[Bug 1281844] Review Request: webfts - Web interface for FTS3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281844



--- Comment #8 from Andrea  ---
new srpm with other fixed for rpmlint errors

https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/2082/11902082/webfts-2.2.5-1.fc24.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 1281844] Review Request: webfts - Web interface for FTS3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281844

Alejandro Alvarez  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



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

[Bug 1281844] Review Request: webfts - Web interface for FTS3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281844



--- Comment #9 from Alejandro Alvarez  ---
Looks good now

# rpmlint webfts-2.2.5-1.fc24.noarch.rpm 
webfts.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

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

[Bug 1281722] Review Request: perl-Unix-Mknod - Perl extension for mknod, major, minor, and makedev

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281722

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Unix-Mknod-0.04-2.fc24
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2015-11-19 03:24:18



--- Comment #5 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
Thank you for the review and the repository.

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

[Bug 1269649] Review Request: aeskulap - Full open source replacement for commercially available DICOM viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269649



--- Comment #8 from Jens Lody  ---
I just found this github repo from original developer:
https://github.com/pipelka/aeskulap ,
this pull-request from Debian:
https://github.com/pipelka/aeskulap/pull/1
and a bug-report from the former packager (until F21) of aeskulap in Fedora:
https://github.com/pipelka/aeskulap/issues/2

So even if there is no active development, there is a valid upstream and the
possibility to get my build- and bug fix merged into upstream.

There is still the option to fork the repo if it is easier to handle.

I wonder why I did not find any link to the github repo, just the outdated
homepage. It's mentioned in Debians upstream info on their developer
information site. Not the place I normally look at.

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

[Bug 1212909] New package request: clufter - Tool for transforming/analyzing cluster configuration formats

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212909

errata-xmlrpc  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-11-19 03:28:47



--- Comment #13 from errata-xmlrpc  ---
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-2245.html

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1281779] Review Request: perl-Filesys-Statvfs - Perl extension for statvfs() and fstatvfs()

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281779

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Filesys-Statvfs-0.82-1
   ||.fc24
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2015-11-19 03:36:42



--- Comment #5 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
Thank you for the review and the repository.

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

[Bug 1277499] Review Request: php-apigen-theme-default - Default Theme for Apigen

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277499
Bug 1277499 depends on bug 1277407, which changed state.

Bug 1277407 Summary: Review Request: php-latte - Latte: the amazing template 
engine for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277407

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1277478] Review Request: php-nette-deprecated - APIs and features removed from Nette Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277478
Bug 1277478 depends on bug 1277407, which changed state.

Bug 1277407 Summary: Review Request: php-latte - Latte: the amazing template 
engine for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277407

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1277484] Review Request: php-nette - Nette Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277484
Bug 1277484 depends on bug 1277379, which changed state.

Bug 1277379 Summary: Review Request: php-nette-tokenizer - Nette Tokenizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277379

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1277504] Review Request: apigen - PHP source code API generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277504
Bug 1277504 depends on bug 1277407, which changed state.

Bug 1277407 Summary: Review Request: php-latte - Latte: the amazing template 
engine for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277407

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1277377] Review Request: php-nette-utils - Nette Utility Classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277377

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1274512] Review Request: nodejs-string-prototype-trim - ES5 spec-compliant shim for String.prototype.trim

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274512
Bug 1274512 depends on bug 1274511, which changed state.

Bug 1274511 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-define-properties - Define multiple 
non-enumerable properties at once
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274511

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1244797] Review Request: libASL - Advanced Simulation Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244797

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-11-19 04:58:51



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

[Bug 1274511] Review Request: nodejs-define-properties - Define multiple non-enumerable properties at once

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274511

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-11-19 04:58:42



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

[Bug 1277407] Review Request: php-latte - Latte: the amazing template engine for PHP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277407

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-11-19 04:59:04



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

[Bug 1274511] Review Request: nodejs-define-properties - Define multiple non-enumerable properties at once

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274511



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-define-properties-1.1.2-1.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 1277484] Review Request: php-nette - Nette Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277484
Bug 1277484 depends on bug 1277407, which changed state.

Bug 1277407 Summary: Review Request: php-latte - Latte: the amazing template 
engine for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277407

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1244797] Review Request: libASL - Advanced Simulation Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244797



--- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System  ---
libASL-0.1.6-1.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 1277478] Review Request: php-nette-deprecated - APIs and features removed from Nette Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277478
Bug 1277478 depends on bug 1277441, which changed state.

Bug 1277441 Summary: Review Request: php-nette-safe-stream - Nette SafeStream: 
Atomic Operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277441

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1277465] Review Request: php-nette-forms - Nette Forms: greatly facilitates web forms

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277465
Bug 1277465 depends on bug 1277407, which changed state.

Bug 1277407 Summary: Review Request: php-latte - Latte: the amazing template 
engine for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277407

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1277377] Review Request: php-nette-utils - Nette Utility Classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277377



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-nette-utils-2.3.6-1.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 1277497] Review Request: php-apigen-theme-bootstrap - Twitter Bootstrap Theme for Apigen

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277497
Bug 1277497 depends on bug 1277407, which changed state.

Bug 1277407 Summary: Review Request: php-latte - Latte: the amazing template 
engine for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277407

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1277470] Review Request: php-nette-application - Nette Application MVC Component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277470
Bug 1277470 depends on bug 1277407, which changed state.

Bug 1277407 Summary: Review Request: php-latte - Latte: the amazing template 
engine for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277407

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1277476] Review Request: php-nette-bootstrap - Nette Bootstrap

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277476
Bug 1277476 depends on bug 1277407, which changed state.

Bug 1277407 Summary: Review Request: php-latte - Latte: the amazing template 
engine for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277407

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1277379] Review Request: php-nette-tokenizer - Nette Tokenizer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277379



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-nette-tokenizer-2.2.1-1.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 1277379] Review Request: php-nette-tokenizer - Nette Tokenizer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277379

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-11-19 04:59:21



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

[Bug 1173798] Review Request: relval - Tool for interacting with Fedora QA wiki pages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173798

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-11-19 04:59:45



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

[Bug 1230161] Review Request: jumanji - A highly customizable, minimalist WebKit web browser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230161



--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System  ---
jumanji-0-5.20111209git963b309.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 1272530] Review Request: python-mistralclient - python client for Mistral REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272530

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ape...@gmail.com,
   ||dpri...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Alan Pevec  ---
Dan imported initial draft spec to openstack-packages/python-mistralclient,
probably not aware of this review. I'll attach spec diff.

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

[Bug 1272530] Review Request: python-mistralclient - python client for Mistral REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272530



--- Comment #2 from Alan Pevec  ---
Created attachment 1096567
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1096567=edit
Diff from mos-outside/rpm-master to openstack-packages/python-mistralclient

Looks like spec in openstack-packages/python-mistralclient was modified from
some other client spec?

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

[Bug 1231460] Review Request: osmium-tool - Command line tool for working with OpenStreetMap data based on the Osmium library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231460
Bug 1231460 depends on bug 1260368, which changed state.

Bug 1260368 Summary: libosmium-2.4.1 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1260368

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1277376] Review Request: php-nette-neon - Nette NEON: parser and generator for Nette Object Notation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277376



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-nette-neon-2.3.3-1.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 1260375] Review Request: protozero - Minimalistic protocol buffer decoder and encoder in C++

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1260375



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
protozero-1.2.2-2.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 1173798] Review Request: relval - Tool for interacting with Fedora QA wiki pages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173798



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
relval-1.11.6-2.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 1203749] Review Request: dssp - Protein secondary structure assignment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203749

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-11-19 05:02:47



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

[Bug 1203749] Review Request: dssp - Protein secondary structure assignment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203749



--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System  ---
dssp-2.2.1-6.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 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154
Bug 505154 depends on bug 1203749, which changed state.

Bug 1203749 Summary: Review Request: dssp - Protein secondary structure 
assignment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203749

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1269649] Review Request: aeskulap - Full open source replacement for commercially available DICOM viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269649



--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande  ---
>So even if there is no active development, there is a valid upstream and the 
>>possibility to get my build- and bug fix merged into upstream.
>
>There is still the option to fork the repo if it is easier to handle.

Good point of start.

>Release: 0.21beta1%{?dist}

If yours is a 0.2.2 pre-release, you should change Release tag like

0.%{X}.%{alphatag}%{?dist}

Where %{X} is the release number increment, and %{alphatag} is the string that
came from the version. In this case, the period '.' is used as the delimiter
between the release number increment, and the non-numeric version string.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages

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

[Bug 1282087] Review Request: nodejs-pad - Left and right string padding

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282087



--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1282087-nodejs-
 pad/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
 Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 

[Bug 1282087] Review Request: nodejs-pad - Left and right string padding

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282087

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes  ---
All good. Package approved.

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

[Bug 1276114] Review Request: nodejs-generate-object-property - Generate safe JS code that can used to reference a object property

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276114



--- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Thank you

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

[Bug 1274996] Review Request: nodejs-isstream - Determine if an object is a Stream

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274996



--- Comment #8 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Thank you

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

[Bug 1274998] Review Request: nodejs-hock - A mocking server for HTTP requests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274998

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||994934



--- Comment #2 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
This one also depends on a newer version of nodejs-requests. I don't understand
how I ever got this built.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994934
[Bug 994934] nodejs-request-2.67.0 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1283218] Review Request: nodejs-should-promised - Some sort of promise assertion helpers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283218

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1283218
 -nodejs-should-promised/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: 

[Bug 1283218] Review Request: nodejs-should-promised - Some sort of promise assertion helpers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283218

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes  ---
Looks good. Package approved.

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

[Bug 1283150] Review Request: nodejs-require-directory - Recursively iterates over specified directory, require()'ing each file

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283150

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Thank you

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

[Bug 1283167] Review Request: nodejs-jsonpointer - Simple JSON Addressing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283167

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1283167
 -nodejs-jsonpointer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: 

[Bug 1283167] Review Request: nodejs-jsonpointer - Simple JSON Addressing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283167

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Thanks

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

[Bug 1282087] Review Request: nodejs-pad - Left and right string padding

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282087



--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith  ---
Sorry about that -- I've updated the spec and SRPM.

Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-pad/nodejs-pad.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-pad/nodejs-pad-1.0.0-2.fc24.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 1283167] Review Request: nodejs-jsonpointer - Simple JSON Addressing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283167

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes  ---
All looks good. Package approved.

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

[Bug 1283376] Review Request: nodejs-aws-sign2 - Node.js module for AWS signing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283376

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/nodejs-aws-
 sign2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working 

[Bug 1283376] Review Request: nodejs-aws-sign2 - Node.js module for AWS signing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283376

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes  ---
Looks good. Package approved.

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

[Bug 1283150] Review Request: nodejs-require-directory - Recursively iterates over specified directory, require()'ing each file

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283150

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes  ---
All good. Package approved.

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

[Bug 1283150] Review Request: nodejs-require-directory - Recursively iterates over specified directory, require()'ing each file

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283150

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 16 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1283150
 -nodejs-require-directory/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: 

[Bug 1274998] Review Request: nodejs-hock - A mocking server for HTTP requests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274998



--- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Thanks

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

[Bug 1274998] Review Request: nodejs-hock - A mocking server for HTTP requests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274998

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Jared Smith  ---
Package is approved.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have
 unknown license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA 

[Bug 1282087] Review Request: nodejs-pad - Left and right string padding

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282087

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---
This is missing a BR on npm(should) so doesn't build in mock.

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

[Bug 1223293] Review Request: ghc-xml-conduit - Utilities for dealing with XML with conduit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223293

Ricky Elrod  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Ricky Elrod  ---
APPROVED, but please update to the latest minor version when you import.



Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[X]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[X]: Package contains no static executables.
[X]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[X]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[X]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in 

[Bug 1282911] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Salsa20 - Encrypt data with the Salsa20 cipher

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282911



--- Comment #10 from Denis Fateyev  ---
- Added "%license" tag (according
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#The_.25license_tag since I
believe there is a doubled percent sign above);
- Added AUTOMATED_TESTING variable for more thorough testing plan;

Spec path: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora22/perl-Crypt-Salsa20.spec

Rawhide scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11910666

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156086



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
openmx-3.7.10-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update openmx'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-90554f27d9

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

[Bug 1268372] Review Request: openstack-app-catalog-ui - openstack horizon plugin for the openstack app-catalog

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268372



--- Comment #23 from Alan Pevec  ---
Imported and adjusted for delorean builds
https://github.com/openstack-packages/apps-catalog-ui

Also imported to gerrithub, for further .spec changes please send gerrit
reviews.
First test review: https://review.gerrithub.io/252737

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1282903] Review Request: golang-github-sallyom-Register - Golang binary for registering OCI containers with systemd-machined

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282903

Lokesh Mandvekar  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 1282903] Review Request: golang-github-sallyom-Register - Golang binary for registering OCI containers with systemd-machined

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282903

Lokesh Mandvekar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1274998] Review Request: nodejs-hock - A mocking server for HTTP requests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274998

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On|994934  |



--- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Ah, there is a circular dependency for the tests. We will need to add it with
tests disabled and enable them after I've updated request.

- added br
- added fixdep deep-equal
- disabled test

Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-hock.spec
SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-hock-1.2.0-2.fc23.src.rpm


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=994934
[Bug 994934] nodejs-request-2.67.0 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1283218] Review Request: nodejs-should-promised - Some sort of promise assertion helpers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283218

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Thank you!

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

[Bug 1282911] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Salsa20 - Encrypt data with the Salsa20 cipher

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282911



--- Comment #9 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
dfateyev's scratch build of perl-Crypt-Salsa20-0.03-2.fc20.denf.src.rpm for
dist-6E-epel completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11910647

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

[Bug 1282903] Review Request: golang-github-sallyom-Register - Golang binary for registering OCI containers with systemd-machined

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282903

Sally  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(somalley@redhat.c |
   |om) |



--- Comment #2 from Sally  ---
- added a LICENSE file to https://github.com/sallyom/Register
- updated spec here: https://github.com/sallyom/oci-register-stuff

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 1276901] Review Request: xoscope - Simple but powerful sound card oscilloscope

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276901



--- Comment #12 from PeteV  ---
Thanks Björn, much to learn.

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

[Bug 1234649] Review Request: testcloud - a small tool for running cloud images locally

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234649



--- Comment #10 from Tim Flink  ---
testcloud has been updated to a new version that doesn't subprocess
virt-install calls to do installation.

I'm not Mike but I am a co-maintainer of testcloud

https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/roshi/testCloud/build/140592/
https://tflink.fedorapeople.org/packages/testcloud/testcloud.spec

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

[Bug 1203749] Review Request: dssp - Protein secondary structure assignment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203749



--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System  ---
dssp-2.2.1-6.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1156086] Review Request: openmx - Open source package for Material eXplorer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156086



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
openmx-3.7.10-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update openmx'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-9835855cd4

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

[Bug 1154650] Review Request: python-oslotest - OpenStack test framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154650

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||python-oslotest-1.11.0-1.fc
   ||24
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2015-11-19 06:16:31



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

[Bug 1185275] Review Request: rome-utils - Utility classes for ROME projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185275

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1283622




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283622
[Bug 1283622] rome-1.5.1 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1269649] Review Request: aeskulap - Full open source replacement for commercially available DICOM viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269649



--- Comment #10 from Jens Lody  ---
If possible, I will update the src.rpm and spec-file this evening (UTC+1) and
upload it.
I will also add two pull requests to the aeskulap-repo on github, to see if my
dcmtk 3.6.1 patch and my bug-fix can be merged upstream.

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

[Bug 1279177] Review Request: game-data-packager - Installer for game data files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279177

Hans de Goede  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||hdego...@redhat.com
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2015-11-19 07:09:13



--- Comment #1 from Hans de Goede  ---
game-data-packager's sole purpose is to repackage non-free game resources into
distro packages. As such it has no place in Fedora itself. I suggest you file a
review-request for rpmfusion-nonfree for this.

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

[Bug 1185275] Review Request: rome-utils - Utility classes for ROME projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185275



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/rome-utils.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/rome-utils-1.5.1-1.fc23.src.rpm

- update to 1.5.1

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

[Bug 1282911] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Salsa20 - Encrypt data with the Salsa20 cipher

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282911



--- Comment #8 from Petr Šabata  ---
(In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #7)
> On the contrary, I'm planning to maintain it in EPEL too. Thanks for the
> detailed clarifications, anyway.
> 
> - Added perl(integer) to BR (thought that all concerned Perl versions had it
> so omitted it initially);

You never know what the future might bring.  And even if it's very unlikely,
just listing everything is more consistent and, in a way, easier.

> - Dropped META.json.

Ack.

> EL6 doesn't support %license tag so I didn't used it. The Group tag is also
> kept for more EPEL adaptivity.

Regarding the Group tag: Ack.

The %license macro is mandatory in Fedora, though.

I use the following `trick' in my packages.  There might be a better way but
this works fine:

%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
%license LICENSE
%doc Changes README

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

[Bug 1279175] Review Request: innoextract - Tool to extract installers created by Inno Setup

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279175

Hans de Goede  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hdego...@redhat.com
 QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |hdego...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Hans de Goede  ---
Hi,

As discussed by email I will review this and sponsor you as a Fedora packager
when the review is done.

This is not yet a full review, but the result of a quick scan, which shows
several issues:

1) Starting with the generic upstream spec file is fine but please drop:

1a) All the %if 0%{?suse_version} blocks (keeping the non suse code)

1b) The Group: and BuildRoot: lines we no longer use those

2) I do not think that keeping upstream's changelog in the spec file is is
useful, please drop it and replace it with one with a single entry with you as
author saying something like:

-Initial Fedora package based on upstream spec-file for 1.5-1

And make the release of the new version 2, so that your package version is
1.5-2, in Fedora we always bump the release field during reviews (and make
changelog entries for any improvements) so that reviewers can easily track
changes made during the review process.

3) rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/innoextract-1.5-1.fc23.src.rpm rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/*
results in :

innoextract.src: W: strange-permission innoextract-1.5.tar.gz 640
innoextract.src:54: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 18, tab: line
54)
innoextract.src: W: file-size-mismatch innoextract-1.5.tar.gz = 178011,
http://constexpr.org/innoextract/files/innoextract-1.5.tar.gz = 179582
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

The first message can be ignored, the second one needs to be fixed (please uses
spaces everywhere) the third one is weird, please double check your sources
match upstream.

Doing a diff on the 2 different tarbals unpacked says:

Only in innoextract-1.5.src.rpm: .mailmap
Only in innoextract-1.5.src.rpm: .travis.yml

So maybe upstream has respun the tarbal to remove these 2 unwanted files ?

Thanks & Regards,

Hans

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

[Bug 1279175] Review Request: innoextract - Tool to extract installers created by Inno Setup

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279175

Hans de Goede  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hdego...@redhat.com



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

[Bug 1277377] Review Request: php-nette-utils - Nette Utility Classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277377



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-nette-utils-2.3.6-1.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 1230161] Review Request: jumanji - A highly customizable, minimalist WebKit web browser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230161



--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System  ---
jumanji-0-5.20111209git963b309.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 1173798] Review Request: relval - Tool for interacting with Fedora QA wiki pages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173798



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
relval-1.11.6-2.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 1274511] Review Request: nodejs-define-properties - Define multiple non-enumerable properties at once

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274511



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-define-properties-1.1.2-1.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 1277376] Review Request: php-nette-neon - Nette NEON: parser and generator for Nette Object Notation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277376



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-nette-neon-2.3.3-1.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 1244797] Review Request: libASL - Advanced Simulation Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244797



--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System  ---
libASL-0.1.6-1.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 1277379] Review Request: php-nette-tokenizer - Nette Tokenizer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277379



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-nette-tokenizer-2.2.1-1.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 1277407] Review Request: php-latte - Latte: the amazing template engine for PHP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277407



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-latte-2.3.7-1.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 1260375] Review Request: protozero - Minimalistic protocol buffer decoder and encoder in C++

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1260375



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
protozero-1.2.2-2.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 1277441] Review Request: php-nette-safe-stream - Nette SafeStream: Atomic Operations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277441



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-nette-safe-stream-2.3.1-2.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 1203749] Review Request: dssp - Protein secondary structure assignment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203749



--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System  ---
dssp-2.2.1-6.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 1185275] Review Request: rome-utils - Utility classes for ROME projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185275



--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
gil's scratch build of rome-utils-1.5.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11906213

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

[Bug 1264713] Review Request: uchardet - An encoding detector library ported from Mozilla

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264713



--- Comment #15 from Jehan  ---
Hello!

I'm the new co-maintainer of uchardet. I have fixed a few things, and improved
the build (with tests, and such). And in particular I have made sure that all
the returned charsets are iconv-compatible (they already mostly were but 2),
which is probably one of the most interesting change for using software.

The last release is version 0.0.3:
https://github.com/BYVoid/uchardet/releases/tag/v0.0.3

Would it be possible to use this version for the package rather than the random
git commit from your spec?
More software are using it now (mpv for instance, but also gtksourceview is
going to add it as a dependency, hence gedit, etc.) and I would welcome having
a stable version in the repository.
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 1280422] Review Request: rpg - RPM Package Generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422



--- Comment #2 from Jan Silhan  ---
Fixed, these links should not contain different content type:

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rh-lab-q/rpg/4b321abe5942dd653f7269a6716f0134cfefdb3d/rpg.spec

SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nightly/rpg/fedora-22-x86_64/00129295-rpg/rpg-0.0.4-1.git.20.4b321ab.fc22.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1283327] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-pecanwsme - Extension to Sphinx for documenting APIs built with Pecan and WSME

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283327

Gauvain Pocentek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||gauvain.pocentek@objectif-l
   ||ibre.com



--- Comment #1 from Gauvain Pocentek  ---
Informal review:

The spec file looks good, build and installation worked fine.

Maybe one minor suggestion: add `-O 1` to the `python setup.py install`
command.

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

[Bug 1240122] Review Request: mysema-apt-maven-plugin - Maven APT plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1240122

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System  ---
mysema-apt-maven-plugin-1.1.3-1.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 mysema-apt-maven-plugin'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-9e34b0eaf6

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

[Bug 1276901] Review Request: xoscope - Simple but powerful sound card oscilloscope

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276901



--- Comment #13 from PeteV  ---
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #11)
> Spec URL:
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PeteV/RPM-Repo/master/xoscope.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/petev/xoscope/fedora-rawhide-
> x86_64/00131632-xoscope/xoscope-2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
> * * *
> 
> srpm-url corrected

thanks again Björn, I made some changes to the spec file and rebuild on copr
if you could do a quick check that will be great :)

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

[Bug 1274996] Review Request: nodejs-isstream - Determine if an object is a Stream

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274996

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Jared Smith  ---
Package is approved.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have
 unknown license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA 

[Bug 1274996] Review Request: nodejs-isstream - Determine if an object is a Stream

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274996

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED
  Flags|fedora-review+  |fedora-review?



--- Comment #6 from Jared Smith  ---
Oops, too many windows open -- the approval was for a different package. 
Sorry... I'll get back to this one shortly.

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

[Bug 1276114] Review Request: nodejs-generate-object-property - Generate safe JS code that can used to reference a object property

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276114

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith  ---
Package is approved.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have
 unknown license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA