[Bug 1294839] Review Request: kf5-libkipi - Common plugin infrastructure for KDE image applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294839

Mattia Verga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mattia.ve...@tiscali.it
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mattia.ve...@tiscali.it
  Flags||fedora_requires_release_not
   ||e?



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

[Bug 1294839] Review Request: kf5-libkipi - Common plugin infrastructure for KDE image applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294839



--- Comment #2 from Mattia Verga  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2
 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 30 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/rpmbuild/1294839-kf5-libkipi/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners:
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
 /usr/include/KF5, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
 /usr/lib64/cmake
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in kf5-libkipi
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.

[Bug 1294666] Review Request: python-sql - Python library to write SQL queries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294666

Sundeep Anand  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||suan...@redhat.com



--- Comment #2 from Sundeep Anand  ---
This is un-official review of the package.
==

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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated".
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[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 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-sql , python3-sql
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of 

[Bug 1294368] Review Request: erlang-p1_iconv - Erlang bindings for iconv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294368

Sundeep Anand  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||suan...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Sundeep Anand  ---
This is un-official review of the package.
==

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



= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "MIT/X11 (BSD
 like)", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/suanand/Projects/fedora/1294368-erlang-p1_iconv/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/erlang,
 /usr/lib64/erlang/lib
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 

[Bug 1293909] Review Request: python-simplepath - A python library for data-structure lookups.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293909



--- Comment #6 from Sundeep Anand  ---
SPEC file Updated:

Spec URL:
https://bitbucket.org/sundeep_co_in/simplepath/downloads/python-simplepath.spec

SRPM URL:
https://bitbucket.org/sundeep_co_in/simplepath/downloads/python-simplepath-0.3.2-1.fc23.src.rpm

[suanand@dhcp201-105 SPECS]$ rpmlint python-simplepath.spec
../SRPMS/python-simplepath-0.3.2-1.fc23.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/python2-simplepath-0.3.2-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/python3-simplepath-0.3.2-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

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

[Bug 1288456] Review Request: python-recommonmark - docutils-compatibility bridge to CommonMark

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456



--- Comment #2 from Julien Enselme  ---
Nice catch, thanks. I just updated the spec file:

- SPEC: http://dl.jujens.eu/SPECS/python-recommonmark.spec
- SRPM: http://dl.jujens.eu/SRPMS/python-recommonmark-0.2.0-2.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 1157255] Review Request: ufoai - UFO: Alien Invasion strategy game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157255



--- Comment #10 from Karel Volný  ---
(In reply to Ali Akcaagac from comment #9)
> So how about properl packaging the game as well ? Under Fedora 22 I only
> find the data files for client and server but no game files. Am I missing
> something ?

well, what is missing is the manpower :-/

I got stuck with the font package because it needs the license approved, and my
email to legal@ got somehow moderated out and I hadn't find the time to resolve
the issue ...

meanwhile, the license got simplified, however still I'm unsure how is it
treated in Fedora, so I've resent a question to le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
today

also, more tweaks are needed, see the above discussion, helping hands welcome
...

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

[Bug 1293053] Review Request: nodejs-next - Functions that extend and complement Node.js API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293053



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-next-0.4.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-0dcdd1a6ce

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

[Bug 1293053] Review Request: nodejs-next - Functions that extend and complement Node.js API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293053



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-next-0.4.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-55e3f1d42d

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

[Bug 1293053] Review Request: nodejs-next - Functions that extend and complement Node.js API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293053

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 1293036] Review Request: nodejs-unique-filename - Generate a unique filename

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293036

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA



--- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
built in rawhide

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

[Bug 1293909] Review Request: python-simplepath - A python library for data-structure lookups.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293909



--- Comment #3 from Sundeep Anand  ---
Un-official review of following packages have been done:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294666
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294368
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456

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

[Bug 1293909] Review Request: python-simplepath - A python library for data-structure lookups.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293909



--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
suanand's scratch build of python-simplepath-0.3.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12356311

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

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
built in rawhide

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

[Bug 1292136] Review Request: nodejs-defence-cli - Command-line tool for extracting fenced code from documents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292136

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
built in rawhide

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

[Bug 1288456] Review Request: python-recommonmark - docutils-compatibility bridge to CommonMark

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456

Sundeep Anand  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||suan...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Sundeep Anand  ---
This is un-official review of the package.
==

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


Issues:
===
- Dist tag is present.


= 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".
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-recommonmark , python3-recommonmark
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages 

[Bug 1294078] Review Request: nodejs-json-diff - JSON diff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294078

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA
 CC||piotr1...@gmail.com



--- Comment #6 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
built in rawhide

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

[Bug 1293909] Review Request: python-simplepath - A python library for data-structure lookups.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293909



--- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
suanand's scratch build of python-simplepath-0.3.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12356300

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

[Bug 1295009] New: Review Request: erlang-p1_zlib - Native zlib driver for Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295009

Bug ID: 1295009
   Summary: Review Request: erlang-p1_zlib - Native zlib driver
for Erlang
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: rbar...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-p1_zlib.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-p1_zlib-0-1.20150223gite3d4222b.fc24.src.rpm
Description: A native zlib driver for Erlang, used by ejabberd.
Fedora Account System Username: rbarlow

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12360294

There are a few rpmlint warnings. I'll respond to them inline here:

erlang-p1_zlib.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/erlang/lib/p1_zlib-0/priv/lib/ezlib_drv.so

It seems to be Fedora Erlang packaging convention to leave the debug symbols in
Erlang packages:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Peter/Erlang_Packaging_Guidelines

erlang-p1_zlib.x86_64: W: no-soname
/usr/lib64/erlang/lib/p1_zlib-0/priv/lib/ezlib_drv.so

This seems to be a result of how Rebar builds these libraries. I think we can
ignore it.

erlang-p1_zlib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib64/erlang/lib/p1_zlib-0/priv/lib/ezlib_drv.so set_port_control_flags
erlang-p1_zlib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib64/erlang/lib/p1_zlib-0/priv/lib/ezlib_drv.so
driver_freeerlang-p1_zlib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib64/erlang/lib/p1_zlib-0/priv/lib/ezlib_drv.so driver_alloc_binary
erlang-p1_zlib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib64/erlang/lib/p1_zlib-0/priv/lib/ezlib_drv.so driver_alloc
erlang-p1_zlib.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib64/erlang/lib/p1_zlib-0/priv/lib/ezlib_drv.so driver_realloc_binary

All of these happen to other Erlang packages in Fedora as well. It seems that
Erlang's runtime causes the correct linking to happen. For example, I also see
this on erlang-crypto's shared objects, as well as erlang-jiffy's. I think we
can safely ignore these warnings. The package review for erlang-jiffy did not
even mention this warning:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074982

erlang-p1_zlib.x86_64: W: no-documentation

The upstream package does not have documentation.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

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

[Bug 1293100] Review Request: tarantool - an in-memory database and Lua application server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293100

Jens Lody  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fed...@jenslody.de



--- Comment #3 from Jens Lody  ---
How should the git-commands in the spec-file work from outside a git-repo ?

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

[Bug 1295009] Review Request: erlang-p1_zlib - Native zlib driver for Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295009

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1204119




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204119
[Bug 1204119] ejabberd-15.11 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 1295009] Review Request: erlang-p1_zlib - Native zlib driver for Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295009



--- Comment #1 from Randy Barlow  ---
I submitted a pull request upstream with the patch I created for this package:

https://github.com/processone/zlib/pull/7

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

[Bug 1294839] Review Request: kf5-libkipi - Common plugin infrastructure for KDE image applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294839



--- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter  ---
In particular, I'm choosing to use the simplified effective license as
referenced here:
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

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

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277476
Bug 1277476 depends on bug 1277470, which changed state.

Bug 1277470 Summary: Review Request: php-nette-application - Nette Application 
MVC Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277470

   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 1277484] Review Request: php-nette - Nette Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277484
Bug 1277484 depends on bug 1277434, which changed state.

Bug 1277434 Summary: Review Request: php-nette-mail - Nette Mail: Sending 
E-mails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277434

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277476
Bug 1277476 depends on bug 1277434, which changed state.

Bug 1277434 Summary: Review Request: php-nette-mail - Nette Mail: Sending 
E-mails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277434

   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 1277434] Review Request: php-nette-mail - Nette Mail: Sending E-mails

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277434

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2015-12-31 13:01:20



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

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277504
Bug 1277504 depends on bug 1277470, which changed state.

Bug 1277470 Summary: Review Request: php-nette-application - Nette Application 
MVC Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277470

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277504
Bug 1277504 depends on bug 1277434, which changed state.

Bug 1277434 Summary: Review Request: php-nette-mail - Nette Mail: Sending 
E-mails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277434

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277478
Bug 1277478 depends on bug 1277470, which changed state.

Bug 1277470 Summary: Review Request: php-nette-application - Nette Application 
MVC Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277470

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277470

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2015-12-31 13:01:12



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

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277478
Bug 1277478 depends on bug 1277434, which changed state.

Bug 1277434 Summary: Review Request: php-nette-mail - Nette Mail: Sending 
E-mails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277434

   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 1277484] Review Request: php-nette - Nette Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277484
Bug 1277484 depends on bug 1277470, which changed state.

Bug 1277470 Summary: Review Request: php-nette-application - Nette Application 
MVC Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277470

   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 1295011] Review Request: erlang-p1_mysql - Erlang MySQL driver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295011

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1204119




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204119
[Bug 1204119] ejabberd-15.11 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 1295011] New: Review Request: erlang-p1_mysql - Erlang MySQL driver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295011

Bug ID: 1295011
   Summary: Review Request: erlang-p1_mysql - Erlang MySQL driver
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: rbar...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-p1_mysql.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-p1_mysql-0-1.20150929gitdfa87da9.fc24.src.rpm
Description: This is an Erlang MySQL driver, used by ejabberd.
Fedora Account System Username: rbarlow

Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12361000

There are rpmlint warnings:

Checking: erlang-p1_mysql-0-1.20150929gitdfa87da9.fc24.noarch.rpm
  erlang-p1_mysql-0-1.20150929gitdfa87da9.fc24.src.rpm
erlang-p1_mysql.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
erlang-p1_mysql.noarch: W: no-documentation
erlang-p1_mysql.src:43: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{srcname}-%{version}
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

I think we can ignore these warnings. Erlang packages go into %{_libdir} by
Fedora convention:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Peter/Erlang_Packaging_Guidelines

Also, the upstream package does not have documentation.

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

[Bug 1289738] Review Request: plasma-user-manager - Manage the users of your system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(rdie...@math.unl. |
   |edu)|



--- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter  ---
Spec URL:
https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/plasma5/plasma-user-manager.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/plasma5/plasma-user-manager-5.5.0-11.fc23.src.rpm

%changelog
* Thu Dec 31 2015 Rex Dieter  5.5.0-11
- License: GPLv2

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

[Bug 1294839] Review Request: kf5-libkipi - Common plugin infrastructure for KDE image applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294839

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora_requires_release_not |needinfo?(mattia.verga@tisc
   |e?  |ali.it)



--- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter  ---
And it appears you may have set the wrong bugzilla flag:
fedora_requires_release_note instead of 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 1294839] Review Request: kf5-libkipi - Common plugin infrastructure for KDE image applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294839

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(rdie...@math.unl. |
   |edu)|



--- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter  ---
GPLv2+ combined with LGPLv2+ is (still) effectively GPLv2+

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

[Bug 1294368] Review Request: erlang-p1_iconv - Erlang bindings for iconv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294368



--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
rbarlow's scratch build of erlang-p1_iconv-0-1.20150624git8b7542b1.fc24.src.rpm
for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12359323

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

[Bug 1293100] Review Request: tarantool - an in-memory database and Lua application server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293100



--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt  ---
Don't be so impatient, please?

The Review Process depends on volunteers doing lots of work. There are hundreds
of packages waiting to be reviewed:

 * http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/
 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers

Lots of them are full of mistakes. And while a multitude of packaging mistakes
won't ever be noticed by users, there are many that result in actual problems
at runtime or at upgade-time, for example.


One way to speed up reviewing is to swap reviews.


Also try doing a self-review of this particular package. Highly recommended! It
that leads to questions, post them here where potential reviewers may see them.

Start with pointing the fedora-review tool at this ticket:

fedora-review -b 1293100

It will fetch the latest src.rpm and spec file found in the "Spec URL:" and
"SRPM URL:" lines, perform a local Mock build and run lots of helpful tests.
Other tests are to be performed by you manually. Unfortunately, in Fedora 23
the tool suffers from the migration to DNF, so some checks take ages compared
with Yum.

While good reviewers perform lots of checks without using that tool, the tool
is very helpful with some of its checks (such as the source files licensing
checks).


Skim over the packaging guidelines pages and watch out for stuff that's
relevant to your package, such as the Systemd guidelines.


This package won't be easy to review and certainly won't pass review without a
lot of work.

The spec alone contains lots of questionable/unusual things not found in
thousands of Fedora packages. And the first test-builds could lead to
discovering further issues. Comments are missing in the spec file. For example,
there is no rationale for disabling -debuginfo package generation. Why is that
done? Why doesn't the package use %attr to set file access permissions and
ownership? Why doesn't it included all needed directories but runs mkdir at
post-install time?


> Source1: VERSION
> %global build_version %(( cat %{SOURCE1} || git describe --long) | sed 
> "s/[0-9]*\.[0-9]*\.[0-9]*-//" | sed "s/-[a-z 0-9]*//")
> %global git_hash %((cat %{SOURCE1} || git describe --long) | sed "s/.*-//")
> %global prod_version %((cat %{SOURCE1} || git describe --long) | sed 
> "s/-[0-9]*-.*//")
> Version: %{prod_version}
> Release: %{build_version}

Amazing. All that to end up with a very simple %version-%release,

  tarantool-1.6.8-244.src.rpm

and additional macros that make it more difficult to use them consistently
throughout the spec file. How do you bump release during a minor update or an
automated mass-rebuild? I hope you are aware of the implicitly defined %version
and %release macros as set up by the "Version:" and "Release:" tags. In your
case, bumping the Release tag would lead to something different from
%build_version, and since a macro expansion of %build_version is involved, in
%release it's not an increment but either a prepended or appended value. There
is no way out as long as %build_version is at the most-significant left side of
%release and even defines what the source topdir is:

> cd tarantool-%{version}-%{build_version}-%{git_hash}-src

Upstream build != Fedora package build, so this is asking for trouble. If you
ever needed to specify strict versioned dependencies, it would also get more
complicated than with a plain %release value.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning

If the %build_version is considered important, look for ways to move it into
%version. Else move it to somewhere at the right side of the Release tag, where
it doesn't have a huge influence on RPM version comparison checks.


See you in 2016.

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

[Bug 1293049] Review Request: libpasastro - Pascal interface for standard astronomy libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293049

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mattia.ve...@tiscali.it
  Flags||needinfo?(mattia.verga@tisc
   ||ali.it)



--- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter  ---
naming: ok

license: ok

scriptlets: ok

Arches: NOT ok.  Looks like fpc has
ExclusiveArch:  %{arm} %{ix86} x86_64 ppc ppc64
and lazaras:
ExcludeArch:s390 s390x

I'd guess those should match closer, but in the least the .spec comment is
inaccurate:
# fpc and lazarus are not working on s390, ppc and aarch64

1. MUST:  either clarify this comment or adjust to match fpc's
ExclusiveArch:  %{arm} %{ix86} x86_64 ppc ppc64


sources: NOT ok, not verifiable
2. MUST give better instructions to create reproducible sources or justify why
not using upstream tarball source,

http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasastro/files/version%201.0/libpasastro-1.0-src.tar.xz/download


3.  SHOULD replace fragile/manual creation of library soname links:
#ln -fs %{_libdir}/libpasplan404.so.%{sover}.0
%{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/libpasplan404.so.%{sover}
#ln -fs %{_libdir}/libpasgetdss.so.%{sover}.0
%{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/libpasgetdss.so.%{sover}
#ln -fs %{_libdir}/libpaswcs.so.%{sover}.0
%{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/libpaswcs.so.%{sover}
with:
/sbin/ldconfig -n %{buildroot}%{_libdir}


macros: NOT ok

4.  MUST use standard $RPM_OPT_FLAGS/%{optflags}, currently uses hard-coded
mixture of "-O3 -fPIC -g" and "-fPIC -g"

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

[Bug 1293049] Review Request: libpasastro - Pascal interface for standard astronomy libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293049



--- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter  ---
As an aside, as far as I can tell neither lazarus or fpc are actually used
during the build process for this package, and it seems to build ok without
them being present in the buildroot, so.

5. SHOULD verify 
BuildRequires: fpc lazarus
is really needed (and the accompanying ExcludeArch/ExclusiveArch tag).

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

[Bug 1285941] Review Request: python-flower - A web based tool for monitoring and administrating Celery clusters

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285941



--- Comment #21 from Jeremy Cline  ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jeremycline/python-flower-packaging/master/python-flower.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/jeremycline/python-flower-packaging/raw/master/python-flower-0.8.3-4.fc23.src.rpm

Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12363484

I've patched the /usr/bin/python shebang. I don't believe we should include the
Dockerfile, Vagrantfile, or the Ansible playbooks. Those are for developers and
not users. Finally, I don't believe it is appropriate to contribute the service
file upstream as it has paths in it that are distro dependent and upstream
itself wouldn't distribute it.

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

[Bug 1290450] Review Request: exonerate - A generic tool for sequence alignment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290450



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
exonerate-2.2.0-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1288930] Review Request: abi-tracker - Tool to visualize ABI changes timeline of a C/C++ library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288930



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
abi-compliance-checker-1.99.13-1.el7, abi-dumper-0.99.13-1.el7,
abi-tracker-1.4-2.el7, pkgdiff-1.7.1-1.el7, rfcdiff-1.41-7.el7,
vtable-dumper-1.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1269609] Review Request: ari-backup - A wrapper around rdiff-backup

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269609



--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System  ---
ari-backup-1.0.10-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1290450] Review Request: exonerate - A generic tool for sequence alignment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290450



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
exonerate-2.2.0-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1285941] Review Request: python-flower - A web based tool for monitoring and administrating Celery clusters

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285941



--- Comment #20 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
jcline's scratch build of python-flower-0.8.3-4.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12363484

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

[Bug 1293049] Review Request: libpasastro - Pascal interface for standard astronomy libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293049

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu
  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 1247442] Review Request: emacs-yaml-mode - major mode to edit YAML file for emacs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247442

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||punto...@libero.it
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1269609] Review Request: ari-backup - A wrapper around rdiff-backup

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269609

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed|2015-11-25 16:52:29 |2016-01-01 01:51:36



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

[Bug 1293053] Review Request: nodejs-next - Functions that extend and complement Node.js API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293053

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-next-0.4.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-0dcdd1a6ce

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

[Bug 1294704] Review Request: python3-setuptools - Easily build and distribute Python packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294704

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-setuptools-19.2-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-c515c5de8e

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

[Bug 1293204] Review Request: nodejs-is-arrayish - Check if an object can be used like an Array

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293204

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-is-arrayish-0.2.1-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-80d26f48b2

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

[Bug 1291539] Review Request: nodejs-has-unicode - Try to guess if your terminal supports unicode

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291539

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-has-unicode-2.0.0-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-b20330f2c9

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

[Bug 1292269] Review Request: nodejs-gauge - A terminal based horizontal gauge

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292269
Bug 1292269 depends on bug 1291539, which changed state.

Bug 1291539 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-has-unicode - Try to guess if your 
terminal supports unicode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291539

   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 1247442] Review Request: emacs-yaml-mode - major mode to edit YAML file for emacs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247442

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo  ---
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.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or
 generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/gil/1247442-emacs-yaml-mode/licensecheck.txt
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/yaml-mode
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp
 /yaml-mode
[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
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: 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 

[Bug 1247442] Review Request: emacs-yaml-mode - major mode to edit YAML file for emacs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247442



--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo  ---
Issues:
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp
 /yaml-mode

[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.

[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
in makefile INSTALL constant should be /usr/bin/install -c -pm 444

install -m 644 %SOURCE1 %{buildroot}%{_emacs_sitestartdir}
should be 
install -pm 644 %SOURCE1 %{buildroot}%{_emacs_sitestartdir}

NON blocking issues:
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
Please, ask to upstream to include copy of the license in source directory
structure
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

emacs-yaml-mode.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/yaml-mode/yaml-mode.el
Please, report the problem to upstream
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address

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

[Bug 1266939] Review Request: kf5-purpose - Framework for providing abstractions to get the developer's purposes fulfilled

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266939

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1266939] Review Request: kf5-purpose - Framework for providing abstractions to get the developer's purposes fulfilled

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266939



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
kf5-purpose-1.0-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6343dc34cd

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