[Bug 1282893] Review Request: quantum-espresso - A suite for electronic-structure calculations and materials modeling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893 --- Comment #28 from marcindulak --- Thanks. For iotk, let's see if espresso developers react to the presence of the RPM, I drop them a message. Maybe they consider splitting iotk. I have verified that parallel runs are OK with openmpi and mpich on CentOS 7. I mean the output from an expresso run shows the expected number of N processes and there is no N-tupling of lines in the output, which would be the case if one runs a serial code with mpiexec. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295040] Review Request: nodejs-mock-fs - A configurable mock file system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295040
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||panem...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
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
==> This will be fixed with nodejs-rewire is included in Fedora.
- I am not sure if we can consider node/fs*.js as bundled libraries. Are they?
= 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". 40 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/parag/1295040-nodejs-mock-fs/licensecheck.txt
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[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 shoul
[Bug 1295037] Review Request: nodejs-rewire - Easy dependency injection for node.js unit testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295037
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||panem...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
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". 38 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/parag/1295037-nodejs-rewire/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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: 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 %{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 1296792] New: Review Request: erlang-p1_stringprep - A framework for preparing Unicode strings to help input and comparison
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296792 Bug ID: 1296792 Summary: Review Request: erlang-p1_stringprep - A framework for preparing Unicode strings to help input and comparison Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jer...@jcline.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org, rbar...@redhat.com Blocks: 1204119 Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/erlang-p1_stringprep.spec SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/erlang-p1_stringprep-1.0.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Stringprep is a framework for preparing Unicode test strings in order to increase the likelihood that string input and string comparison work. The principle are defined in RFC-3454: Preparation of Internationalized Strings. This library is leverage Erlang native NIF mechanism to provide extremely fast and efficient processing. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12460480 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 1295075] Review Request: erlang-p1_cache_tab - Erlang cache table application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295075 Jeremy Cline changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |erlang-cache_tab - Erlang |erlang-p1_cache_tab - |cache table application |Erlang cache table ||application Flags|needinfo?(jer...@jcline.org | |) | --- Comment #3 from Jeremy Cline --- Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/erlang-p1_cache_tab.spec SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/erlang-p1_cache_tab-1.0.1-2.fc23.src.rpm - Rename package to p1_cache_tab - Removed noarch - Removed dependency patch - Depend on erlang-ert - Skip eunit tests on i686 Because the updated version of erlang-p1_utils isn't in rawhide yet, I cannot do a proper koji scratch build. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293100
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
%global __strip /bin/true might work.
Don't repeat the package name in Summary. Also don't use the article, it looks
bad in listings:
Summary: In-memory database and Lua application server
Remove Vendor tag.
Why do you need explicit requirements on readline and other libraries; aren't
the automatically generated dependencies enough?
Development subpackage should be called devel, that's the Fedora standard.
tarantool should requires te same version of tarantool-common:
Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release}
Most likely you do not need the Requires on tarantool in tarantool-common.
%if 1%{?systemd} → this condition is always true. Maybe you meant %if
0%{?systemd}?
What's with the quotes around filenames in %files?
Scripts in %post should never fail, add || : everywhere.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1179484] Review Request: python-cram - Simple testing framework for command line applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179484 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System --- python-cram-0.6-9.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1239008] Review Request: bumpversion - Version-bump your software with a single command
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- bumpversion-0.5.3-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1277470] Review Request: php-nette-application - Nette Application MVC Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277470 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- php-nette-application-2.3.8-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1294341] Review Request: nodejs-dreamopt - Command-line parser with readable syntax from your sweetest dreams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294341 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-dreamopt-0.8.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292895] Review Request: php-pear-crypt-gpg - GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292895 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- php-pear-crypt-gpg-1.4.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1277434] Review Request: php-nette-mail - Nette Mail: Sending E-mails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277434 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- php-nette-mail-2.3.4-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1290302] Review Request: php-bartlett-php-compatinfo-db - Reference Database to be used with php-compatinfo library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290302 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo-5.0.0-1.fc22, php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect-4.0.0-1.fc22, php-bartlett-php-compatinfo-db-1.3.0-1.fc22, php-bartlett-umlwriter-1.1.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1113310] Review Request: python-libnacl - Python ctypes wrapper for libsodium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113310
Sergio Monteiro Basto changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ser...@serjux.com
--- Comment #30 from Sergio Monteiro Basto ---
2.4.4 is released
also notice that upstream have one python-libnacl.spec
https://github.com/saltstack/libnacl/blob/master/pkg/rpm/python-libnacl.spec
and we just need change ?
Name: python-%{srcname}
to
Name: python2-%{srcname}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1293045] Review Request: fontopia - the console font editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293045
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
Docs Contact||zbys...@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
You could use %make_build instead of 'make %{?_smp_flags}' and %make_install
instead of 'make install ...'.
Use https in the URL and Source0 links.
License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
fontopia.src: W: file-size-mismatch fontopia-1.0.tar.gz = 424272,
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/fontopia-1.0.tar.gz
= 416640
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1103555] Review Request: fcl - The Flexible Collision Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103555 --- Comment #3 from Rich Mattes --- 1. https://github.com/flexible-collision-library/fcl/issues/86 2. https://github.com/flexible-collision-library/fcl/pull/90 I've fixed 3 and 4 in my local spec file. I'll submit an updated package once I hear back from upstream on the two above issues. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292272 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 1292272] Review Request: nodm - A display manager automatically starting an X session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292272 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- nodm-0.11-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a0a434f1fe -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292272 --- Comment #17 from Raphael Groner --- Fixed in Rawhide. Please remove any previous nodm-0.7-3 package for sure before new installation, just update won't work nicely: dnf remove -y dnf ; rm -rf /etc/default/nodm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295127] Review Request: awscli - Universal Command Line Environment for AWS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127 --- Comment #2 from Fabio Alessandro Locati --- New version available: Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/aws/awscli.spec SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/aws/awscli-1.9.16-1.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1290513] Review Request: playonlinux - Front-end application for the wine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290513 --- Comment #15 from Eduardo Mayorga --- (In reply to Jiri Konecny from comment #14) > Without the executable bits rpmlint starts complaining with these errors so > the chmod commands are still there: > > playonlinux.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/playonlinux/tests/python/test_versionlower.py 644 /usr/bin/python > playonlinux.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/playonlinux/tests/bash/test-versionlower 644 /bin/bash > playonlinux.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/playonlinux/python/gui_server.py 644 /usr/bin/python > 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. Removing the shebang will fix this error. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_files. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285941 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #23 from William Moreno --- Packaged Aproved -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292209] Review Request: python-nsdf - Support library for the Neuroscience Simulation Data Format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292209
--- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
(In reply to Paul Belanger from comment #8)
> (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Paul Belanger from comment #6)
> > > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> > >devel and tools are missing the LICENSE
> > Different package? This one only has python2-nsdf and python-nsdf-doc
> > subpackages,
> > and both have the README, although they don't have a LICENSE file, because
> > on is missing from the upstream repo and tarball.
> >
> > You could (and should) say instead, that I'm supposed to contact upstream
> > about
> > adding a license file. Indeed, I haven't done this.
> >
> Right, I had noticed the LICENSE was not installed in the files sections. I
> should have been more detailed about notifying you about that.
I contacted upstream about adding a license:
https://github.com/nsdf/nsdf/pull/41.
> > > [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> > > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> > > [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> > > [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> > > [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> > > [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> > > [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
> > > names).
> > Can you be more specific here?
> >
> Doh, I missed my comment at the top. For this, I was looking at other
> reviews an noticed the nsdf name seemed copied over the entire spec file, vs
> setting up a macro for %{pypi_name} or %{srcname}.
Note that the guideline is about "hard-coded *directory* names". Directory
names indeed can change and vary between architectures, and are long, so using
macros makes sense. Similarly for version and other things which are updated
regularly. But the package name is unlikely to *ever* change, so using a macro
doesn't buy anything. In fact I find %{pypi_name} or %{srcname} much less
readable than the package name.
(On a similar note: people sometime use %{__make} instead of just make, and
simalar macros for other basic commands. I think it's pointless, because
make's name is never going to change, and/or if somebody can insert a different
make in $PATH, they can just as well insert any other command called from
the Makefile, so there's no reason to single out make just because it is called
directly. So again, using macros for *files* is again a waste of keystrokes
(as opposed to directory names).)
> > What about all the open boxes [ ]?
>
> Thanks for the feedback, I admit I should have likely removed the open boxes
> lines. I wasn't comfortable filling some of them in.
>
> Moving forward, I'll do my best to leave more detail, then less for reviews.
Cool.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685 --- Comment #25 from Ranjan Maitra --- (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #24) > (In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #23) > > (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #22) > > > > > 2. Requires: sylpheed > > > > > > > > > > This is often superfluous. Generally, RPM will pick up it > > > > > automatically. > > > > > > > > Why so? If sylpheed is not installed, then sylfilter has to be built > > > > differently. > > > > > > no, rpmbuild adds automatically dependencies on shared libraries used in > > > the > > > resulting rpm. So there will be always a dependency on libsylph no matter > > > in > > > which package or rpm libsylph will live. > > > > > > If sylfilter is useful without the sylpheed GUI client, we can move the > > > libsylph library into own subpackage. > > > > Sylfilter is useful without the sylpheed GUI client, but does this not mean > > that sylpheed will have to be rebuilt and be disruptive to an existing > > mature package (the mailer?). > > There is nothing disruptive on introducing a new subpackage in an exiting > package. The library file is already there, it will just move to new rpm. OK, but I guess then I am stuck till this happens. I will containing using my local rpm which has been serving me well for the past 5 years. > > > Btw, someone is trying to package libsylph separately, FWIW: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288927 > > I don't understand why someone wants to introduce 8 years old code when an > up-to-date version is already available in the distro ... I agree and have not quite understood the rationale. > > > > > New files removing requirement of sylpheed posted at: > > > > > > SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec > > SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-6.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 1290513] Review Request: playonlinux - Front-end application for the wine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290513 --- Comment #14 from Jiri Konecny --- Hello Neal, I changed the patches for Makefile and also updated the PR in upstream. New version of package is in my copr repository and new koji scratch build was done. Package is now version 4.2.10-2 and it's using %make_install and %make_build macros. New spec file: https://jkonecny.fedorapeople.org/packages/playonlinux/playonlinux.spec New srpms file: https://jkonecny.fedorapeople.org/packages/playonlinux/playonlinux-4.2.10-2.fc23.src.rpm Without the executable bits rpmlint starts complaining with these errors so the chmod commands are still there: playonlinux.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/playonlinux/tests/python/test_versionlower.py 644 /usr/bin/python playonlinux.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/playonlinux/tests/bash/test-versionlower 644 /bin/bash playonlinux.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/playonlinux/python/gui_server.py 644 /usr/bin/python 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. thank you for helping me with this. Hello Miroslav, I will do it for future, thank you for telling me this. I didn't know that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1288927] Review Request: libsylph - E-Mail client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288927 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@danny.cz --- Comment #4 from Dan Horák --- Wouldn't the up-to-date version of libsylph that already exists and is provided by the sylpheed package (and sylpheed-devel for the development headers and lib) satisfy your needs? Discussion about moving the libsylph into an own subpackage is happening now in bug 1265685. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@danny.cz --- Comment #24 from Dan Horák --- (In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #23) > (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #22) > > > > 2. Requires: sylpheed > > > > > > > > This is often superfluous. Generally, RPM will pick up it automatically. > > > > > > Why so? If sylpheed is not installed, then sylfilter has to be built > > > differently. > > > > no, rpmbuild adds automatically dependencies on shared libraries used in the > > resulting rpm. So there will be always a dependency on libsylph no matter in > > which package or rpm libsylph will live. > > > > If sylfilter is useful without the sylpheed GUI client, we can move the > > libsylph library into own subpackage. > > Sylfilter is useful without the sylpheed GUI client, but does this not mean > that sylpheed will have to be rebuilt and be disruptive to an existing > mature package (the mailer?). There is nothing disruptive on introducing a new subpackage in an exiting package. The library file is already there, it will just move to new rpm. > Btw, someone is trying to package libsylph separately, FWIW: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288927 I don't understand why someone wants to introduce 8 years old code when an up-to-date version is already available in the distro ... > > New files removing requirement of sylpheed posted at: > > > SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec > SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-6.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 977116] Review Request: pgmodeler - PostgreSQL Database Modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977116 --- Comment #37 from Pavel Alexeev --- Christopher QT bug resolved, so we can continue review. -- 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 1290513] Review Request: playonlinux - Front-end application for the wine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290513 --- Comment #13 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jkonecny's scratch build of playonlinux-4.2.10-2.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12455943 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1246120] Review Request: atomic-reactor - Improved builder for Docker images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246120 Bug 1246120 depends on bug 1249651, which changed state. Bug 1249651 Summary: docker-py gets broken by old python-requests version https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249651 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1291225] Review Request: python-tempdir - Automatically manage temporary directories, based on tempfile.mkdtemp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291225 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2016-01-07 16:38:34 --- Comment #3 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Package was built and released in F22+. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685 --- Comment #23 from Ranjan Maitra --- (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #22) > > > 2. Requires: sylpheed > > > > > > This is often superfluous. Generally, RPM will pick up it automatically. > > > > Why so? If sylpheed is not installed, then sylfilter has to be built > > differently. > > no, rpmbuild adds automatically dependencies on shared libraries used in the > resulting rpm. So there will be always a dependency on libsylph no matter in > which package or rpm libsylph will live. > > If sylfilter is useful without the sylpheed GUI client, we can move the > libsylph library into own subpackage. Sylfilter is useful without the sylpheed GUI client, but does this not mean that sylpheed will have to be rebuilt and be disruptive to an existing mature package (the mailer?). Btw, someone is trying to package libsylph separately, FWIW: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288927 New files removing requirement of sylpheed posted at: SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-6.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 1234210] Review Request: pdf-stapler - tool for manipulating PDF documents from the command line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234210 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 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 1234210] Review Request: pdf-stapler - tool for manipulating PDF documents from the command line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234210 --- Comment #45 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- It doesn't seem to have worked, account "maitra" still seems to be active and to contain full name/email information. Please try again and file a ticket if it doesn't work. I've added you to the packagers group. Welcome! I'm happy to help with any questions or issues you might have in the future. Please keep reviewing new packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285412] Review Request: nodejs-ebnf-parser - A parser for BNF and EBNF grammars used by jison
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285412 --- Comment #7 from Tom Hughes --- Yes that looks fine. Jared, are you happy to use that spec? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285412] Review Request: nodejs-ebnf-parser - A parser for BNF and EBNF grammars used by jison
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285412
--- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 15
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/tom/1285412-nodejs-ebnf-parser/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-ebnf-parser-0.1.10-1.fc24.n
[Bug 1234210] Review Request: pdf-stapler - tool for manipulating PDF documents from the command line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234210 --- Comment #44 from Ranjan Maitra --- Thanks! Let us use the first account. I was unaware of its existence:-(. I have deactivated the second account (though I am not 100% sure about it because the instructions were not completely clear 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 879928] Review Request: rigsofrods - Vehicle simulator based on soft-body physics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879928 --- Comment #5 from Pavel Alexeev --- Upstream informed about incorrect fsf address: https://github.com/RigsOfRods/rigs-of-rods/issues/538 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977116] Review Request: pgmodeler - PostgreSQL Database Modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977116 --- Comment #36 from Pavel Alexeev --- Fix complain on start about plugin folder: Changes: https://github.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/commit/edc41213facca2d701178a7de586a546cc355dfa Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/edc41213facca2d701178a7de586a546cc355dfa/SPECS/pgmodeler.spec Srpm: http://rpm.hubbitus.info/Fedora23/pgmodeler/pgmodeler-0.8.2-0.2.beta.git.8d1e180.fc23.src.rpm -- 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 1285051] Review Request: nodejs-cjson - Commented JavaScript Object Notation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285051 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 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 1282893] Review Request: quantum-espresso - A suite for electronic-structure calculations and materials modeling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #27 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- (In reply to marcindulak from comment #25) > Answers to other questions: > - I don't build shared iotk because the static one is referred to in the > Makefiles. I don't want to patch the Makefiles for iotk at each espresso > release. OK. I think it would still be valuable to build the shared library, but it would mostly matter for packages linking to libiotk.a. If such packages are packaged for Fedora in the future, this might be worth revisiting. > - "Epoll ADD(4) on fd 1 failed..." i think it's a warning coming from > openmpi. I have seen openmpi warnings come and go with different openmpi > versions or choices of build/run parameters. Have no time for investigate > this further. OK. I seems that the build is not parallelized... Would be nice to fix that. rpmlint: quantum-espresso.src:178: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 178, tab: line 5) quantum-espresso.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nanoscale -> nanosecond quantum-espresso.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pseudopotentials -> pseudo potentials, pseudo-potentials, potentials quantum-espresso.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables -> executable, executable s, executrices quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-documentation quantum-espresso.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/quantum-espresso/License quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fd_ifc.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pw4gww.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plotrho.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fd_ef.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cppp.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wannier_ham.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary path_interpolation.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary generate_rVV10_kernel_table.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary molecularpdos.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pp.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pw2wannier90.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary band_plot.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rrkj2upf.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bands_FS.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cp.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kvecs_FS.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ld1.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary interpolate.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ncpp2upf.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fd.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lambda.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary read_upf_tofile.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bgw2pw.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dos.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uspp2upf.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oldcp2upf.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iotk.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kpoints.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gww_fit.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pw.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cpmd2upf.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iotk_print_kinds.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dist.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pwi2xsf.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fpmd2upf.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary q2trans.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fhi2upf.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plotband.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dynmat.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wannier_plot.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vdb2upf.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary d3.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ph.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary head.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary q2trans_fd.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fqha.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pw_export.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pmw.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iotk quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary matdyn.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary turbo_spectrum.x quantum-espresso.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary manypw.x quantum-
[Bug 1285412] Review Request: nodejs-ebnf-parser - A parser for BNF and EBNF grammars used by jison
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285412 --- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch --- Ok, to keep thing going I've updated the spec. Tom, are you ok to review my changes? Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-ebnf-parser.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-ebnf-parser-0.1.10-1.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1294666] Review Request: python-sql - Python library to write SQL queries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294666 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-sql-0.8-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-56729e5356 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295549] Review Request: qt5-qtwebengine - Qt5 - QtWebEngine components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295549 --- Comment #9 from Kevin Kofler --- I'll update the specfile ASAP, probably tonight: 1. is already done in my local copy, 2. is trivial, but for 3., I need to check which of the Provides from chromium.spec actually apply here: QtWebEngine compiles only a subset of Chromium, so I need to check in the build.log what third_party stuff is actually being built (and the "Provides: bundled(kitchensink) = 1" probably doesn't belong ;-) ). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295255] Review Request: php-container-interop - Promoting the interoperability of container objects (DIC, SL, etc.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295255 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- php-di-symfony2-bridge-1.1.0-1.fc23 php-di-5.2.0-1.fc23 php-di-invoker-1.2.0-1.fc23 php-mnapoli-phpunit-easymock-0.2.1-1.fc23 php-di-phpdoc-reader-2.0.1-1.fc23 php-container-interop-1.1.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-24c3e6b59c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295260] Review Request: php-mnapoli-phpunit-easymock - Helpers to build PHPUnit mocks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295260 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- php-container-interop-1.1.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-63cd5fa5f4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295258] Review Request: php-di - The dependency injection container for humans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295258 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- php-di-symfony2-bridge-1.1.0-1.el7 php-di-5.2.0-1.el7 php-di-invoker-1.2.0-1.el7 php-mnapoli-phpunit-easymock-0.2.1-1.el7 php-di-phpdoc-reader-2.0.1-1.el7 php-container-interop-1.1.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-2cc24c1200 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- php-di-symfony2-bridge-1.1.0-1.fc23 php-di-5.2.0-1.fc23 php-di-invoker-1.2.0-1.fc23 php-mnapoli-phpunit-easymock-0.2.1-1.fc23 php-di-phpdoc-reader-2.0.1-1.fc23 php-container-interop-1.1.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-24c3e6b59c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295258] Review Request: php-di - The dependency injection container for humans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295258 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- php-container-interop-1.1.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-63cd5fa5f4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295257] Review Request: php-di-invoker - Generic and extensible callable invoker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295257 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- php-container-interop-1.1.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-63cd5fa5f4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295256] Review Request: php-di-phpdoc-reader - Parses @var and @param values in PHP docblocks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295256 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- php-di-symfony2-bridge-1.1.0-1.el7 php-di-5.2.0-1.el7 php-di-invoker-1.2.0-1.el7 php-mnapoli-phpunit-easymock-0.2.1-1.el7 php-di-phpdoc-reader-2.0.1-1.el7 php-container-interop-1.1.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-2cc24c1200 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295256] Review Request: php-di-phpdoc-reader - Parses @var and @param values in PHP docblocks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295256 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- php-di-symfony2-bridge-1.1.0-1.el7 php-di-5.2.0-1.el7 php-di-invoker-1.2.0-1.el7 php-mnapoli-phpunit-easymock-0.2.1-1.el7 php-di-phpdoc-reader-2.0.1-1.el7 php-container-interop-1.1.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-2cc24c1200 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- php-di-symfony2-bridge-1.1.0-1.fc22 php-di-5.2.0-1.fc22 php-di-invoker-1.2.0-1.fc22 php-mnapoli-phpunit-easymock-0.2.1-1.fc22 php-di-phpdoc-reader-2.0.1-1.fc22 php-container-interop-1.1.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7d61abd66d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295259] Review Request: php-di-symfony2-bridge - PHP-DI integration with Symfony 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295259 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 1295259] Review Request: php-di-symfony2-bridge - PHP-DI integration with Symfony 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295259 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- php-di-symfony2-bridge-1.1.0-1.fc22 php-di-5.2.0-1.fc22 php-di-invoker-1.2.0-1.fc22 php-mnapoli-phpunit-easymock-0.2.1-1.fc22 php-di-phpdoc-reader-2.0.1-1.fc22 php-container-interop-1.1.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7d61abd66d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295257] Review Request: php-di-invoker - Generic and extensible callable invoker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295257 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- php-di-symfony2-bridge-1.1.0-1.fc22 php-di-5.2.0-1.fc22 php-di-invoker-1.2.0-1.fc22 php-mnapoli-phpunit-easymock-0.2.1-1.fc22 php-di-phpdoc-reader-2.0.1-1.fc22 php-container-interop-1.1.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7d61abd66d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1179484] Review Request: python-cram - Simple testing framework for command line applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179484 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System --- python-cram-0.6-9.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292895] Review Request: php-pear-crypt-gpg - GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292895 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-01-07 14:55:25 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1277434] Review Request: php-nette-mail - Nette Mail: Sending E-mails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277434 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- php-nette-mail-2.3.4-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1277470] Review Request: php-nette-application - Nette Application MVC Component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277470 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1294341] Review Request: nodejs-dreamopt - Command-line parser with readable syntax from your sweetest dreams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294341 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-01-07 14:55:47 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1294078] Review Request: nodejs-json-diff - JSON diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294078 Bug 1294078 depends on bug 1294341, which changed state. Bug 1294341 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-dreamopt - Command-line parser with readable syntax from your sweetest dreams https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294341 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1290302] Review Request: php-bartlett-php-compatinfo-db - Reference Database to be used with php-compatinfo library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290302 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo-5.0.0-1.fc23, php-bartlett-PHP-Reflect-4.0.0-1.fc23, php-bartlett-php-compatinfo-db-1.3.0-1.fc23, php-bartlett-umlwriter-1.1.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685 --- Comment #22 from Dan Horák --- > > 2. Requires: sylpheed > > > > This is often superfluous. Generally, RPM will pick up it automatically. > > Why so? If sylpheed is not installed, then sylfilter has to be built > differently. no, rpmbuild adds automatically dependencies on shared libraries used in the resulting rpm. So there will be always a dependency on libsylph no matter in which package or rpm libsylph will live. If sylfilter is useful without the sylpheed GUI client, we can move the libsylph library into own subpackage. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1288643] Review Request: dlib - A modern C++ toolkit containing machine learning algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288643 --- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- (In reply to Dmitry Mikhirev from comment #10) > > The "and Public Domain" part only applies to the examples. > There are also data files under CC-BY-SA. I added them to -doc package too > as well as license. Ack. > > 1. You should split out a -doc subpackage. > Should the %doc macro be used in this case? I thought that it is only > necessary for installing with --excludedocs option, but using it for *-doc > package is nonsense. However this macro is used in Fedora packages that I > looked at. Using %doc still makes sense, because documentation packages are sometimes pulled in by dependencies (including Recommends). Sometimes -doc packages might be installed on upgrade, when a -doc subpackages is split out of the main package. Using %doc even in -doc subpackage makes rpm --excludedocs work consistently. > > Most likely the test is wrong. > No, it is BR that was wrong. I added openblas-devel and removed blas-devel > and lapack-devel that are linked statically into openblas. > > SRPM URL: > https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bizdelnick/neuro/fedora- > rawhide-x86_64/00149626-dlib/dlib-18.18-1.fc24.src.rpm > Spec URL: > http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/bizdelnick/neuro/dlib.git/ > plain/dlib.spec?id=be566ba74ab3cd34234bd9935c9cd25f931587f1 Looks good. rpmlint: dlib.i686: W: no-documentation dlib-devel.i686: W: no-documentation python2-dlib.i686: W: no-documentation python3-dlib.i686: W: no-documentation That is OK. dlib-doc.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/dlib-doc/docs/python/.buildinfo dlib-doc.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/dlib-doc/docs/python/.doctrees dlib-doc.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/dlib-doc/docs/python/.doctrees Yeah, see comment #9. Please fix that up in the initial build. 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Package is APPROVED. (In reply to Dmitry Mikhirev from comment #11) > A couple of reviews: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279112#c1 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293735#c6 Ack. I've added you to the packagers group. Welcome! I'm happy to help with any questions or issues you might have. It would be great if you could now finish those reviews ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1285051] Review Request: nodejs-cjson - Commented JavaScript Object Notation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285051 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-cjson -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1179484] Review Request: python-cram - Simple testing framework for command line applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179484 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- python-cram-0.6-9.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 1295667] Review Request: erlang-proper - A QuickCheck-inspired property-based testing tool for Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295667 Randy Barlow changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Assignee|lemen...@gmail.com |rbar...@redhat.com Last Closed||2016-01-07 13:41:26 --- Comment #6 from Randy Barlow --- This is now in Rawhide! http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12451261 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1294331] Review Request: erlang-oauth2 - An Oauth2 implementation for Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294331 Bug 1294331 depends on bug 1295667, which changed state. Bug 1295667 Summary: Review Request: erlang-proper - A QuickCheck-inspired property-based testing tool for Erlang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295667 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|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 1295108] Review Request: mycli - Nice command line interface for MySQL Database with auto-completion and syntax highlighting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295108 --- Comment #7 from Fabio Alessandro Locati --- Thanks a lot! Looks good now. The package is now approved! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295108] Review Request: mycli - Nice command line interface for MySQL Database with auto-completion and syntax highlighting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295108
--- Comment #5 from Fabio Alessandro Locati ---
So, the short version is: the package is close to be ready imho, the following
things should be fixed:
1. Remove the patch for using configobj 5.0.5. python-configobj 5.0.6 is on
it's way :) https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=python-configobj
2. As for the naming thing: the ninth must item states "Package consistently
uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).". Surely we can say that
%{name} will not change (easily, at least) in future so it's not very different
from being hardcoded, but if you look at the Python specific guidelines example
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file) you
can note that the variables are always used. My guess is that one of the
side-effects of using variables is making python spec files (which are already
very similar one to the other) more similar to help out readability and
increase the probability that a random user reading the spec file is able to
detect an error.
Nice to have:
- point out to upstream that none of their file have an inline license
Aside from those, I think the rest is ok
The long version is:
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)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated".
38 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/fale/Downloads/review-mycli/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed
[Bug 759818] Review Request: buffer - General purpose buffer program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759818 --- Comment #30 from Miroslav Suchý --- Bruno I just gave you the ownership. Try clonning the repo and push the package 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 1292794] Review Request: openstack-magnum - Container Management project for OpenStack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292794
--- Comment #7 from Javier Peña ---
(In reply to Mathieu Velten from comment #6)
> Is it not the same since the Version: XXX is replaced by delorean ?
> if not should I also use %{upstream_version} in the Requires of the defined
> packages ?
Internally, Delorean will replace XXX with the upstream version, and that will
be part of the %{upstream_version} macro. If the spec does not use it, Delorean
will fail in the %prep section, because python setup.py sdist will have the
version in %{upstream_version} and not %{version}.
There is no need to use %{upstream_version} in Requires, only in %prep.
--
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 1234210] Review Request: pdf-stapler - tool for manipulating PDF documents from the command line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234210 --- Comment #43 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Ranjan, I'm ready to add you to the packagers group, but I'm not sure about the account details: 17:37 fasinfo aarem 17:37 User: aarem, Name: Ranjan Maitra, email: itsme_...@yahoo.com, Creation: 2012-01-09, IRC Nick: None, Timezone: UTC, Locale: C, GPG key ID: None, Status: active 17:37 Approved Groups: cla_fpca cla_done 17:37 fasinfo maitra 17:37 User: maitra, Name: Ranjan Maitra, email: stat.mai...@inbox.com, Creation: 2015-06-20, IRC Nick: None, Timezone: UTC, Locale: en, GPG key ID: 038B87FE, Status: active 17:37 Approved Groups: cla_done cla_fpca Did you create both? Please note that the e-mail address in bugzilla has to mount the one in FAS. If both are yours, let me know which one you want to use, and if the second one, change the e-mail to match bugzilla (or vice versa). Please terminate the other account (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Account_System#Voluntary). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1268380] Review Request: python-sphinx-theme-bootstrap - A sphinx theme that integrates the Bootstrap framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268380 --- Comment #16 from Stuart Campbell --- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294275 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1283327] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-pecanwsme - Extension to Sphinx for documenting APIs built with Pecan and WSME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283327 Stuart Campbell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||stu...@stuartcampbell.me --- Comment #3 from Stuart Campbell --- Informal Review: Just wondering, why the check for fedora around turning python3 off ? This would not be triggered if this package was in EPEL. The statement could just be standalone, or since python3 isn't working for this package then just remove it altogether. Also, the build and install steps could make use of the %py2_build and %py2_install commands. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295685] Review Request: python-bcrypt - Modern password hashing for your software and your servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295685
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
Thanks :)
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
==> I am not sure why fedora-review package installation test failed. At least
same srpm built on F23, installed without problem.
= 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
(v2.0)". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/parag/1295685-python-bcrypt/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages,
/usr/lib64/python3.5
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-
packages, /usr/lib64/python3.5
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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 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:
[
[Bug 1274948] Review Request: pki-usgov-dod-cacerts - A collection of U.S. Government CA Certs that DOD uses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274948 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||msu...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msu...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Miroslav Suchý --- Taking. Those two comments are superfluous. Just leave that one comment about license and remove those two remaining. Be consistent about spacing between section. One (or two lines) are usually used. You use 6 lines before %files and 0 lines before %prep. Additionally putting new lines randomly in spec make it hard to read (e.g before BR and Source0). New line in %description counts as space. No need to put space at the beginning of line. You are missing dot at the and of sentence in description. Please use: /etc/pki/pki-usgov-dod-cacerts as directory name. > %config(noreplace) /etc/pki/usgov_dod/cacerts/ This is not config - despite being in /etc/ which is usually for config. If you update some cert you want to overwrite it on user machine. So please omit %config(noreplace). Some certificates (e.g. DOD_CA-18-32-58468.pem) contain outdated certificates. What is the reason for including such files? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 838252] Review Request: sugar-iknowamerica - Geographycal Activity for Sugar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838252 German Ruiz changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(germanrs@fedorapr | |oject.org) | --- Comment #8 from German Ruiz --- Please feel free to continue this work :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292216] Review Request: libwhirlpool - Whirlpool cryptographic hash function library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292216 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- dfateyev's scratch build of libwhirlpool-1.0-1.fc20.denf.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12449773 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1036130] Review request: plv8 - javascript language extension for postgresql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036130 Pavel Kajaba changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mikko.tiihonen@ik ||i.fi) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295259] Review Request: php-di-symfony2-bridge - PHP-DI integration with Symfony 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295259 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/php-di-symfony2-bridge -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1294666] Review Request: python-sql - Python library to write SQL queries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294666 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-sql -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1245889] Review Request: python-pymssql - Microsoft SQL Server adapter for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245889 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2016-01-07 08:30:04 --- Comment #8 from Miroslav Suchý --- Still no progress. Closing for now. If you ever want to continue, feel free to reopen this bug or file new one. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1228115] Review Request: openstack-neutron-lbaas - Openstack Networking LBaaS plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228115 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msu...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #5 from Miroslav Suchý --- The will to write man page (or other documentation) is blocker for me. I'm stepping back. Maybe somebody else will make you the 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 970438] Review Request: mingw-phonon - Multimedia framework API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970438 Bug 970438 depends on bug 970436, which changed state. Bug 970436 Summary: Review Request: mingw-kde-filesystem - KDE filesystem layout https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970436 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 970436] Review Request: mingw-kde-filesystem - KDE filesystem layout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970436 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2016-01-07 08:25:19 --- Comment #3 from Miroslav Suchý --- Still no progress. Closing for now. If you ever want to continue, feel free to reopen this bug or file new one. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1290530] Review Request: smtpping - Small tool for measuring SMTP parameters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290530 --- Comment #5 from Denis Fateyev --- Updated spec: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora22/smtpping.spec SRPM: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora22/smtpping-1.1.2-2.fc24.src.rpm Rawhide scratch build is above. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292794
--- Comment #5 from Javier Peña ---
Thanks for the update. I have been doing some checks today, and it looks like
the tests issue is caused by an old version of python-fixtures, so we'll have
to leave them as is for now.
About the spec itself, you will need to change the %prep section to use the
following line:
%setup -q -n %{service}-%{upstream_version}
upstream_version is defined by Delorean, see
https://www.rdoproject.org/packaging/rdo-packaging.html#_differences_between_master_and_rawhide_packaging
for details.
The rest looks fine, I would only suggest to verify the Requires as I see some
requirements missing (python-neutronclient).
--
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 1295549] Review Request: qt5-qtwebengine - Qt5 - QtWebEngine components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295549 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1277161] Review Request: mod_mono - ASP.NET module for Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277161
James Hogarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from James Hogarth ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
This is a known fedora-review bug with debug packages. Manually installing in a
VM works fine.
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/mod_mono
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
This is unretiring an old package so the conflict is expected and not an issue.
- dir-or-file-in-var-run /var/run/mod_mono
This is following the tmpfiles.d syntax. Not considered an issue.
- unversioned so-files
This is an httpd library and not in the ldconfig path or a development library.
= 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.
[-]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[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)", "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v2 or later)",
"Unknown or generated". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/james/workspace/fedora-
scm/1277161-mod_mono/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: P
[Bug 879928] Review Request: rigsofrods - Vehicle simulator based on soft-body physics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879928 Pavel Alexeev changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1296489 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296489 [Bug 1296489] please update mygui to version 3.2.2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1161035] Review Request: nodejs-i18n-node-angular - i18n-node in an AngularJS application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161035 Zuzana Svetlikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2016-01-07 05:44:22 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1191068] Review Request: - nodejs-formatio-Human-readable object formatting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191068 Zuzana Svetlikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||zsvet...@redhat.com Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2016-01-07 05:42:26 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1188524] Review Request: nodejs-date-tokens - Convenient date formatting for templates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188524 Zuzana Svetlikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||zsvet...@redhat.com Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|fedora-review- | Last Closed||2016-01-07 05:35:29 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292272] Review Request: nodm - A display manager automatically starting an X session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292272 Christian Dersch changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|nodm| -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295154] Review Request: python-prompt_toolkit - Library for building powerful interactive command lines in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295154 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-prompt_toolkit-0.52-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0a364f14aa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295154] Review Request: python-prompt_toolkit - Library for building powerful interactive command lines in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295154 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-prompt_toolkit-0.52-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d0a73e9a0f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295154] Review Request: python-prompt_toolkit - Library for building powerful interactive command lines in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295154 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 1295152] Review Request: python-wcwidth - Measures number of Terminal column cells of wide-character codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295152 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-wcwidth-0.1.5-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b739c3d32e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295152] Review Request: python-wcwidth - Measures number of Terminal column cells of wide-character codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295152 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 1295152] Review Request: python-wcwidth - Measures number of Terminal column cells of wide-character codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295152 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python-wcwidth-0.1.5-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-af0dbd1d66 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
