[Bug 1281876] Review Request: enki - Extensible text editor for programmers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281876



--- Comment #32 from Yajo  ---
Could you remove the alias for this bug please? I cannot search for Enki bugs.

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

[Bug 1292412] Review Request: nodejs-es6-symbol - ECMAScript 6 Symbol polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292412

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Should issues:
update to latest version
add CHANGES to %doc

APPROVED because this are "should" issues.



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". 20 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1292412-nodejs-es6-symbol/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in 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
 

[Bug 1292413] Review Request: nodejs-es6-iterator - Iterator abstraction based on ES6 specification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292413

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com



--- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
no problem, just building the other packages now to check if all deps work 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 1292424] Review Request: nodejs-d - Property descriptor factory

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292424

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.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 1292416] Review Request: nodejs-es5-ext - ECMAScript 5 extensions and ES6 shims

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292416

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.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 1292413] Review Request: nodejs-es6-iterator - Iterator abstraction based on ES6 specification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292413

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
APPROVED,

suggestions:
- Add CHANGED to %doc
- move require("./") check out of conditional


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". 22 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1292413-nodejs-es6-iterator/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1292416] Review Request: nodejs-es5-ext - ECMAScript 5 extensions and ES6 shims

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292416

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
minor issue:
- incorrect release in changelog
- update to 0.10.10
- add CHANGES to %doc


approving but please fix before pushing.



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". 747 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1292416-nodejs-es5-ext/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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.
[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 51200 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in 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]: 

[Bug 1281876] Review Request: enki - Extensible text editor for programmers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281876

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias|enki|



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

[Bug 1287120] Review Request: python-ryu - component-based Software-defined Networking Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287120



--- Comment #16 from Arie Bregman  ---
Updated:

Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/abregman/bregman-rpms/downloads/python-ryu.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bitbucket.org/abregman/bregman-rpms/downloads/python-ryu-3.26-1.el7.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 1289860] Review Request: emacs-php-mode - Major GNU Emacs mode for editing PHP code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289860

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |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 1289860] Review Request: emacs-php-mode - Major GNU Emacs mode for editing PHP code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289860



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
emacs-php-mode-1.17.0-5.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-277be10034

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

[Bug 1284400] Review Request: koji-containerbuild - Koji support for building layered container images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284400

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
koji-containerbuild-0.5.5-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update koji-containerbuild'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-62912880b1

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

[Bug 1289860] Review Request: emacs-php-mode - Major GNU Emacs mode for editing PHP code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289860



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
emacs-php-mode-1.17.0-5.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c31748ae5d

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

[Bug 1292412] Review Request: nodejs-es6-symbol - ECMAScript 6 Symbol polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292412

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.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 1286772] Review Request: python-magnumclient - Client library for Magnum API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286772



--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
chandankumar's scratch build of python-magnumclient-1.1.0-2.fc23.src.rpm for
rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12233545

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

[Bug 1286772] Review Request: python-magnumclient - Client library for Magnum API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286772



--- Comment #4 from Chandan Kumar  ---
Hello Mathieu,

(In reply to Mathieu Velten from comment #3)
> Perhaps define magnumclient as a variable and use it whenever possible, so
> this can be used as a template with less replace to do when creating a new
> openstack client spec file.

Thanks for the review, here is the updated
SPEC file: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-magnumclient.spec
SRPM:
https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-magnumclient-1.1.0-2.fc23.src.rpm

Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12233545

Thanks,

Chandan Kumar

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

[Bug 1292424] Review Request: nodejs-d - Property descriptor factory

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292424

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Should be updated to latest version. Otherwise is all ok, approving as latest
version is a "should" item.


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". 12 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1292424-nodejs-d/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in 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]: 

[Bug 1286772] Review Request: python-magnumclient - Client library for Magnum API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286772

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #6 from Javier Peña  ---
Hello Chandar,

I have found a few issues in the current spec:

- the -tests subpackage (python-magnumclient-tests) needs to depend on the same
version-release of the main subpackage (python-magnumclient =
%{version}-%{release}).

- Binary /usr/bin/magnum is present on both the python2 and python3
subpackages, and in the python2 subpackage it requires python3 to be present.
This is not correct according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin .
You may want to follow the same concept as
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-reno.git/tree/python-reno.spec to fix
this (although it is a bit convoluted, right now I don't know of a better way
to do it).

- Removing the egg-info in %prep should not be done
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Providing_Egg_Metadata_Using_Setuptools).

rpmlint complains about the magnum binary not having a man page. I'm not sure
if it can be generated using sphinx, do you know?

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

[Bug 1292272] Review Request: nodm - A display manager automatically starting an X session

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292272

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST



--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner  ---
Asked in PkgDB for unretirement and new branches.

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

[Bug 1292794] New: Review Request: openstack-magnum - Container Management project for OpenStack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292794

Bug ID: 1292794
   Summary: Review Request: openstack-magnum - Container
Management project for OpenStack
   Product: Fedora
   Version: 23
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: matm...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Description : Magnum is an OpenStack project which offers container
orchestration engines for deploying and managing containers as first class
resources in OpenStack.

spec :
https://github.com/MatMaul/openstack-magnum-spec

SRPMS :
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7T_OjstTokiXy1CSlNxRll6QTA=sharing

the centos7 SRPM is build with the mitaka-on-liberty branch, and the RDO
Liberty repo as a dependency.
the f23 SRPM is build with master and is currently missing some dependencies in
the official f23 repo (python-os-testr and python-oslo-service).

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

[Bug 1292280] Review Request: nodejs-imurmurhash - An incremental implementation of MurmurHash3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292280



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-imurmurhash-0.1.4-1.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 nodejs-imurmurhash'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2860e79848

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

[Bug 1290924] Review Request: grive2 - Google Drive client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290924



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
grive2-0.4.2-0.1.20151208gitcc13b8b.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 grive2'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-aa77fce813

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

[Bug 1292291] Review Request: nodejs-unc-path-regex - Regular expression to test if a file path is a windows UNC path

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292291



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-unc-path-regex-0.1.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-unc-path-regex'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-f1d93b575c

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

[Bug 1284400] Review Request: koji-containerbuild - Koji support for building layered container images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284400



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
koji-containerbuild-0.5.5-1.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 koji-containerbuild'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-5b67cbb3ff

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

[Bug 1292232] Review Request: nodejs-delegates - Delegate methods and accessors to another property

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292232



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-delegates-1.0.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-delegates'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-cdaac304b9

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

[Bug 1292295] Review Request: nodejs-is-windows - Returns true if the platform is windows

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292295



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-is-windows

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

[Bug 1292233] Review Request: nodejs-are-we-there-yet - Keep track of the overall completion of many disparate processes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292233

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||piotr1...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Missing BR: npm(readable-stream)

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

[Bug 1292794] Review Request: openstack-magnum - Container Management project for OpenStack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292794

Chandan Kumar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||chku...@redhat.com
  Component|Package Review  |Package Review
Version|23  |Juno
Product|Fedora  |RDO



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

[Bug 1290924] Review Request: grive2 - Google Drive client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290924

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
grive2-0.4.2-0.1.20151208gitcc13b8b.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update grive2'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6a6d26d832

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

[Bug 1284400] Review Request: koji-containerbuild - Koji support for building layered container images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284400



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
koji-containerbuild-0.5.5-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update koji-containerbuild'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-fae06c3c21

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

[Bug 1292280] Review Request: nodejs-imurmurhash - An incremental implementation of MurmurHash3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292280

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-imurmurhash-0.1.4-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-imurmurhash'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-5ba2a5bc9d

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

[Bug 1292232] Review Request: nodejs-delegates - Delegate methods and accessors to another property

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292232

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|RAWHIDE |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-delegates-1.0.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-delegates'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-25a4994f5a

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

[Bug 1292233] Review Request: nodejs-are-we-there-yet - Keep track of the overall completion of many disparate processes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292233
Bug 1292233 depends on bug 1292232, which changed state.

Bug 1292232 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-delegates - Delegate methods and 
accessors to another property
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292232

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|RAWHIDE |---



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

[Bug 1292291] Review Request: nodejs-unc-path-regex - Regular expression to test if a file path is a windows UNC path

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292291

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-unc-path-regex-0.1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-unc-path-regex'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-8cbb7b86a7

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

[Bug 1273882] Review Request: nodejs-brace-expansion - Brace expansion as known from sh/bash

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273882



--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-brace-expansion

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

[Bug 1292400] Review Request: nodejs-next-tick - Environment agnostic nextTick polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292400



--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-next-tick

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

[Bug 1292539] Review Request: python-typeshed - Static type information for python modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292539



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-typeshed

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

[Bug 1292412] Review Request: nodejs-es6-symbol - ECMAScript 6 Symbol polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292412



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-es6-symbol

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

[Bug 1282893] Review Request: quantum-espresso - A suite for electronic-structure calculations and materials modeling

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893

Dave Love  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk



--- Comment #10 from Dave Love  ---
Created attachment 1107142
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1107142=edit
fix requires

I looked at this, as I had an earlier version in copr (not suitable for
review).
The questions might well not be appropriate, but I think it would help to have
notes in the spec.

* It won't install because it requires an arch-specific -common package; patch
attached.

* I'd have thought iotk should be unbundled, but I don't know if it's of more
general use.

* Shouldn't this build against atlas or lapack/blas on non-x86?  (ppc64le seems
a plausible architecture to run it on.)  I know that makes it particularly
suffer the BLAS mess in Fedora, but scalapack links against reference blas
anyhow.

* It's not using the default compilation and linking flags (not that I agree
with that requirement for computational programs).

* Will smp make not work?  There's no comment, and the build takes a while.

* Why not use elpa?  (I haven't tried with this version and the Fedora elpa.)

* Shouldn't the doc be installed?

* Would the GUI be useful?  (I don't know.)

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

[Bug 1292540] Review Request: python3-mypy - A static type checker for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292540

David Shea  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(ds...@redhat.com) |



--- Comment #2 from David Shea  ---
Spec URL: https://dshea.fedorapeople.org/python3-mypy/python3-mypy.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dshea.fedorapeople.org/python3-mypy/python3-mypy-0.2.0-1.dev20151217git.fc24.src.rpm

Changed /usr to %{_prefix} and updated to the latest upstream, which includes
the patch for stubgen --help that was in the original SRPM.

I assume the /usr/bin/python thing from rpmlint is a rpmlint bug. It's probably
trying to run some python code as part of the python-specific rpm checking, but
since this package is python3-only nothing pulled in /usr/bin/python.

The thing about adding a requires for python3, I have no clue what is going on.
python(abi) (= 3.5, presumably) and /usr/bin/python3 are in the --requires
output as expected, so it already does require python3. I realized that I had
forgotten to add the %python_provide macro to the spec file, so I did that and
I'm hoping that takes care of whatever fedora-review or mock or whatever is
expecting.

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

[Bug 1292413] Review Request: nodejs-es6-iterator - Iterator abstraction based on ES6 specification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292413



--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-es6-iterator

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

[Bug 1284400] Review Request: koji-containerbuild - Koji support for building layered container images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284400



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
koji-containerbuild-0.5.5-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update koji-containerbuild'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-18264539b3

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

[Bug 1292280] Review Request: nodejs-imurmurhash - An incremental implementation of MurmurHash3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292280



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-imurmurhash-0.1.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-imurmurhash'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-a39a6c2291

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

[Bug 1292291] Review Request: nodejs-unc-path-regex - Regular expression to test if a file path is a windows UNC path

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292291



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-unc-path-regex-0.1.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-unc-path-regex'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-54c44727f2

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

[Bug 1290924] Review Request: grive2 - Google Drive client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290924



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
grive2-0.4.2-0.1.20151208gitcc13b8b.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update grive2'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-99b18948f5

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

[Bug 1270513] Review Request: newtonsoft-json - Popular high-performance JSON framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270513



--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/newtonsoft-json

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

[Bug 1284400] Review Request: koji-containerbuild - Koji support for building layered container images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284400



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
koji-containerbuild-0.5.5-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update koji-containerbuild'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e856684420

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

[Bug 1291060] Review Request: purple-telegram - adds support for Telegram to Pidgin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291060

Matthias Jentsch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mtthsjnt...@gmail.com



--- Comment #5 from Matthias Jentsch  ---
Hey, theres two little things I've noticed in your RPM:

- libgcrypt version dependency is >= 1.60, it will not work with a version
lower than that.
- The package description "Purple plugin for Telegram" is kind of confusing
IMO. This somehow indicates that its a plugin for Telegram, It should say
"Libpurple protocol plugin for Telegram support" instead. This may be just my
opinion though :)

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

[Bug 1292057] Review Request: perl-DBIx-QueryLog - Logging queries for DBI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292057



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-DBIx-QueryLog-0.41-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-3a58d43cc5

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

[Bug 1270513] Review Request: newtonsoft-json - Popular high-performance JSON framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270513

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST



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

[Bug 1289970] Review Request: python-openstacksdk - An SDK for building applications to work with OpenStack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289970



--- Comment #4 from Javier Peña  ---
Thanks for the review Paul. The rpmlint messages are expected, all but two are
related to python3.5 compiled files, and the remaining two state no
documentation in the -tests subpackages, which depend on the base packages so
there is documentation already.

Also, the fully versioned dependencies note is expected, the -doc subpackage
should not depend on anything, and the -tests subpackages already depend on
their base packages, so I'd say it is correct.

I have uploaded a new version (with minor corrections):

SPEC:
https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-openstacksdk/python-openstacksdk.spec
SRPM:
https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-openstacksdk/python-openstacksdk-0.7.1-3.fc24.src.rpm

I see there is a newer 0.7.3 version available upstream, but this one depends
on openstackdocstheme, which is not packaged yet and has sparked some concerns
in the community (due to external resources being loaded and usage by default
of Google Analytics).

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

[Bug 1292424] Review Request: nodejs-d - Property descriptor factory

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292424



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-d

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

[Bug 1292392] Review Request: libpwiz - ProteoWizard software library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292392



--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
sagitter's scratch build of libpwiz-3.0.9205-2.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12237751

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

[Bug 1221536] Review Request: nodejs-realize-package-specifier - Like npm-package-arg, but more so, producing full file paths and differentiating local tar and directory sources.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221536



--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-realize-package-specifier

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

[Bug 1270513] Review Request: newtonsoft-json - Popular high-performance JSON framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270513

Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #12 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz 
 ---
Now, It is OK to me.

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

[Bug 1292392] Review Request: libpwiz - ProteoWizard software library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292392



--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande  ---
Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libpwiz/libpwiz.spec
SRPM URL:
https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libpwiz/libpwiz-3.0.9205-2.fc23.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1292061] Review Request: perl-POE-Loop-Event - Bridge that allows POE to be driven by Event.pm

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292061



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-POE-Loop-Event-1.305-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-b553b7be30

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

[Bug 1292061] Review Request: perl-POE-Loop-Event - Bridge that allows POE to be driven by Event.pm

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292061

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-POE-Loop-Event-1.305-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-b553b7be30

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

[Bug 1292061] Review Request: perl-POE-Loop-Event - Bridge that allows POE to be driven by Event.pm

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292061



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-POE-Loop-Event-1.305-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-e0359e5442

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

[Bug 1254851] Review Request: python-os-testr : A testr wrapper to provide functionality for OpenStack projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1254851



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-os-testr-0.4.1-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-64215148f4

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

[Bug 1287756] Review Request: copy-jdk-configs - JDK config files copier

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287756



--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System  ---
copy-jdk-configs-1.1-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update copy-jdk-configs'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-02d81c02d9

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

[Bug 1287756] Review Request: copy-jdk-configs - JDK config files copier

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287756

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
copy-jdk-configs-1.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update copy-jdk-configs'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-c7f9f6130e

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

[Bug 1292280] Review Request: nodejs-imurmurhash - An incremental implementation of MurmurHash3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292280



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-imurmurhash-0.1.4-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-imurmurhash'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8e422be745

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

[Bug 1292232] Review Request: nodejs-delegates - Delegate methods and accessors to another property

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292232



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-delegates-1.0.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-delegates'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8cc0980d09

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

[Bug 1292291] Review Request: nodejs-unc-path-regex - Regular expression to test if a file path is a windows UNC path

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292291



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-unc-path-regex-0.1.1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-unc-path-regex'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-2f1532f015

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

[Bug 1292232] Review Request: nodejs-delegates - Delegate methods and accessors to another property

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292232



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-delegates-1.0.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-delegates'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-280da54fa1

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

[Bug 1292416] Review Request: nodejs-es5-ext - ECMAScript 5 extensions and ES6 shims

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292416



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-es5-ext

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

[Bug 1282893] Review Request: quantum-espresso - A suite for electronic-structure calculations and materials modeling

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893



--- Comment #11 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Thanks for tackling this. It seems to be a really complicated package and I can
see that a lot of work has gone into putting it in a decent shape.

Some issues:

openblas is ExclusiveArch x86_64 %{ix86} armv7hl ppc64le, you should probably
match that.

License tag is wrong. The License tag specifies the *effective* license of the
*binary* package [1, 2]. So anything that is not part of the binary rpm (like
install/install-sh) doesn't matter at all. If you combine GPLv2+ with BSD or
LGPL or MIT, the effective license is GPLv2+. So, if a file in the binary rpm
has at least one GPL licensed file, that file is GPL. If a file only had
sources with more permissive licenses, than that file would have some other
license. So you need to determine the effective license of all files in the
binary rpm and put the result in License. I'd guess that the result is going to
be License:GPLv2+.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field
[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F

Requires:openmpi and Requires:mpich in the q-e-openmpi and q-e-mpich look wrong
to me. Normally the automatically generated dependency would be enough. E.g.
q-e-mpich.i686 requires
  libmpi.so.12(mpich-i386)
  libmpifort.so.12(mpich-i386)
and this should be enough.

OTOH, q-e-mpich-devel should probably R: mpich-devel, and q-e-openmpi-devel
should probably R: openmpi-devel.

Actually, I'd suggest moving all the BuildRequires to the top. Right now it is
hard to get an overview of what will be installed in the build root, and some
BR are repeated.

Why export OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 in %check?

Maybe you could use '%{lua: for i=20,41 do print("%{SOURCE" .. i .. "} ") end}'
instead of listing all the SOURCExx explicitly in cp?

The comments from Dave are also all relevant:
(In reply to Dave Love from comment #10)
> Created attachment 1107142 [details]
> fix requires
This looks correct.

> * It won't install because it requires an arch-specific -common package;
> patch attached.
Right.

> * I'd have thought iotk should be unbundled, but I don't know if it's of
> more general use.
Hm, good question. Is it used anywhere else?

> * Shouldn't this build against atlas or lapack/blas on non-x86?  (ppc64le
> seems a plausible architecture to run it on.)  I know that makes it
> particularly suffer the BLAS mess in Fedora, but scalapack links against
> reference blas anyhow.
openblas is available on ppc64le. So maybe building everywhere that
openblas-devel
is avaialable would be enough...

> * It's not using the default compilation and linking flags (not that I agree
> with that requirement for computational programs).
> 
> * Will smp make not work?  There's no comment, and the build takes a while.
Yeah, the build takes forever. More threads would be great.

> * Why not use elpa?  (I haven't tried with this version and the Fedora elpa.)
> 
> * Shouldn't the doc be installed?
> 
> * Would the GUI be useful?  (I don't know.)

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

[Bug 1291459] Review Request: sysreporter - Basic system reporter with emailing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291459

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |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 1291459] Review Request: sysreporter - Basic system reporter with emailing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291459



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
sysreporter-3.0.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e12d03b67f

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

[Bug 1270513] Review Request: newtonsoft-json - Popular high-performance JSON framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270513



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
newtonsoft-json-7.0.1-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-8ca4415c01

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

[Bug 1292233] Review Request: nodejs-are-we-there-yet - Keep track of the overall completion of many disparate processes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292233



--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith  ---
Sorry about that -- I obviously rushed this one and didn't test it in mock
first as I should have.

Here's a better version, tested in mock this time.

Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-are-we-there-yet/nodejs-are-we-there-yet.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-are-we-there-yet/nodejs-are-we-there-yet-1.0.5-1.fc24.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1282893] Review Request: quantum-espresso - A suite for electronic-structure calculations and materials modeling

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893



--- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Can I close my eyes and pretend that F22 is already EOL? ;)

But even in F22, mpich has libmpi.so.12()(64bit), and openmpi has
libmpi.so.1()(64bit), so the right dependency should be installed anyway.

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

[Bug 1292400] Review Request: nodejs-next-tick - Environment agnostic nextTick polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292400



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-next-tick-0.2.2-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-e71b4aed4c

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

[Bug 1292400] Review Request: nodejs-next-tick - Environment agnostic nextTick polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292400

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 1292412] Review Request: nodejs-es6-symbol - ECMAScript 6 Symbol polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292412



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-es6-symbol-3.0.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-d452a6b601

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

[Bug 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657



--- Comment #10 from marcindulak  ---
New upstream release. Bundling of lbfgsb reintroduced taking into account the
recent changes in Fedora policy.

Spec URL:
https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/exciting/r01/exciting.spec
SRPM URL:
https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/exciting/r01/exciting-10-1.el6.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 1292237] Review Request: nodejs-array-index - Invoke getter/setter functions on array-like objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292237

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2015-12-18 12:36:41



--- Comment #8 from Jared Smith  ---
Closing this bug as CLOSED RAWHIDE since it's built in Rawhide, and I'd like to
have other package reviews that are dependent on this bug to move forward.

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

[Bug 1292233] Review Request: nodejs-are-we-there-yet - Keep track of the overall completion of many disparate processes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292233

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review-



--- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Only issues is the installation error due to missing fixdep, will approve as
you add that.




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


= 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: "ISC", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1292233
 -nodejs-are-we-there-yet/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf 

[Bug 1287120] Review Request: python-ryu - component-based Software-defined Networking Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287120



--- Comment #17 from Arie Bregman  ---
Updated:

Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/abregman/bregman-rpms/downloads/python-ryu.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bitbucket.org/abregman/bregman-rpms/downloads/python-ryu-3.26-1.el7.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 1282912] Review Request: Python-kafka - Python client for Apache Kafka

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282912

Pradeep Kilambi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2015-12-18 13:16:40



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

[Bug 1282893] Review Request: quantum-espresso - A suite for electronic-structure calculations and materials modeling

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893

Orion Poplawski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||or...@cora.nwra.com



--- Comment #12 from Orion Poplawski  ---
Note that automatic MPI requirement generation is only available on Fedora 23+.

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

[Bug 1292400] Review Request: nodejs-next-tick - Environment agnostic nextTick polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292400



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-next-tick-0.2.2-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-162c98173d

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

[Bug 1292291] Review Request: nodejs-unc-path-regex - Regular expression to test if a file path is a windows UNC path

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292291

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2015-12-18 12:32:14



--- Comment #11 from Jared Smith  ---
Closing as CLOSED RAWHIDE so that other package reviews (that depend on this
package) may move forward.

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

[Bug 1292295] Review Request: nodejs-is-windows - Returns true if the platform is windows

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292295

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 1292295] Review Request: nodejs-is-windows - Returns true if the platform is windows

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292295



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-is-windows-0.1.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c48e4ee695

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

[Bug 1291061] Review Request: python-pyspike - Python library for the numerical analysis of spiketrain similarity

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291061

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Missing requires on nosetests, both py2 and py3 versions...

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

[Bug 1292895] Review Request: php-pear-crypt-gpg - GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292895

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1284712




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284712
[Bug 1284712] roundcubemail-1.2-beta is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1292233] Review Request: nodejs-are-we-there-yet - Keep track of the overall completion of many disparate processes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292233



--- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
correct url to make f-r happy:

Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-are-we-there-yet/nodejs-are-we-there-yet.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-are-we-there-yet/nodejs-are-we-there-yet-1.0.5-2.fc24.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1292233] Review Request: nodejs-are-we-there-yet - Keep track of the overall completion of many disparate processes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292233



--- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
It fails to install, delegates version in rawhide is 1.0.0, package.json wants
0.1.x

please add a fixdep on delegates 1.0.0 seems backwards compatible

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

[Bug 1291459] Review Request: sysreporter - Basic system reporter with emailing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291459



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
sysreporter-3.0.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-16e9a37ed3

--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
sysreporter-3.0.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-5e675baa45

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

[Bug 1270513] Review Request: newtonsoft-json - Popular high-performance JSON framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270513

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|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 1286772] Review Request: python-magnumclient - Client library for Magnum API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286772

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1292412] Review Request: nodejs-es6-symbol - ECMAScript 6 Symbol polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292412



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-es6-symbol-3.0.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-7a3c717073

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

[Bug 1292412] Review Request: nodejs-es6-symbol - ECMAScript 6 Symbol polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292412

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 1292412] Review Request: nodejs-es6-symbol - ECMAScript 6 Symbol polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292412



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-es6-symbol-3.0.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-7f33ee13a1

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

[Bug 1292292] Review Request: nodejs-is-unc-path - Returns true if a filepath is a windows UNC file path

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292292
Bug 1292292 depends on bug 1292291, which changed state.

Bug 1292291 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-unc-path-regex - Regular expression 
to test if a file path is a windows UNC path
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292291

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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

[Bug 1292540] Review Request: python3-mypy - A static type checker for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292540

Brian Lane  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Brian Lane  ---
It is still complaining about %{_prefix}/lib/mypy but after looking at other
packages it appears this is a perfectly valid way to reference it so I'm going
to say pass. I have no idea what fedora-review expects there.

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

[Bug 1292295] Review Request: nodejs-is-windows - Returns true if the platform is windows

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292295



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-is-windows-0.1.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-05b419bd7c

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

[Bug 1292295] Review Request: nodejs-is-windows - Returns true if the platform is windows

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292295



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-is-windows-0.1.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-bc8283a34e

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