[Bug 1276926] Review Request: nipy-data - Test data and brain templates for nipy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276926 --- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko --- btw /usr/share/nipy is used for nipy group packages like nibabel, nipype, nilearn. So it's totally correct. But many thanks for review and clarification. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1276926] Review Request: nipy-data - Test data and brain templates for nipy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276926
--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko ---
hm, weird. I installed nipy-data and:
[brain@x1carbon nipy-0.4.0]$ python -c 'import nipy.utils;
print(nipy.utils.templates.version)'
nipy/__init__.py:25: UserWarning: Running the tests from the install directory
may trigger some failures
warnings.warn('Running the tests from the install directory may '
0.2
[brain@x1carbon nipy-0.4.0]$ python -c 'import nipy.utils;
print(nipy.utils.example_data.version)'
nipy/__init__.py:25: UserWarning: Running the tests from the install directory
may trigger some failures
warnings.warn('Running the tests from the install directory may '
0.2
so paths is correct.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1276926] Review Request: nipy-data - Test data and brain templates for nipy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276926
--- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko ---
$ python -c 'import nipy.utils; print(nipy.utils.example_data.msg)'
nipy/__init__.py:25: UserWarning: Running the tests from the install directory
may trigger some failures
warnings.warn('Running the tests from the install directory may '
Could not find datasource "nipy/data" in data path
"/usr/share/nipy:/usr/local/share/nipy:/home/brain/.nipy"; Is it possible you
have not installed a data package?
You may need the package "nipy-data"
You can download and install the package from:
http://nipy.org/data-packages/nipy-data-0.2.tar.gz
Check the instructions in the ``doc/users/install_data.rst`` file in the nipy
source tree, or online at http://nipy.org/nipy/stable/users/install_data.html
If you have the package, have you set the path to the package correctly?
[brain@x1carbon nipy-0.4.0]$ python -c 'import nipy.utils;
print(nipy.utils.templates.msg)'
nipy/__init__.py:25: UserWarning: Running the tests from the install directory
may trigger some failures
warnings.warn('Running the tests from the install directory may '
Could not find datasource "nipy/templates" in data path
"/usr/share/nipy:/usr/local/share/nipy:/home/brain/.nipy"; Is it possible you
have not installed a data package?
You may need the package "nipy-templates"
You can download and install the package from:
http://nipy.org/data-packages/nipy-templates-0.2.tar.gz
Check the instructions in the ``doc/users/install_data.rst`` file in the nipy
source tree, or online at http://nipy.org/nipy/stable/users/install_data.html
If you have the package, have you set the path to the package correctly?
so it should be in /usr/share/nipy/nipy/data. I will fix in importing, but
anyway it's double nipy
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285074] Review Request: nodejs-ansi-font - ANSI font styling utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285074 --- 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 1284527] Review Request: opal-prd - OPAL Processor Recovery Diagnostics daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284527
--- Comment #18 from Vasant Hegde ---
Dan,
Thanks for the review.
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #16)
> - distro-wide CFLAGS are not honoured in the build -
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
Added "%{?_smp_mflags}"
> - make the build of opal-prd verbose so the full command lines are visible
> (add V=1)
Fixed.
> - you should drop the "$RPM_BUILD_DIR/skiboot-skiboot-%version/" string from
> the make commands, it's the default dir for rpm builds (see build.log)
Fixed.
> - I think you don't need kernel-devel and playing with the KERNEL_DIR at
> all, the asm/opal-prd.h file is part of the kernel-headers package which is
> installed together with glibc-headers as it is a public API
> (http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/fileinfo?rpmID=2562590&filename=/usr/
> include/asm/opal-prd.h)
You are right. I will fix this. Also I've removed `kernel` from "Requires" tag
as its installed by default.
-Vasant
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1279650] Review Request: perl-Text-Brew - Implementation of the Brew edit distance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279650 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed|2015-11-10 11:22:19 |2015-11-25 01:58:04 -- 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 1283907] Review Request: python-humblewx - Library that simplifies creating user interfaces with wxPython
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283907 --- Comment #19 from Rickard Lindberg --- Ok, so I'm thinking the submission to f22 and f23 was maybe not right. I've read the update policy but find it a bit difficult to interpret. The reason for creating this package was so that the timeline package (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/timeline) could be updated to the latest version. Where do you think the latest timeline package should go? Only rawhide? f23 as well? Even longer back? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1249543] Review Request: eclipse-paho-mqtt-java - MQTT client library written in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249543 --- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- gil's scratch build of eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-1.0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11975159 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1249543] Review Request: eclipse-paho-mqtt-java - MQTT client library written in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249543 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-paho-mqtt-java.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-1.0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1276871] Review Request: python-nibabel - Python package to access a cacophony of neuro-imaging file formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276871 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1276938 (python-nipy) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276938 [Bug 1276938] Review Request: python-nipy - Neuroimaging in Python FMRI analysis package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1276938] Review Request: python-nipy - Neuroimaging in Python FMRI analysis package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276938 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1276871 (python-nibabel) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276871 [Bug 1276871] Review Request: python-nibabel - Python package to access a cacophony of neuro-imaging file formats -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1276910] Review Request: python-transforms3d - 3 dimensional spatial transformations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276910
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 66
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/var/tmp/1276910-python-transforms3d/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.5
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
packages, /usr/lib/python3.5
[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 20480 bytes in 4 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 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python2-transforms3d , python3-transforms3d
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
[Bug 1276910] Review Request: python-transforms3d - 3 dimensional spatial transformations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276910 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl 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 1269539] Review Request: mozjs38 - JavaScript interpreter and libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269539 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- mozjs38-38.2.1-3.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 mozjs38' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-e400efbf68 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1270385] Review Request: nodejs-unpipe - Unpipe a stream from all destinations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270385 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-unpipe-1.0.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-unpipe' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-7498553c00 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1271802] Review Request: nodejs-boolbase - Two functions: One that returns true, one that returns false
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271802 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-boolbase-1.0.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-boolbase' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-ecad1e6665 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1282914] Review Request: perl-Lingua-Translit - Transliterates text between writing systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282914 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Lingua-Translit-0.23-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update perl-Lingua-Translit' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-538f171889 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1234654] Package Review: python-gammu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234654 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- python-gammu-2.4-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-gammu' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-a143ab71df -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223293 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-hakyll-4.5.4.0-5.fc23, ghc-xml-conduit-1.3.2-1.fc23, pandoc-citeproc-0.7.4-1.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 ghc-hakyll pandoc-citeproc ghc-xml-conduit' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-f74c858168 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266804] Review Request: springframework-integration - Extends the Spring Enterprise Integration Patterns Support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266804 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- springframework-integration-3.0.7-1.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 springframework-integration' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4358760719 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284155] Review Request: python-rpdb - A wrapper around pdb allowing remote debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284155 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-rpdb-0.1.5-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-3ca4981c11 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284155] Review Request: python-rpdb - A wrapper around pdb allowing remote debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284155 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-rpdb-0.1.5-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-9a75e55d17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284155] Review Request: python-rpdb - A wrapper around pdb allowing remote debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284155 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284155] Review Request: python-rpdb - A wrapper around pdb allowing remote debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284155 Randy Barlow changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|jp...@redhat.com|rbar...@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 1276938] Review Request: python-nipy - Neuroimaging in Python FMRI analysis package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276938 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl 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 1276926] Review Request: nipy-data - Test data and brain templates for nipy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276926
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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.
Upstream specifies BSD.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1276926-nipy-data/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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.
You probably should do that.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nipy-data-0.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
nipy-data-0.2-1.fc24.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires
nipy-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
nipy-data:
nipy-data
Issues:
- data files are installed as /usr/share/nipy/nipy/nipy-data. Is the double
"nipy" intended?
Package is APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284989] Review Request: Mumble - voip client and server (unretire)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284989 --- Comment #10 from John --- about the openssl change: I did a diff of the ciphers and found all to be included on F23 for the default security level. see https://gist.github.com/fedpop/9c890cdd5a17332354fc I am feeling ok about this change. I will message the security mailing list and see what they think. About removing Celt: Celt is kind of a pain point because mumble forked celt because it was unstable format and in development at the time they integrated it. Celt 0.7.1 is the fallback for all Mumble clients so if people are still running old stuff then it will be bad. I would prefer to use the mumble celt so no problems can occur but due to bundling rules it's currently using the system celt071. I'm not sure the statistics on the ecosystem. I would be ok with Opus only if we could figure that out. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1279191] Review Request: python-pyrfc3339 - pyRFC3339 parses and generates RFC 3339-compliant timestamps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279191 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-pyrfc3339-1.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-61f17ca6c0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1279191] Review Request: python-pyrfc3339 - pyRFC3339 parses and generates RFC 3339-compliant timestamps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279191 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1279191] Review Request: python-pyrfc3339 - pyRFC3339 parses and generates RFC 3339-compliant timestamps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279191 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-pyrfc3339-1.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14c9c2e8a6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1276871] Review Request: python-nibabel - Python package to access a cacophony of neuro-imaging file formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276871 --- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Please also add a comment about the license in the .spec file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1282903] Review Request: golang-github-sallyom-Register - Golang binary for registering OCI containers with systemd-machined
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282903
--- Comment #7 from Nalin Dahyabhai ---
I can sponsor. Package is in pretty good shape.
General notes:
Line 127 of the .spec file's mention of "devel.file-list" should probably be
changed to "unit-test-devel.file-list".
I needed to change the definition of "with_unit_test" on line 6 from 1 to 0 to
get the build to succeed in mock because the package doesn't contain tests.
The Summary: for the devel subpackage could use tweaking, since the subpackage
doesn't include the binary.
Does the devel subpackage benefit from including the non-license docs?
The package %description could be expanded into something longer than the
package summary, since the description can be multiple lines.
The empty %if/%endif at line 59 can probably just be removed.
Results from fedora-review:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- If you haven't yet, please check with Dan if GPLv2+ is the right license
for this. Most of the OpenContainers work carries the ASL 2.0 license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
- Except for debuginfo, of course.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/libexec/docker/hooks.d
- I expect you'll need to "Requires: runc" if it ends up providing the
/usr/libexec/docker/hooks.d directory, or the docker package, unless
this is going to be the only thing we package that lives in that
directory, in which case this package should also include the
directory in its %files list (as "%dir %{_libexecdir}/docker/hooks.d").
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src,
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com, /usr/libexec/docker,
/usr/share/gocode, /usr/libexec/docker/hooks.d
- These should be owned by other packages.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
- Don't forget to correct the release part of the comment once it's
imported.
[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).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The main package, which provides a binary, might need to be renamed to
oci-register-machine-hook to conform to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go if the fact that it's
buried under /usr/libexec doesn't exempt it from the guidelines'
recommendation.
[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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
- Change "source codes" to "source code".
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}. (Also listed as
its own requirement below.)
- Guidelines recommend installing man pages in uncompressed form and
listing them in the %files section with a "*" on the end to pick them
up after rpm-build has applied whatever form of compression is
preferred.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[ ]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
- The man page unnecessarily has the executable bit set on it.
- The package description needs to be line-wrapped.
[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 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 Packa
[Bug 1276871] Review Request: python-nibabel - Python package to access a cacophony of neuro-imaging file formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276871 --- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko --- About license. I think I need to include PDDL to license lists because some data licensed under this license. http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/summary/ It's like Public Domain but for data. I will fix env stuff during import. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1276871] Review Request: python-nibabel - Python package to access a cacophony of neuro-imaging file formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276871
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
"Unknown or generated". 354 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1276871-python-
nibabel/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
Please add a comment about the breakdown.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.5
OK.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
packages, /usr/lib/python3.5
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
/usr/bin/env unnecessary.
[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.
[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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= 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.
[?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
See below.
[ -: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python2-nibabel , python3-nibabel
[x]: Pac
[Bug 1208695] Review Request: liberasurecode - Erasure Code API library written in C with pluggable backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208695 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |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 1208695] Review Request: liberasurecode - Erasure Code API library written in C with pluggable backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208695 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- liberasurecode-1.0.9-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1273712] Review Request: google-noto-cjk-fonts - Google Noto Sans CJK Fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273712 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- google-noto-cjk-fonts-1.004-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1276871] Review Request: python-nibabel - Python package to access a cacophony of neuro-imaging file formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276871 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl 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 1285112] New: Review Request: DiffusionKurtosisFit - Code to reconstruct the Diffusion Kurtosis Tensor from Diffusion Weighted MRI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285112 Bug ID: 1285112 Summary: Review Request: DiffusionKurtosisFit - Code to reconstruct the Diffusion Kurtosis Tensor from Diffusion Weighted MRI Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/neurofedora/DiffusionKurtosisFit.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/neurofedora/DiffusionKurtosisFit-0.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Code to reconstruct the Diffusion Kurtosis Tensor from Diffusion Weighted MRI. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285112] Review Request: DiffusionKurtosisFit - Code to reconstruct the Diffusion Kurtosis Tensor from Diffusion Weighted MRI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285112 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro) Alias||DiffusionKurtosisFit Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1234649] Review Request: testcloud - a small tool for running cloud images locally
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234649 --- Comment #12 from Adam Miller --- If you still need a Fedora Packager Sponsor, I would be happy to sponsor 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 1234649] Review Request: testcloud - a small tool for running cloud images locally
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234649
--- Comment #11 from Adam Miller ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/admiller/reviews/testcloud/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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %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 download
[Bug 1234649] Review Request: testcloud - a small tool for running cloud images locally
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234649 Adam Miller changed: What|Removed |Added CC||admil...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|admil...@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 1285067] Review Request: python-pyxid - Python library for interfacing with Cedrus XID and StimTracker devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285067
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora_requires_release_not |fedora-review+
|e? |
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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 /var/tmp/1285067-python-
pyxid/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.5
(OK, not needed.)
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
packages, /usr/lib/python3.5
[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 20480 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 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python2-pyxid , python3-pyxid
[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 t
[Bug 1285067] Review Request: python-pyxid - Python library for interfacing with Cedrus XID and StimTracker devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285067 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl Flags||fedora_requires_release_not ||e? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284989] Review Request: Mumble - voip client and server (unretire)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284989 Clinton Minton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clintonmin...@gmail.com --- Comment #9 from Clinton Minton --- Could the celt codec be removed as well since it was merged into Opus and is no longer being updated? If so we'd need to make a change in the default server config to make opusthreshold=0 a default. And a note that clients with version <= 1.2.3 will not be able to chat. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285074] Review Request: nodejs-ansi-font - ANSI font styling utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285074 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 1285074] Review Request: nodejs-ansi-font - ANSI font styling utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285074
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". 4 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1285074
-nodejs-ansi-font/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
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: 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 shou
[Bug 1232816] Review Request: nodejs-spdx - SPDX License Expression Syntax parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232816 --- Comment #7 from Piotr Popieluch --- Some issues: There is a missing dependency: spdx-exceptions Version is missing in changelog Check section incorrect, should be: defence README.md | replace-require-self | node New versions license is MIT, not Apache You can leave out the "Requires: npm(spdx-license-ids)" this is handled automatically -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1283907] Review Request: python-humblewx - Library that simplifies creating user interfaces with wxPython
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283907 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- python-humblewx-0.2.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-d89c0c30ae -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284989] Review Request: Mumble - voip client and server (unretire)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284989 --- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner --- IMHO #11 from comment #6 is MUST as fedora-review tool enforces %license. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1283907] Review Request: python-humblewx - Library that simplifies creating user interfaces with wxPython
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283907 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- python-humblewx-0.2.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-d51e2a92ee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1283907] Review Request: python-humblewx - Library that simplifies creating user interfaces with wxPython
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283907 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284989] Review Request: Mumble - voip client and server (unretire)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284989 --- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter --- The wiki about Crypto, also recommended sending queries to: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/security -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284989] Review Request: Mumble - voip client and server (unretire)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284989
--- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter ---
8. Remember to always bump Release: tag, and add appropriate %changelog
entries, even for review modifications
9. since you addressed removing the -protocol subpkg, may be worth adding an
upgrade path for folks you may have that -subpkg installed:
Obsoletes: mumble-protocol < 1.2.10-2
10. Since mumble is being built without ice support at the moment, you can drop
this from the .spec:
# Due to missing ice on ppc64
ExcludeArch: ppc64
11. SHOULD use %license tag for license files, ie replace instances of:
%doc LICENSE
with
%license LICENSE
12. SHOULD address rpmlint interesting warning:
mumble.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/mumble
SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
per looking at the non-trivial code in src/SSL.cpp and recommendations on:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies
It would appear that patching src/SSL.cpp would do it, something like changing:
QString MumbleSSL::defaultOpenSSLCipherString() {
return QLatin1String("EECDH+AESGCM:AES256-SHA:AES128-SHA");
}
to
QString MumbleSSL::defaultOpenSSLCipherString() {
return QLatin1String("PROFILE=SYSTEM");
}
Though I'm definitely not sure about this, may be worth consulting with your
upstream on this one, to see if they think this is appropriate (or not).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285074] Review Request: nodejs-ansi-font - ANSI font styling utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285074 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1285077 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285077 [Bug 1285077] Review Request: nodejs-test - (Un)CommonJS test runner -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285077] Review Request: nodejs-test - (Un)CommonJS test runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285077 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) Depends On||1285074 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285074 [Bug 1285074] Review Request: nodejs-ansi-font - ANSI font styling utils -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284638] Review Request: bugyou - An Automatic Bug Reporting Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284638 Adam Miller changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Adam Miller --- 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 1285077] New: Review Request: nodejs-test - (Un)CommonJS test runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285077 Bug ID: 1285077 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-test - (Un)CommonJS test runner Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: piotr1...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-test.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-test-0.6.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: (Un)CommonJS test runner Fedora Account System Username: piotrp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285049] Review Request: nodejs-JSONSelect - CSS-like selectors for JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285049 --- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes --- So per packaging rules the name should be lower case. Yes I know that there is also a jsonselect module in the NPM registry, but according to the guidelines if we wanted to package them both that would be a name conflict (it explicitly mentions case). Also rpmlint is warning about a mismatch with the license file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285049] Review Request: nodejs-JSONSelect - CSS-like selectors for JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285049
--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/tom/1285049-nodejs-
JSONSelect/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
= 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". 118 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1285049
-nodejs-JSONSelect/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 20480 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]: 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
[-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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).
[?]: 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 items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on a
[Bug 1285074] New: Review Request: nodejs-ansi-font - ANSI font styling utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285074 Bug ID: 1285074 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-ansi-font - ANSI font styling utils Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: piotr1...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-ansi-font.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-ansi-font-0.0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: ANSI font styling utils Fedora Account System Username: piotrp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285074] Review Request: nodejs-ansi-font - ANSI font styling utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285074 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285056] Review Request: nodejs-jju - A set of utilities to work with JSON / JSON5 documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285056 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Jared Smith --- The tests don't actually work without a newer version of nodejs-js-yaml. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284638] Review Request: bugyou - An Automatic Bug Reporting Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284638 --- Comment #4 from Sayan Chowdhury --- SPEC file: https://sayanchowdhury.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/bugyou.spec SRPM file: https://sayanchowdhury.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/bugyou-0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1283190] Review Request: nodejs-is-my-json-valid - A JSONSchema validator that uses code generation to be extremely fast
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283190 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-is-my-json-valid -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #34 from James Hunt --- procenv 0.43 has now been released. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11971335 Files: https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/SHA512SUM https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/procenv-0.43-1.fc23.src.rpm https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/procenv-0.43.tar.gz https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/procenv.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 1284942] Review Request: nodejs-lex-parser - A parser for lexical grammars used by jison
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284942 --- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch --- Thanks! Update: Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-lex-parser.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-lex-parser-0.1.4-1.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285049] Review Request: nodejs-JSONSelect - CSS-like selectors for JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285049 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #33 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jamesodhunt's scratch build of procenv-0.43-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11971335 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282903 --- Comment #6 from Sally --- - updated spec, src.rpm here: https://github.com/sallyom/oci-register-stuff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284942] Review Request: nodejs-lex-parser - A parser for lexical grammars used by jison
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284942
--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes ---
Review is based on Piotr's version. Issue:
* Should use %{__nodejs} to run node in %build and %check
* Needs BR on npm(test) to run tests [not yet packaged]
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284942] Review Request: nodejs-lex-parser - A parser for lexical grammars used by jison
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284942
--- 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1284942
-nodejs-lex-parser/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.
[!]: 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
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: 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 items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-lex-parser-0.1.4-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
[Bug 1283907] Review Request: python-humblewx - Library that simplifies creating user interfaces with wxPython
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283907 --- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-humblewx -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285049] Review Request: nodejs-JSONSelect - CSS-like selectors for JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285049 --- Comment #2 from Jared Smith --- Yeah, sorry -- I pasted the wrong links. Try these, please: Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-JSONSelect/nodejs-JSONSelect.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-JSONSelect/nodejs-JSONSelect-0.4.0-4.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 1283190] Review Request: nodejs-is-my-json-valid - A JSONSchema validator that uses code generation to be extremely fast
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283190 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes --- Looks fine now. 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 1284942] Review Request: nodejs-lex-parser - A parser for lexical grammars used by jison
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284942 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu 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 1283190] Review Request: nodejs-is-my-json-valid - A JSONSchema validator that uses code generation to be extremely fast
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283190 --- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch --- Thank you, updated Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-is-my-json-valid.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-is-my-json-valid-2.12.3-1.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1193210] Review Request: sxc - Simple XML Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193210 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1193210] Review Request: sxc - Simple XML Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193210 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- sxc-0.8-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-555d019d06 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285067] Review Request: python-pyxid - Python library for interfacing with Cedrus XID and StimTracker devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285067 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro) Alias||python-pyxid Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285067] New: Review Request: python-pyxid - Python library for interfacing with Cedrus XID and StimTracker devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285067 Bug ID: 1285067 Summary: Review Request: python-pyxid - Python library for interfacing with Cedrus XID and StimTracker devices Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/neurofedora/python-pyxid.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/neurofedora/python-pyxid-1.1-0.1.gitc84afe9.fc24.src.rpm Description: Python library for interfacing with Cedrus XID and StimTracker devices. XID (eXperiment Interface Device) devices are used in software such as SuperLab, Presentation, and ePrime for receiving input as part of stimulus/response testing experiments. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284942] Review Request: nodejs-lex-parser - A parser for lexical grammars used by jison
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284942 --- Comment #2 from Piotr Popieluch --- I've added bootstrapping and building from source for second pass: Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-lex-parser.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-lex-parser-0.1.4-1.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1283190] Review Request: nodejs-is-my-json-valid - A JSONSchema validator that uses code generation to be extremely fast
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283190 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes --- Needs updating to 2.12.3 but other than that it looks good. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1283190] Review Request: nodejs-is-my-json-valid - A JSONSchema validator that uses code generation to be extremely fast
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283190
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
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". 43 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1283190
-nodejs-is-my-json-valid/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.
[!]: 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 suppo
[Bug 1284565] Review Request: nodejs-nan1 - Native Abstractions for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284565 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-11-24 14:06:01 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285056] Review Request: nodejs-jju - A set of utilities to work with JSON / JSON5 documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285056 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t...@compton.nu --- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes --- The tests are completely missing. I know they're disabled, but there is a %check that purports to run them and it can't because they don't exist. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285049] Review Request: nodejs-JSONSelect - CSS-like selectors for JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285049 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t...@compton.nu --- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes --- This has a BR on npm(test) which isn't packaged. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285051] Review Request: nodejs-cjson - Commented JavaScript Object Notation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285051 Zuzana Svetlikova changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1285057 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285057 [Bug 1285057] Review Request: nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror - A drop-in replacement for JSON.parse that uses `jju` to give helpful errors -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285057] Review Request: nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror - A drop-in replacement for JSON.parse that uses `jju` to give helpful errors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285057 Zuzana Svetlikova changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews), ||1285051 Depends On||1285056 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285051 [Bug 1285051] Review Request: nodejs-cjson - Commented JavaScript Object Notation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285056 [Bug 1285056] Review Request: nodejs-jju - A set of utilities to work with JSON / JSON5 documents -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285056] Review Request: nodejs-jju - A set of utilities to work with JSON / JSON5 documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285056 Zuzana Svetlikova changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1285057 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285057 [Bug 1285057] Review Request: nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror - A drop-in replacement for JSON.parse that uses `jju` to give helpful errors -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285057] New: Review Request: nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror - A drop-in replacement for JSON.parse that uses `jju` to give helpful errors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285057 Bug ID: 1285057 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror - A drop-in replacement for JSON.parse that uses `jju` to give helpful errors Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: zsvet...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs/nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror/nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs/nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror/nodejs-json-parse-helpfulerror-1.0.3-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: A drop-in replacement for JSON.parse that uses `jju` to give helpful errors Fedora Account System Username: zvetlik -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285056] Review Request: nodejs-jju - A set of utilities to work with JSON / JSON5 documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285056 Zuzana Svetlikova changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285056] New: Review Request: nodejs-jju - A set of utilities to work with JSON / JSON5 documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285056 Bug ID: 1285056 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-jju - A set of utilities to work with JSON / JSON5 documents Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: zsvet...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs/nodejs-jju/nodejs-jju.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs/nodejs-jju/nodejs-jju-1.2.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: A set of utilities to work with JSON / JSON5 documents Fedora Account System Username: zvetlik -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285051] New: Review Request: nodejs-cjson - Commented JavaScript Object Notation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285051 Bug ID: 1285051 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-cjson - Commented JavaScript Object Notation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-cjson/nodejs-cjson.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-cjson/nodejs-cjson-0.3.2-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Commented JavaScript Object Notation Fedora Account System Username: jsmith -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285051] Review Request: nodejs-cjson - Commented JavaScript Object Notation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285051 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284989] Review Request: Mumble - voip client and server (unretire)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284989 --- Comment #5 from John --- Ok thanks Rex Dieter, I addressed all of your suggestions I hope. 1. done 2. added. old versions did not support parallel make. 3. done 4. done 5. done 6. deleted 7. Made a note about celt071, deleted others. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1245791] Review Request: python-influxdb - Python client for interacting with InfluxDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245791 hgue...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Comment #8 is|1 |0 private|| CC||hgue...@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 1285035] Review Request: nodejs-gdal - Node.js bindings to GDAL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285035 --- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- tomh's scratch build of nodejs-gdal-0.8.0-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11970720 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285049] Review Request: nodejs-JSONSelect - CSS-like selectors for JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285049 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
