note: %define requiring justification: %define binutils_target
%{_target_platform}, %define isnative 1, %define enable_shared 1,
%define cross %{binutils_target}-, %define isnative 0, %define
enable_shared 0, %define __debug_install_post : >
%{_builddir}/%{?buildsubdir}/debugfiles.list, %define debug_package
%{nil}, %define run_testsuite 0%{?_with_testsuite:1}, %define
run_testsuite 0%{!?_without_testsuite:1}, %define run_testsuite 0,
%define _gnu %{nil}, %define enable_shared 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 1270364] Review Request: nacl-arm-binutils - A GNU collection of binary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270364
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: nacl-arm-binutils. Illegal package name:
nacl-arm-binutils. Does not provide -static: nacl-arm-binutils.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
- 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: Cannot find copying.c in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[?]: 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.
Generic:
[!]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/arm-nacl, /usr/lib64
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/arm-nacl, /usr/lib64
/usr/arm-nacl
[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.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: 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:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[!]: If the source
[Bug 1270364] Review Request: nacl-arm-binutils - A GNU collection of binary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270364 --- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- gil's scratch build of nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-1.gitcde986c.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11805322 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156086] Review Request: openmx - Open source package for Material eXplorer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156086 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from gil cattaneo --- Thanks! Now, seem all ok! 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 995438] Review Request: tyrus - JSR 356: Java API for WebSocket - Reference Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995438 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/tyrus -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1281245] Review Request: perl-DBIx-Class-DeploymentHandler - Extensible DBIx::Class deployment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281245 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-DBIx-Class-DeploymentHandler -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156086] Review Request: openmx - Open source package for Material eXplorer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156086
--- Comment #16 from marcindulak ---
I don't know why some of my scratch builds end up listed here.
Those are not the same ones as the next version below:
Spec URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/openmx/r02/openmx.spec
SRPM URL:
https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/openmx/r02/openmx-3.7.10-1.el7.centos.src.rpm
Addressed issues:
1. I believe the problem with diff may be due to fedora-review itself (or
something else).
Two local fedora-review (fedora-review-0.6.0-2.fc23.noarch) runs reported
once Bi10.0.pao and Xe11.0.pao the second time to differ. Both times the
problematic
file seems to be truncated, and the truncation happens in the upstream-unpacked
folder, which should correspond to the extracted tarball. Checking the contents
of the
source tarball present in the fedora-review's directory shows there is no
mismatch:
[openmx@localhost ~]$ ls -al openmx/srpm-unpacked/openmx3.7.tar.gz
-rw-r--r--. 1 openmx mock 117784869 Nov 11 08:47
openmx/srpm-unpacked/openmx3.7.tar.gz
[openmx@localhost ~]$ tar tvf openmx/srpm-unpacked/openmx3.7.tar.gz | grep Xe11
-rw-rw-rw- ozaki/ozaki 684404 2013-04-29 03:11
openmx3.7/DFT_DATA13/PAO/Xe11.0.pao
Compare this to fedora-review reported diff::
[openmx@localhost ~]$ ls -al
/home/openmx/openmx/upstream-unpacked/Source0/openmx3.7/DFT_DATA13/PAO/Xe11.0.pao
/home/openmx/openmx/srpm-unpacked/openmx3.7.tar.gz-extract/openmx3.7/DFT_DATA13/PAO/Xe11.0.pao
-rw-r--r--. 1 openmx mock 684404 Apr 29 2013
/home/openmx/openmx/srpm-unpacked/openmx3.7.tar.gz-extract/openmx3.7/DFT_DATA13/PAO/Xe11.0.pao
-rw-r--r--. 1 openmx mock 572416 Nov 11 09:16
/home/openmx/openmx/upstream-unpacked/Source0/openmx3.7/DFT_DATA13/PAO/Xe11.0.pao
This is weird, maybe you can figure out more.
2. I believe the licensing of the package is OK, and reported a missing license
file to upstream http://www.openmx-square.org/forum/patio.cgi?mode=view&no=1747
3. LICENSE and COPYING files are now installed with every subpackage due to
license presence in openmx-common and openmx-data. Other subpackages Require
openmx-common.
4. openmx-common and openmx-data are noarch so no %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} is used
6. I have included a link to upstream post that justifies the included patches.
7. liberi-091216/.../*oo and test_pp files removed
8. I believe the package does not install under fedora-review due to to fact it
tries to install openmx-debuginfo twice. I don't know why this happens.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1274501] Review Request: nodejs-is-symbol - Determine if a value is an ES6 Symbol or not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274501 --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-is-symbol -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #2 from gil cattaneo --- If that's okay I'll try to do a review of the package manually. Since my system is 32-bit. Regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1272332] Review Request: openstack-ec2-api - Support of EC2 API for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272332 Haïkel Guémar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar --- * I suggest that you add automatic restarting https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Automatic_restarting * Missing BuildRequires: systemd It causes a FTBFS (Failure To Build From Sources) due to missing definition of _unitdir macros. * I'd version the following BR/R: python-six, oslo libs, pbr, clients, etc. needinfo or ping me on irc when it's done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it 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 995438] Review Request: tyrus - JSR 356: Java API for WebSocket - Reference Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995438 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 995438] Review Request: tyrus - JSR 356: Java API for WebSocket - Reference Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995438 --- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo --- Thanks! Request for new package: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/1518 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/1519 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1245255] Review Request: netspy2ban - GUI Networking Tool and Fail2ban Controller
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245255 Fotios Tsiadimos 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 1281315] Review Request: rubygems-mirror - This is an update to the old `gem mirror` command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281315 --- Comment #6 from Vít Ondruch --- Actually, one minor nit in addition. The summary and description are rather poor. You might try to collaborate with upstream on improving them. Nevertheless, this is not a blocker for a review, just a not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1281315] Review Request: rubygems-mirror - This is an update to the old `gem mirror` command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281315
--- Comment #5 from Vít Ondruch ---
* Package naming
- This is tough one with regards to naming. The name according to naming
guidelines should be "rubygem-rubygems-mirror". I personally would be fine
with the shortened "rubygems-mirror", because this code actually used to be
part of RUbyGems code base, priori it was extracted into RubyGems plugin
and
independent package. Nevertheless, after discussion with other packages, it
seems that general consensus prefers consistency, i.e. the
"rubygem-rubygems-mirror" name. Could you please rename the package?
- Please also note that optionally, you could add:
Provides: rubygems-mirror
virtual provide into your package, so either rubygems-mirror or
rubygem-rubygems-mirror will be installable in case of confusion.
* Non-executable script
- rpmlint complains about non-executable script:
rubygems-mirror-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script \
/usr/share/gems/gems/rubygems-mirror-1.1.0/Rakefile 644 /usr/bin/env
- I'd suggest to drop the shebang from the Rakefile using something like:
sed -i '/^#!\/usr\/bin\/env/ d' %{buildroot}%{gem_instdir}/Rakefile
- Would be nice to suggest this change to upstream, since shebang in Rakefile
is meaningless
* Dot files removal
- This is minor nit, but you can probably remove all the dot files by single
sweep, e.g. you could use:
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.*
* Separate license file
- It would be nice to ask upstream to include license file [1].
Otherwise the package looks good. Please rename the package so I can approve it
and sponsor you.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#cite_note-24
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1267189] Review Request: antimony - Computer-aided design CAD tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267189 --- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- No matter if the module is only private or not, I don't think this can work. The module is currently in-importable, because _fabtypes is missing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1281315] Review Request: rubygems-mirror - This is an update to the old `gem mirror` command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281315 --- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- vondruch's scratch build of rubygems-mirror-1.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm for f24-candidate completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11804389 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Ivan Afonichev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ivan.afonic...@gmail.com --- Comment #19 from Ivan Afonichev --- It will be great to have chromium-remote-desktop subpackage as its sources are in the same chromium-46.0.2490.80.tar.xz as chromium itself(in remoting folder). See https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/chromoting_build_instructions.md https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=343329 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
