[Bug 1297530] Review Request: perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML - Light and fast TwiML generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297530 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML-1.05-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-57210aee35 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292413] Review Request: nodejs-es6-iterator - Iterator abstraction based on ES6 specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292413 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-es6-iterator-2.0.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-cd40f21a26 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- python-flower-0.8.3-5.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a0ac4971c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292412] Review Request: nodejs-es6-symbol - ECMAScript 6 Symbol polyfill
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292412 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-es6-symbol-3.0.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b3384ca620 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297177] nodejs-mysql should depend on nodejs-readable-stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297177 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-mysql-2.6.2-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9365dc1245 -- 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 1290524] Review Request: libdkimpp - Lightweight and portable DKIM (RFC4871) library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290524 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- libdkimpp-1.0.8-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b91f842baa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292413] Review Request: nodejs-es6-iterator - Iterator abstraction based on ES6 specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292413 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-es6-iterator-2.0.0-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-bd96a7246b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292412] Review Request: nodejs-es6-symbol - ECMAScript 6 Symbol polyfill
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292412 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-es6-symbol-3.0.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-76a9ebd1c9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1290524] Review Request: libdkimpp - Lightweight and portable DKIM (RFC4871) library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290524 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- libdkimpp-1.0.8-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ead0275590 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297530] Review Request: perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML - Light and fast TwiML generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297530 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML-1.05-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-320b4f57a0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292413] Review Request: nodejs-es6-iterator - Iterator abstraction based on ES6 specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292413 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-es6-iterator-2.0.0-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-298d867ed8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292412] Review Request: nodejs-es6-symbol - ECMAScript 6 Symbol polyfill
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292412 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-es6-symbol-3.0.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-cc40ad47de -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1194781] Review Request: pcre2 - Perl-compatible regular expression library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194781 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- pcre2-10.21-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-02006faabe -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1290524] Review Request: libdkimpp - Lightweight and portable DKIM (RFC4871) library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290524 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- libdkimpp-1.0.8-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-bae9540fb7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297530] Review Request: perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML - Light and fast TwiML generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297530 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML-1.05-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-531be5aa48 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292412] Review Request: nodejs-es6-symbol - ECMAScript 6 Symbol polyfill
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292412 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|ERRATA |--- --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-es6-symbol-3.0.2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-1ca23f676d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- python-wcwidth-0.1.6-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-218ad017f4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1194781] Review Request: pcre2 - Perl-compatible regular expression library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194781 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- pcre2-10.21-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-a19e4f7576 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297530] Review Request: perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML - Light and fast TwiML generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297530 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML-1.05-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-b4dde64045 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292413] Review Request: nodejs-es6-iterator - Iterator abstraction based on ES6 specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292413 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|ERRATA |--- --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-es6-iterator-2.0.0-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-9536418762 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292416] Review Request: nodejs-es5-ext - ECMAScript 5 extensions and ES6 shims
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292416 Bug 1292416 depends on bug 1292413, which changed state. Bug 1292413 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-es6-iterator - Iterator abstraction based on ES6 specification https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292413 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA 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 1292416] Review Request: nodejs-es5-ext - ECMAScript 5 extensions and ES6 shims
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292416 Bug 1292416 depends on bug 1292412, which changed state. Bug 1292412 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-es6-symbol - ECMAScript 6 Symbol polyfill https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292412 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA 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 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|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- python-prompt_toolkit-0.57-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-300412abda -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1289850] Review Request: rubygem-mini_portile2 - Simplistic port-like solution for developers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289850 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA --- Thank you for comments. https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gem-related/rubygem-mini_portile2.spec https://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/gem-related/rubygem-mini_portile2-2.1.0-1.fc.src.rpm Unfortunately, currently test suite cannot be executed due to missing BR on Fedora (however this is only for executing test suite : runtime dependency is all available on Fedora) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292149] Review Request: nodejs-cli-color - Colors, formatting and other tools for the console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292149 Bug 1292149 depends on bug 1292413, which changed state. Bug 1292413 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-es6-iterator - Iterator abstraction based on ES6 specification https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292413 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA 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 1294568] Review Request: libmtp11 - A software library for MTP media players
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294568 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- libmtp11-1.1.10-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-3792c06bf1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292057] Review Request: perl-DBIx-QueryLog - Logging queries for DBI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292057 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2015-12-28 17:55:22 |2016-01-13 01:24:38 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1292057] Review Request: perl-DBIx-QueryLog - Logging queries for DBI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292057 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- perl-DBIx-QueryLog-0.41-1.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 1295237] Review Request: python-supersmoother - Python implementation of Friedman's Supersmoother
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295237 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-supersmoother-0.3.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295254] Review Request: php-psr-cache - PSR Cache: Common interface for caching libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295254 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- php-psr-cache-1.0.0-1.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 1295254] Review Request: php-psr-cache - PSR Cache: Common interface for caching libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295254 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- php-psr-cache-1.0.0-1.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 1295237] Review Request: python-supersmoother - Python implementation of Friedman's Supersmoother
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295237 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-supersmoother-0.3.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295249] Review Request: python-gatspy - General tools for Astronomical Time Series in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295249 Bug 1295249 depends on bug 1295237, which changed state. Bug 1295237 Summary: Review Request: python-supersmoother - Python implementation of Friedman's Supersmoother https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295237 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 1295237] Review Request: python-supersmoother - Python implementation of Friedman's Supersmoother
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295237 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-01-13 00:22:32 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295254] Review Request: php-psr-cache - PSR Cache: Common interface for caching libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295254 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-01-13 00:22:11 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1288194] Update diskimage-builder to 1.4.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288194 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version|diskimage-builder-1.4.0-1.f |diskimage-builder-1.4.0-1.f |c24 |c24 ||diskimage-builder-1.4.0-1.e ||l7 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-01-12 23:26:52 -- 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 1288194] Update diskimage-builder to 1.4.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288194 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- dib-utils-0.0.9-2.el7, diskimage-builder-1.4.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[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 --- Comment #13 from Stephen J Pollei --- That's great news. I do need to learn a lot more about the process, I've never used fedpkg or bodhi before. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers I think I can carefully follow the instructions. 1) https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/ "Request new package" 2) mkdir -p ~/devel/fedora-scm ; cd ~/devel/fedora-scm ; fedpkg clone pki-usgov-dod-cacerts 3) fedpkg import foo.src.rpm ; git commit -m "Initial import (#1274948)." ; git push ; fedpkg build I know almost nothing about bodhi, but I shouldn't need it to get it into rawhide. I also don't think I need comps.xml as it's a niche package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1298019] Review Request: nvme-cli - NVMe management command line interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298019 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- amluto's scratch build of nvme-cli-0.2-1.20160112gitde3e0f1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12523790 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1298019] New: Review Request: nvme-cli - NVMe management command line interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298019
Bug ID: 1298019
Summary: Review Request: nvme-cli - NVMe management command
line interface
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: l...@kernel.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/nvme-cli-v1/nvme-cli.spec
SRPM URL:
http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/nvme-cli-v1/nvme-cli-0.2-1.20160112gitde3e0f1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: nvme-cli provides NVM-Express user space tooling for Linux.
Fedora Account System Username: amluto
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12523790
Self-review: (NB: checksums are off because I fixed a trivial bug after
generating this, and I didn't want to wait for fedora-review to run again.)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 130 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/luto/devel/fedora/nvme-cli/nvme-cli/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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(
[Bug 1117906] Review Request: python-scikit-image - Image processing in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117906 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|e...@saltstack.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295099] Review Request: nodejs-array-differ - Find values that are only present in the first input array
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295099 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2016-01-12 19:21:36 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Miroslav Suchý --- This: fedora-review -rn pki-usgov-dod-cacerts-0.0.6-4.fc24.src.rpm works for me. APPROVED Now follow the process. I sponsored you into packager group. If you ever have questions and you need some guidenance about fedora processes or infrastructure do not hesitate to contact me directly. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1270322] Review Request: chromium - A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270322 --- Comment #23 from Raphael Groner --- (In reply to Heiko Adams from comment #22) > (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #21) > > How Nvidia breaks Chrome Incognito > > > > https://charliehorse55.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/how-nvidia-breaks-chrome- > > incognito/ > > > > Sorry if that's offtopic to the review in general, but it's IMHO a security > > issue also possibly dedicated to chromium. > > This seems to be a driver issue - as that article says. So I don't see any > relationship to chrome/chromium. Yes. Similiar issue could happen with any other application, too. That's no issue with our general review, please continue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 469460] review request: gir-repository - GObject Introspection Repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469460 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|walt...@redhat.com |otay...@redhat.com -- 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 1293156] Review Request: lxqt-sudo - GUI frontend for sudo/su
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293156 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/lxqt-sudo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 241319] Review Request: hotwire - Interactive hybrid text/graphical shell for developers and system administrators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241319 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|walt...@redhat.com |jbo...@redhat.com -- 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 1294904] Review Request: python-rpm-macros - The unversioned Python RPM macros
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294904 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-rpm-macros -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297274] Review Request: pulp - An application for managing software repositories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297274 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/pulp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1293425] Review Request: python-ImcSdk - python lib for CRUD operations on Cisco IMC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293425 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-ImcSdk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1269844] Review Request: jcuber - CUBE reader for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269844
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #10 from Orion Poplawski ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
- Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
Note: No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for
Fedora versions >= 21
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
The above are optional, so not a problem.
- doc subpackage must include the license
- Note license breakdown in spec
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
- Apparently doesn't cause a problem, but Provides should use "=" not "==".
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 91 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/export/home/orion/redhat/1269844-jcuber/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Maven:
[-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_mave
[Bug 1293156] Review Request: lxqt-sudo - GUI frontend for sudo/su
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293156 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RELEASE_PENDING |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 1293156] Review Request: lxqt-sudo - GUI frontend for sudo/su
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293156 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|RELEASE_PENDING Alias|lxqt-sudo | --- Comment #9 from Raphael Groner --- Pushed to Rawhide. I'll do any other builds later. Removing alias to allow searching for other package related bugs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[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 --- Comment #11 from Stephen J Pollei --- OK I made a 0.0.6-4 with those changes https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pollei/fedora-rpm-specs/a57785d3113eb7dc84865218298ee14778fb548f/pki-usgov-dod-cacerts.spec https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/spollei/dod_firefox_cfg/build/153177/ http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12521300 copr and koji ran I tried running my own review but it failed `fedora-review --prebuilt -rn pki-usgov-dod-cacerts-0.0.6-4.fc23.src.rpm --define DISTTAG=f23` ERROR: 'Multiple srpms found for pki-usgov-dod-cacerts' -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1287822] Review Request: origin - OpenShift Open Source Container Management by Red Hat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287822 Troy Dawson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2016-01-12 17:59:42 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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 --- Comment #10 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- spollei's scratch build of pki-usgov-dod-cacerts-0.0.6-4.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12521299 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1293075] Review Request: lximage-qt - The image viewer and screenshot tool for lxqt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293075 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|RELEASE_PENDING --- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner --- Pushed to Rawhide. I'll do any other builds later. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1288456] Review Request: python-recommonmark - docutils-compatibility bridge to CommonMark
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456 Pavel Alexeev 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 1288456] Review Request: python-recommonmark - docutils-compatibility bridge to CommonMark
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456
--- Comment #6 from Pavel Alexeev ---
Why binaries placed ony in python3 package?
Package Review
==
Legend:
[+] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [x] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[+]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+]: 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". 8 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/pasha/SOFT/review/python-recommonmark/1288456-python-
recommonmark/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[+]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[+]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[+]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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).
[+]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[+]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[+]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[+]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[+]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[+]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[+]: Package installs properly.
[+]: 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.
[+]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[+]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[+]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[+]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[+]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[+]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[+]: Dist tag is present.
[+]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[+]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work.
[+]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[+]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[+]: Package is not relocatable.
[+]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[+]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[+]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[+]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[+]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[+]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[+]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
You must require both:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
[+]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[+]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[+]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[+]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[+]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[+]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Please include %check
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[+]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[+]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in
[Bug 1270322] Review Request: chromium - A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270322 --- Comment #22 from Heiko Adams --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #21) > How Nvidia breaks Chrome Incognito > > https://charliehorse55.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/how-nvidia-breaks-chrome- > incognito/ > > Sorry if that's offtopic to the review in general, but it's IMHO a security > issue also possibly dedicated to chromium. This seems to be a driver issue - as that article says. So I don't see any relationship to chrome/chromium. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1288456] Review Request: python-recommonmark - docutils-compatibility bridge to CommonMark
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288456 --- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- hubbitus's scratch build of python-recommonmark-0.4.0-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12520874 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1270322] Review Request: chromium - A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270322 --- Comment #21 from Raphael Groner --- How Nvidia breaks Chrome Incognito https://charliehorse55.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/how-nvidia-breaks-chrome-incognito/ Sorry if that's offtopic to the review in general, but it's IMHO a security issue also possibly dedicated to chromium. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297274] Review Request: pulp - An application for managing software repositories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297274
Adam Miller changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(admiller@redhat.c |fedora-review+
|om) |
--- Comment #7 from Adam Miller ---
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: "Unknown or generated". 1301 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/admiller/reviews/1297274-pulp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /etc/gofer/plugins
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/pki/pulp,
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pulp, /etc/httpd, /etc/gofer/plugins,
/etc/default, /etc/httpd/conf.d, /etc/pulp
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/bash_completion.d/pulp-admin
%config /etc/bash_completion.d/pulp-consumer
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 184320 bytes in 36 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to i
[Bug 1294860] Review Request: python3-coverage - Code coverage testing module for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294860 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1297977 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297977 [Bug 1297977] Review Request: python3-Cython - A language for writing Python 3 extension modules -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297514] Review Request: python3-numpy - A fast multidimensional array facility for Python 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297514 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1297977 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297977 [Bug 1297977] Review Request: python3-Cython - A language for writing Python 3 extension modules -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297977] Review Request: python3-Cython - A language for writing Python 3 extension modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297977 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1297514, 1294860 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294860 [Bug 1294860] Review Request: python3-coverage - Code coverage testing module for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297514 [Bug 1297514] Review Request: python3-numpy - A fast multidimensional array facility for Python 3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297977] New: Review Request: python3-Cython - A language for writing Python 3 extension modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297977 Bug ID: 1297977 Summary: Review Request: python3-Cython - A language for writing Python 3 extension modules Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel7 Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: or...@cora.nwra.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-Cython.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/ Description: This is a development version of Pyrex, a language for writing Python extension modules. For more info, see: Doc/About.html for a description of the language INSTALL.txtfor installation instructions USAGE.txt for usage instructions Demos for usage examples Fedora Account System Username: orion This package is for EPEL only. https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/g/python/python3_epel7/build/153163/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812758] Review Request: trader - Star Traders, a simple game of interstellar trading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #24 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Using a comment to declare the license on a spec file to be GPLv3+ is perfectly acceptable. The intent of the FPCA is to provide a blanket default license for all contributed works (including spec files) where the contributor does not specify a license. Since you've specified a license, this does not apply. Your choice of license (GPLv3+) is perfectly acceptable to Fedora. Lifting FE-Legal. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812758] Review Request: trader - Star Traders, a simple game of interstellar trading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758 --- Comment #23 from John Zaitseff --- Adding a .desktop file and a .xml.appdata file are probably good ideas. I'll try to do so in the near future, although I hope it won't hold up the inclusion of the current package (given these are optional, and I want to see if I can make the two files PO-translatable, which may take some time). Yes, most definitely I have read the FPCA. The key words are "by default", that is, unless otherwise explicitly licensed. In this case, the SPEC file _is_ explicitly licensed to GPL 3+, which happens to match the licence of the rest of the Star Traders package. If Fedora Legal insists on MIT, I can relicense this one file, but I strongly prefer GPL. By all means ask Legal. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1293735] Review Request: boomaga - A virtual printer for viewing a document before printing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293735
--- Comment #10 from MartinKG ---
(In reply to Dmitry Mikhirev from comment #9)
> OK, now I can finish the review officially.
>
> >> * Error opening pdf file: cannot find boomagamerger.
> > done
>
> Well, symlinking to %{_bindir} works, but the proper fix should be patching
> gui/kernel/tmppdffile.cpp to use compile-time defined path to search
> boomagamerger instead hardcoded:
>
> dirs << QApplication::applicationDirPath() + "/../lib/boomaga/";
>
> The correct path can be passed by cmake as macro definition. It is upstream
> bug, because gui/pdfmerger/CMakeLists.txt respects LIB_SUFFIX, but the code
> does not. Please open an issue or pull request.
I reported this bug upstream:
https://github.com/Boomaga/boomaga/issues/32
but the mentioned solution from the developer doesn't work.
>
> > boomaga.spec:59: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/cups/backend
>
> I'm sorry, that's my mistake. The resulting path is correct now, but another
> macro should be used: %{_exec_prefix} instead %{_prefix}. The even better
> option is to use the %{_cups_serverbin} macro provided by the cups-devel
> package to ensure that the path will remain correct after possible changes
> in cups packaging.
done
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[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
--- Comment #9 from Miroslav Suchý ---
Here comes full formal review. I found three more minor things.
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section 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]: 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).
Issues:
You are missing:
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/pki/pki-usgov-dod-cacerts
so the directory is not owned by your package.
In %install and %files you should use %{_sysconfdir} macro instead of /etc/
In %install you should use "cp -a" to preserve original timestamp of files.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are o
[Bug 812758] Review Request: trader - Star Traders, a simple game of interstellar trading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #22 from William Moreno --- I think you can create a .desktop file with terminal=True https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files You SHOULD provide a .xml.appdata file if you not provide the appdata information users will can not find this game in Gnome Software. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData You must use the %license tag for the COPYING file. Did you read the FPCA, by default all spec files in Fedora are released under the MIT License "Current Default License", with respect to a Contribution, means (i) if the Contribution is Code, the MIT License, and (ii) if the Contribution is Content, CC-BY-SA supplemented by Moral Rights Clause Waiver and GPL Relicensing Permission." Any way: 2. Licensed Contributions. If Your Contribution is Licensed, Your Contribution will be governed by the terms under which it has been licensed. So just include the spec file in the project source and by this way your code and the spec file will be covered by the same license, any way there is not need to put a license adivisory in the spec so all the spec files are under a very permisive license. Any way we can ask to legal. So I will request to Legal to please consider if we can continue with this review with the legal notice in the spec about GPLv3. Any way you can do some informal reviews by the way. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812758] Review Request: trader - Star Traders, a simple game of interstellar trading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758 --- Comment #21 from John Zaitseff --- (In reply to William Moreno from comment #18) > # Author: John Zaitseff > > There is not need to put you as author for the same reason than be do not > use the Packager tag in rpm spes, it is very clear than you are the author > of the spec looking at your changelog. Granted. However, the "Author:" line is a standard (and grep-able) line in my header blocks for all source code files in all my projects, so although redundant, I would prefer to keep it in if possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812758] Review Request: trader - Star Traders, a simple game of interstellar trading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758 --- Comment #20 from John Zaitseff --- (In reply to William Moreno from comment #17) > # This file is distributed under the same licence as Star Traders itself: > # the GNU General Public License, version 3 or later. > > Not, you can not, specs are software for the FPCA > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal: > Fedora_Project_Contributor_Agreement?rd=Legal:FPCA > > "Code" means (i) software code, (ii) any other functional material whose > principal purpose is to control or facilitate the building of packages, such > as an RPM spec file, (iii) font files, and (iv) other kinds of copyrightable > material that the Fedora Council has classified as "code" rather than > "content". I am not quite sure what your point is here. I am the author of both the software package (Star Traders) and (at least for current versions) the SPEC file as well. All I aim in making the statement "This file is distributed..." is to make the SPEC file be under the GPL 3+. It is a declarative statement in English: essentially, "I choose that this file is distributed under...". My reading of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing suggests that I can license the SPEC file under an explicit licence, in this case GPL 3+: it is only if I don't that the SPEC file comes under the MIT licence. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297629] Review Request: python-crane - A WSGI app providing a docker-registry-like API with redirection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297629 --- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- rbarlow's scratch build of python-crane-2.0.0-0.1.beta.1.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12520247 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812758] Review Request: trader - Star Traders, a simple game of interstellar trading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|williamjmore...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812758] Review Request: trader - Star Traders, a simple game of interstellar trading
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758 --- Comment #19 from John Zaitseff --- (In reply to William Moreno from comment #16) > I can take your review request to become a sponsor if you agree to do some > informal reviews. Absolutely. Thank you for taking the time to make your comments. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297177] nodejs-mysql should depend on nodejs-readable-stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297177 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297177] nodejs-mysql should depend on nodejs-readable-stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297177 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-mysql-2.6.2-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9365dc1245 -- 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 1296302] Review Request: nodejs-jison - A parser generator with Bison's API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296302 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2016-01-12 15:46:22 --- 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 1297629] Review Request: python-crane - A WSGI app providing a docker-registry-like API with redirection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297629 Randy Barlow changed: What|Removed |Added CC||admil...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(admiller@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #3 from Randy Barlow --- I have marked these fonts with Provides: bundled(font-foo) lines, and reuploaded the spec and SRPM. Can you recheck? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1246505] Review Request: golang-github-camlistore-lock - Small Go package to do lock files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246505 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- lsm5's scratch build of golang-github-camlistore-lock-0-0.1.gitae27720.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12519758 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297530] Review Request: perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML - Light and fast TwiML generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297530 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML-1.05-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-57210aee35 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML-1.05-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-b4dde64045 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297530] Review Request: perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML - Light and fast TwiML generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297530 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML-1.05-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-531be5aa48 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297530] Review Request: perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML - Light and fast TwiML generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297530 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML-1.05-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-57210aee35 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297530] Review Request: perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML - Light and fast TwiML generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297530 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML-1.05-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-531be5aa48 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1290524] Review Request: libdkimpp - Lightweight and portable DKIM (RFC4871) library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290524 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- libdkimpp-1.0.8-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ead0275590 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1290524] Review Request: libdkimpp - Lightweight and portable DKIM (RFC4871) library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290524 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- libdkimpp-1.0.8-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b91f842baa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1290524] Review Request: libdkimpp - Lightweight and portable DKIM (RFC4871) library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290524 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- libdkimpp-1.0.8-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b91f842baa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297215] Review Request: dnsdist - A highly DNS-, DoS- and abuse-aware loadbalancer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297215
--- Comment #2 from Sander Hoentjen ---
(In reply to Roman Tsisyk from comment #1)
> Thanks your for you spec!
Thanks for reviewing!
>
> > #%license COPYING
>
> License is mandatory for all new packages [1].
> Your ticket has been fixed in the upstream, please enable
> https://github.com/PowerDNS/pdns/pull/3202
>
> [1]:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
>
Will fix this with the release of second alpha, expected soon
> --
>
> > BuildRequires: systemd-units
>
> => BuildRequires: systemd
>
> systemd-units has been merged into systemd package [2].
>
> [2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Filesystem_locations
Yes but for EPEL 6 you need systemd-units right? So that works on al releases.
If I need to make it conditional I can of course.
>
> --
>
> > # install systemd unit file
> > %{__install} -D -p -m 644 contrib/%{name}.service
> > %{buildroot}%{_unitdir}/%{name}.service
>
> + Requires(post): systemd
> + Requires(preun): systemd
> + Requires(postun): systemd
> +
> + %post
> + %systemd_post %{name}.service
> +
> + %preun
> + %systemd_preun %{name}.service
> +
> + %postun
> + %systemd_postun_with_restart %{name}.service
>
> [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#New_Packages
>
Will fix
> --
>
> > %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.gz
>
> > When installing man pages, note that they should be installed uncompressed
> > as the build system will compress them as needed. The compression method
> > may change, so it is important to reference the pages in the %files section
> > with a pattern that takes this into account [4]
>
> [4]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Manpages
>
> > /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 dnsdist.1
> > '/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/dnsdist-1.0.0-0.1.alpha1.fc24.x86_64/usr/share/man/man1'
>
Ok, will fix
> --
>
> dnsdist-1.0.0-alpha1/html/js/jquery-1.8.3.min.js
> dnsdist-1.0.0-alpha1/html/js/jsrender.js
> dnsdist-1.0.0-alpha1/html/js/moment.min.js
> dnsdist-1.0.0-alpha1/html/js/purl.js
> dnsdist-1.0.0-alpha1/html/js/rickshaw.min.js
> dnsdist-1.0.0-alpha1/html/js/underscore-min.js
> ...
>
> Obfuscated (=compiled) JavaScript looks like a binary for me:
>
> > When you encounter prebuilt binaries in a package you MUST:
> >
> > Remove all pre-built program binaries and program libraries in %prep prior
> > to the building of the package.
> > Ask upstream to remove the binaries in their next release. [5]
>
> [5]
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-
> built_binaries_or_libraries
>
> I'm not so experienced with Fedora packaging yet, but some other distros
> (you know) blame for all these *.min.js VERY strongly, so upstream might
> have problems with other packages as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I will look into this
>
> --
>
> %dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/
>
> It would be nice to include an example of configuration file.
>
Ok, will do that
> --
>
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
> dnsdist-debuginfo
>
> --
>
> > -I/builddir/build/BUILD/dnsdist-1.0.0-alpha1/ext/mbedtls/include
>
> mbedtls.i686 : Light-weight cryptographic and SSL/TLS library
> mbedtls.x86_64 : Light-weight cryptographic and SSL/TLS library
> mbedtls-utils.x86_64 : Utilities for mbedtls
> mbedtls-static.i686 : Static files for mbedtls
> mbedtls-static.x86_64 : Static files for mbedtls
> mbedtls-devel.i686 : Development files for mbedtls
> mbedtls-devel.x86_64 : Development files for mbedtls
> mbedtls-doc.noarch : Documentation files for mbedtls
>
ok, will look into unbundling
> --
>
> ^I--disable-silent-rules \$
> --enable-dnscrypt \$
> --enable-libsodium \$
> ^I--with-lua \$
>
> (`:set list` in vim)
Good catch
> --
>
> > Summary: A highly DNS-, DoS- and abuse-aware loadbalancer
>
> Remove the "A" article from Summary, it looks better in listings without.
> It is not mandatory and is not mentioned in the guidelines, but I was
> noticed about that couple times by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek.
>
ok
> --
>
> Please try to use koji to ensure that package compiles on all supported
> architectures:
> koji build --scratch rawhide pdns-4.0.0-0.1.alpha1.fc24.src.rpm
>
will do
> --
>
> What the difference between https://github.com/PowerDNS/pdns and this
> software?
> Shouldn't dnsdist to be added as a subpackage of existing pdns package?
>
dnsdist lives in the pdns tree, but it is a fully seperate thing.
https://www.powerdns.com/nluug/2015%20nluug%20powerdns%20dnsdist.pdf
"Open source, vendor neutral - it is not “PowerDNS Dist”"
> --
>
> It seems that pdns packages also uses yahttp.
> Probably yahttp needs their own package.
Will look into this
>
> --
>
> License and unclear relation with existing pdns package are major problems
[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 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- python-flower-0.8.3-5.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a0ac4971c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1293425] Review Request: python-ImcSdk - python lib for CRUD operations on Cisco IMC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293425 Julien Enselme changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Julien Enselme --- Looks good. 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 1290524] Review Request: libdkimpp - Lightweight and portable DKIM (RFC4871) library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290524 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/libdkimpp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1296302] Review Request: nodejs-jison - A parser generator with Bison's API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296302 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-jison -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297530] Review Request: perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML - Light and fast TwiML generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297530 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-WWW-Twilio-TwiML -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295099] Review Request: nodejs-array-differ - Find values that are only present in the first input array
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295099 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-array-differ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1293425] Review Request: python-ImcSdk - python lib for CRUD operations on Cisco IMC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293425 --- Comment #5 from Brian Demers --- Spec URL: https://bdemers.fedorapeople.org/python-ImcSdk/3/python-ImcSdk.spec SRPM URL: https://bdemers.fedorapeople.org/python-ImcSdk/3/python-ImcSdk-0.7.2-3.fc24.src.rpm I'm not sure what happened with the tarball, should be fixed now though, also removed the doc's conf.py -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297901] Review Request: golang-github-DataDog-datadog-go - Go client library for datadog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297901 --- Comment #1 from Jan Chaloupka --- Notes: once this is reviewed, golang-github-armon-go-metrics must be updated and rebuilt. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297901] New: Review Request: golang-github-DataDog-datadog-go - Go client library for datadog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297901 Bug ID: 1297901 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-DataDog-datadog-go - Go client library for datadog Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jchal...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-DataDog-datadog-go/golang-github-DataDog-datadog-go.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-DataDog-datadog-go/golang-github-DataDog-datadog-go-0-0.1.gitb050cd8.fc20.src.rpm Description: Go client library for datadog Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12517241 Fedora Account System Username: jchaloup $ rpmlint golang-github-DataDog-datadog-go-0-0.1.gitb050cd8.fc20.src.rpm golang-github-DataDog-datadog-go-devel-0-0.1.gitb050cd8.fc20.noarch.rpm golang-github-DataDog-datadog-go-unit-test-devel-0-0.1.gitb050cd8.fc20.x86_64.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
