[Bug 1298978] Review Request: nodejs-read-package-tree - npm's package tree parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298978

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+
   |needinfo?(jsmith.fedora@gma |
   |il.com) |



--- Comment #15 from Jared Smith  ---
Package is approved.

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see 

[Bug 1273135] Review Request: nodejs-tap-parser - Parse the "Test Anything Protocol"

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273135



--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith  ---
Updated.

Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-tap-parser/nodejs-tap-parser.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-tap-parser/nodejs-tap-parser-1.2.2-2.fc24.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1272527] Review Request: python-muranoclient - is a client library for Murano

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272527

hgue...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(asteroid566@gmail |
   |.com)   |
   |needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. |
   |com)|



--- Comment #10 from hgue...@redhat.com ---
Few things:
* no need to duplicate Requires between global namespace (there is no binary
python-muranoclient) and subpackage python2-muranoclient.
* BR could be moved under python2-muranoclient for consistency
* python-argparse is part of python standard library so you can drop the
requires. Moreover no packages provides python3-argparse so it cases
installation failures for python3-argparse
* temporarily disable python3 build as oslo libs do not have python3
subpackages enabled yet.
* more problematic:
$ rpmls results/python2-muranoclient-0.7.2-1.fc23.noarch.rpm | grep bin
lrwxrwxrwx  /usr/bin/muranoclient-3
lrwxrwxrwx  /usr/bin/muranoclient-3.4

I recommend that you put in %install the python2 installation last and that you
explicit name binaries in %files. As OpenStack upstream still uses python2 as
default interpreter, it's still better to keep python2 providing the default
version of the client.

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

[Bug 1299313] Review Request: nodejs-is-retry-allowed - Is retry allowed for Error?

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299313



--- Comment #6 from Parag Nemade  ---
Thank you very much. Yes I too used git commit source URL's previously but now
I am following this new simple tarball usage guideline.

Btw, I found the exact email thread where this change of guideline is
discussed.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2015-June/010759.html

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

[Bug 1299313] Review Request: nodejs-is-retry-allowed - Is retry allowed for Error?

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299313

Zuzana Svetlikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zsvet...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Zuzana Svetlikova  ---
I don't mind using github tarballs, it's about using git tags. I guess it's
okay since it got approved as a guideline (I must've skipped that part).


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kasicka
 /fedora-review/1299313-nodejs-is-retry-allowed/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section 

[Bug 1299038] Review Request: copr-prune-repo - Removes failed and obsolete succeeded builds from a copr repository

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299038



--- Comment #3 from Miroslav Suchý  ---
Additionally:
* Summary should be max 80 characters long
* man page should be named exactly as the binary. I recommend to remove the .py
suffix from the name of the script.

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

[Bug 1273135] Review Request: nodejs-tap-parser - Parse the "Test Anything Protocol"

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273135



--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 4
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/tom/1273135-nodejs-tap-parser/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
 Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: There are rpmlint 

[Bug 1273135] Review Request: nodejs-tap-parser - Parse the "Test Anything Protocol"

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273135

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes  ---
The bin/usage.txt either shouldn't be packaged of should be %doc.

Also, it doesn't really use inherits anymore - upstream dropped the code that
used it (hence why it passes tests without it) but forgot to remove it from
package.json. So you could fixdep -r it if you wanted.

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

[Bug 1273135] Review Request: nodejs-tap-parser - Parse the "Test Anything Protocol"

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273135



--- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes  ---
I've opened https://github.com/tapjs/tap-parser/pull/26 to report the
dependency issue.

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

[Bug 1299533] New: Review Request: perl-App-Cme - Check or edit configuration data with Config::Model

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299533

Bug ID: 1299533
   Summary: Review Request: perl-App-Cme - Check or edit
configuration data with Config::Model
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jples...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-App-Cme/perl-App-Cme.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-App-Cme/perl-App-Cme-1.009-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description:
cme and Config::Model are quite modular. The configuration data that
you can edit depend on the other Config::Model distributions installed
on your system.

Fedora Account System Username: jples...@redhat.com

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

[Bug 1299533] Review Request: perl-App-Cme - Check or edit configuration data with Config::Model

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299533

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1290794




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290794
[Bug 1290794] Upgrade perl-Config-Model-Itself to 2.002
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1298947] Review Request: perl-Tk-DoubleClick - Correctly handle single-click vs double-click events

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298947

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Tk-DoubleClick-0.04-1.
   ||fc24
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-01-18 10:47:58



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

[Bug 1299558] New: Review Request: python-inifile - A small INI library for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299558

Bug ID: 1299558
   Summary: Review Request: python-inifile - A small INI library
for Python
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: cstra...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/cstratak/python-inifile/python-inifile.git/plain/python-inifile.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/cstratak/python-inifile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00154174-python-inifile/python-inifile-0.3-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Review request for python-inifile. This library is required for
the Lektor framework from Armin Ronacher (which is to be packaged on a later
date)
Fedora Account System Username: cstratak

My first package, so a sponsor will be needed.

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

[Bug 1273135] Review Request: nodejs-tap-parser - Parse the "Test Anything Protocol"

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273135



--- Comment #6 from Jared Smith  ---
Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-tap-parser/nodejs-tap-parser.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-tap-parser/nodejs-tap-parser-1.2.2-3.fc24.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1297425] Review Request: python-contexttimer - A timer context manager measuring time of the code block it contains

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297425



--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
suanand's scratch build of python-contexttimer-0.3.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12590675

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293156



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
liblxqt-0.10.0-7.fc23 libqtxdg-1.3.0-2.fc23 lxqt-about-0.10.0-3.fc23
lxqt-common-0.10.0-7.fc23 lxqt-config-0.10.0-3.fc23 lxqt-panel-0.10.0-4.fc23
lxqt-policykit-0.10.0-2.fc23 lxqt-powermanagement-0.10.0-2.fc23
lxqt-sudo-0.10.0-4.fc23 pcmanfm-qt-0.10.0-2.fc23 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d67a0d6bcc

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293156

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 1299313] Review Request: nodejs-is-retry-allowed - Is retry allowed for Error?

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299313



--- Comment #3 from Zuzana Svetlikova  ---
The guidelines still use commit in source

Source0: 
https://github.com/OWNER/%{name}/archive/%{commit0}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz

Alternatively, here are Spot's guidelines:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Spot/GitHub_Guidelines

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

[Bug 1295456] Review Request: python-urwidtrees - Tree Widget Container API for the urwid toolkit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295456

Tomas Tomecek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(williamjmorenor@g
   ||mail.com)



--- Comment #1 from Tomas Tomecek  ---
Any update?

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

[Bug 1299313] Review Request: nodejs-is-retry-allowed - Is retry allowed for Error?

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299313

Zuzana Svetlikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zsvet...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Zuzana Svetlikova  ---
Shouldn't github sources look like this?
Source0:   
https://github.com/npm/%{npm_name}/archive/%{commit}/%{npm_name}-%{commit}.tar.gz

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

[Bug 1299038] Review Request: copr-prune-repo - Removes failed and obsolete succeeded builds from a copr repository

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299038

Miroslav Suchý  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||msu...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msu...@redhat.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 1272527] Review Request: python-muranoclient - is a client library for Murano

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272527



--- Comment #9 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
mflobo's scratch build of python-muranoclient-0.7.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12590275

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

[Bug 1297425] Review Request: python-contexttimer - A timer context manager measuring time of the code block it contains

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297425



--- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
suanand's scratch build of python-contexttimer-0.3.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12590658

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

[Bug 1284527] Review Request: opal-prd - OPAL Processor Recovery Diagnostics daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284527



--- Comment #21 from Dan Horák  ---
sorry for the delay, but formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK*
and BAD statuses below:

OK  source files match upstream:
080a0992dc4241ac0c8c2b7e556a20bbb45d068d  skiboot-5.1.11.tar.gz
OK  package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK  specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
OK  dist tag is present.
OK  license field matches the actual license.
OK  license is open source-compatible (ASL-2.0). License text included in
package.
OK* latest version is being packaged.
OK  BuildRequires are proper.
BAD compiler flags are appropriate.
OK  package builds in mock (Rawhide/ppc64 + ppc64le).
OK  debuginfo package looks complete.
OK  rpmlint is silent.
OK  final provides and requires look sane.
N/A %check is present and all tests pass.
OK  no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK  owns the directories it creates.
OK  doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK  no duplicates in %files.
OK  file permissions are appropriate.
BAD correct systemd scriptlets present.
OK  code, not content.
OK  documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK  %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK  no headers.
OK  no pkgconfig files.
OK  no libtool .la droppings.
OK  not a GUI app.

- was up-to-date when updating the review ticket, please update to 5.1.12 for
the next iteration
- distro-wide CFLAGS are not used, try setting CFLAGS="%{optflags}" for the
make call in %build, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
- my scratch build =
http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3077491
- please update the scriptlets and Requires to the current style, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd

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

[Bug 1282063] Review Request: xxhsum - Extremely fast hash algorithm

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282063



--- Comment #16 from Francesco Frassinelli (frafra)  ---
Ahahah ok sorry :D I thought it could be some strange operator :D

rpmbuild fails: /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lxxhash
I compiled libxxhash first (moving the code upward and adding "make xxhash" in
the subprocess) and now it seems to build correctly.

https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/frafra/duperemove/build/154105/

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

[Bug 1297413] Review Request: python-importanize - Utility for organizing Python imports using PEP8 or custom rules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297413



--- Comment #3 from Sundeep Anand  ---
Updated Spec:

Spec URL:
https://bitbucket.org/sundeep_co_in/python-pkgs/downloads/python-importanize.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bitbucket.org/sundeep_co_in/python-pkgs/downloads/python-importanize-0.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1297413] Review Request: python-importanize - Utility for organizing Python imports using PEP8 or custom rules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297413



--- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
suanand's scratch build of python-importanize-0.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12591527

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

[Bug 1297425] Review Request: python-contexttimer - A timer context manager measuring time of the code block it contains

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297425



--- Comment #3 from Sundeep Anand  ---
Spec File Updated:

SPEC URL:
https://bitbucket.org/sundeep_co_in/python-pkgs/downloads/python-contexttimer.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bitbucket.org/sundeep_co_in/python-pkgs/downloads/python-contexttimer-0.3.1-1.fc23.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1297821] Review Request: qlcplus - DMX light controller software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297821



--- Comment #11 from Dave Olsthoorn  ---
I agree this is quite the mess, an that this package is currently not in a
state it can be shipped I will keep in touch with upstream and when they
have fixed all of this mess I'll try again.

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

[Bug 1299313] Review Request: nodejs-is-retry-allowed - Is retry allowed for Error?

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299313



--- Comment #2 from Parag Nemade  ---
I take the reference of this line "If the upstream does create tarballs you
should use them as tarballs provide an easier trail for people auditing the
packages."
from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #12 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
suanand's scratch build of python-simplepath-0.3.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12591612

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269844



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
jcuber-4.3.3-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-ab59601aab

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269844



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
jcuber-4.3.3-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0eede362ef

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269844

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
jcuber-4.3.3-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0eede362ef

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269844



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
jcuber-4.3.3-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-767f71fba2

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

[Bug 1299594] New: Review Request: python-grafyaml - Tools to make Grafana dashboards from templates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299594

Bug ID: 1299594
   Summary: Review Request: python-grafyaml - Tools to make
Grafana dashboards from templates
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: pabelan...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://pabelanger.fedorapeople.org//python-grafyaml.spec
SRPM URL:
http://pabelanger.fedorapeople.org//python-grafyaml-0.0.5-1.fc24.src.rpm

Description:
Grafyaml takes simple descriptions of Grafana dashboards in YAML format, and
uses them to configure Grafana.

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

[Bug 1299594] Review Request: python-grafyaml - Tools to make Grafana dashboards from templates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299594

Paul Belanger  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2016-01-18 12:31:50



--- Comment #1 from Paul Belanger  ---
Opps, duplicated.  I guess you cannot update an existing issue.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1299580 ***

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

[Bug 1283296] Review Request: pam-u2f - PAM authentication over U2F

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283296



--- Comment #17 from Seth Jennings  ---
Sorry for the delayed reply.

(In reply to Georg Sauthoff from comment #16)
> I've tested it on Fedora 23 and it doesn't work with SELinux set to enforce
> (the default setting).
> 
> Only after executing
> 
> semanage permissive -a local_login_t
> 
> the module worked.
> 
> Also, a Fedora specific README would be helpful - i.e. one where it is
> described what files you have to change in what way.

Yes, a Fedora README would be a good idea.

> 
> For example, I wanted to configure U2F as 2nd factor in addition to password
> authentication - for locale console logins and gnome shell (including
> unlocking a locked screen). I've managed to do that via adding this line
> before the `auth ... pasword-auth` line in /etc/pam.d/{login,gdm-password}:
> 
> auth requisite pam_u2f.so debug authfile=/etc/u2f_mappings interactive
> 
> (and filling /etc/u2f_mappings with output from pamu2fcfg)
> 
> In addition to that, the Fedora README could also mention pamu2fcfg.
> 
> More SELinux details:
> 
> The SELinux audit messages looked like this (before executing semanage
> permissive):
> 
> type=AVC msg=audit(1452281803.756:2262): avc:  denied  { read } for 
> pid=11098 comm="login" name="c248:0" dev="tmpfs" ino=14836
> scontext=system_u:system_r:local_login_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
> tcontext=system_u:object_r:udev_var_run_t:s0 tclass=file permissive=0
> type=AVC msg=audit(1452281803.756:2263): avc:  denied  { read } for 
> pid=11098 comm="login" name="c248:1" dev="tmpfs" ino=14839
> scontext=system_u:system_r:local_login_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
> tcontext=system_u:object_r:udev_var_run_t:s0 tclass=file permissive=0
> type=AVC msg=audit(1452281803.757:2264): avc:  denied  { read } for 
> pid=11098 comm="login" name="c248:2" dev="tmpfs" ino=894548
> scontext=system_u:system_r:local_login_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
> tcontext=system_u:object_r:udev_var_run_t:s0 tclass=file permissive=0
> type=AVC msg=audit(1452281803.757:2265): avc:  denied  { read } for 
> pid=11098 comm="login" name="c248:3" dev="tmpfs" ino=895813
> scontext=system_u:system_r:local_login_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
> tcontext=system_u:object_r:udev_var_run_t:s0 tclass=file permissive=0
> type=AVC msg=audit(1452281803.758:2266): avc:  denied  { read } for 
> pid=11098 comm="login" name="c248:4" dev="tmpfs" ino=894573
> scontext=system_u:system_r:local_login_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
> tcontext=system_u:object_r:udev_var_run_t:s0 tclass=file permissive=0
> type=AVC msg=audit(1452281803.758:2267): avc:  denied  { read } for 
> pid=11098 comm="login" name="c248:5" dev="tmpfs" ino=910340
> scontext=system_u:system_r:local_login_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
> tcontext=system_u:object_r:udev_var_run_t:s0 tclass=file permissive=0
> type=AVC msg=audit(1452281803.759:2268): avc:  denied  { read } for 
> pid=11098 comm="login" name="c248:6" dev="tmpfs" ino=908284
> scontext=system_u:system_r:local_login_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
> tcontext=system_u:object_r:udev_var_run_t:s0 tclass=file permissive=0

I didn't try to use it for console logins so it seems there is an selinux
policy issue there.  I'll check it out.

> 
> 
> The tool audit2allow suggests:
> 
> #= local_login_t ==
> allow local_login_t udev_var_run_t:file read;


Thanks for the testing!

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

[Bug 1299580] Review Request: python-grafyaml - Tools to make Grafana dashboards from templates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580



--- Comment #3 from Paul Belanger  ---
Oh, how odd. I guess scratch builds did work. It gave me an error first time
around.

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

[Bug 1299580] Review Request: python-grafyaml - Tools to make Grafana dashboards from templates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580



--- Comment #4 from Paul Belanger  ---
*** Bug 1299594 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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

[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546



--- Comment #57 from Paulo Andrade  
---
  Hi Gustavo.

  The package looks pretty good now.

  There is still the issue of it building twice, but since the
package builds fast, and you know already know about it, it is
not a blocker.

  I am only in doubt about usage of PSF for license, so I asked
@packaging about it, as it might need to use PSFL, or follow the
pattern of other packages, that use simply "Python" when referring
to PSF(L). I will let you know about any news I have about it.

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

[Bug 1299533] Review Request: perl-App-Cme - Check or edit configuration data with Config::Model

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299533

Petr Šabata  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||psab...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psab...@redhat.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 1299605] New: Review Request: nodejs-tap-mocha-reporter - Format a TAP stream using Mocha's set of reporters

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299605

Bug ID: 1299605
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-tap-mocha-reporter - Format a
TAP stream using Mocha's set of reporters
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-tap-mocha-reporter/nodejs-tap-mocha-reporter.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-tap-mocha-reporter/nodejs-tap-mocha-reporter-0.0.22-2.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Format a TAP stream using Mocha's set of reporters
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

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

[Bug 1299605] Review Request: nodejs-tap-mocha-reporter - Format a TAP stream using Mocha's set of reporters

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299605

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||t...@compton.nu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1299610] New: Review Request: nodejs-isexe - Minimal module to check if a file is executable

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299610

Bug ID: 1299610
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-isexe - Minimal module to check
if a file is executable
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-isexe/nodejs-isexe.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-isexe/nodejs-isexe-1.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Minimal module to check if a file is executable
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

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

[Bug 1299610] Review Request: nodejs-isexe - Minimal module to check if a file is executable

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299610

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1031982




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031982
[Bug 1031982] nodejs-tap-5.1.1 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546



--- Comment #56 from Paulo Andrade  
---
(In reply to Gustavo Lima Chaves from comment #55)

  Hi Gustavo,

> Ping. Have you had the time to take a look, Paulo? I can bump the spec to
> newer code before that if you prefer too, no big deal. We're closer to the
> 1st release now, and it would be nice to have all packaging issues gone ASAP
> :)

  :)

  Nice to know it is getting close to a final release.
  I will make an extra informal review of the 12/04 package now,
and should give feedback shortly.

> Thanks a lot.

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

[Bug 1299313] Review Request: nodejs-is-retry-allowed - Is retry allowed for Error?

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299313



--- Comment #4 from Parag Nemade  ---
Can you please interpret meaning for me for this statement "If the upstream
does create tarballs you should use them as tarballs provide an easier trail
for people auditing the packages." ?

Let me know if there can be any different meaning to it.

Regarding Spot's guidelines, they are not updated since Dec'2012. See
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User:Spot/GitHub_Guidelines=history

Whereas
This is the change from 9th July 2015 which added above tarball usage guideline
->
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%3ASourceURL=417378=372006

Looks like its Gbcox who proposed that tarball usage guideline.

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

[Bug 1234649] Review Request: testcloud - a small tool for running cloud images locally

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234649

Miroslav Suchý  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |




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 1288927] Review Request: libsylph - E-Mail client library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288927

Miroslav Suchý  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |




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 1299558] Review Request: python-inifile - A small INI library for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299558

cstra...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




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 1298978] Review Request: nodejs-read-package-tree - npm's package tree parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298978



--- Comment #16 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-read-package-tree

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

[Bug 1299580] New: Review Request: python-grafyaml - Tools to make Grafana dashboards from templates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580

Bug ID: 1299580
   Summary: Review Request: python-grafyaml - Tools to make
Grafana dashboards from templates
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: pabelan...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://pabelanger.fedorapeople.org//python-grafyaml.spec
SRPM URL:
http://pabelanger.fedorapeople.org//python-grafyaml-0.0.5-1.fc24.src.rpm

Description:
Grafyaml takes simple descriptions of Grafana dashboards in YAML format, and
uses them to configure Grafana.

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

[Bug 1299074] Review Request: nodejs-unicode-length - Get the length of unicode strings

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299074



--- Comment #5 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-unicode-length

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

[Bug 1273135] Review Request: nodejs-tap-parser - Parse the "Test Anything Protocol"

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273135



--- Comment #7 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-tap-parser

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

[Bug 1299580] Review Request: python-grafyaml - Tools to make Grafana dashboards from templates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580



--- Comment #1 from Paul Belanger  ---
So, I posted this using fedora-create-review but sadly, I could not get koji
scratch build to work.

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

[Bug 1299580] Review Request: python-grafyaml - Tools to make Grafana dashboards from templates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1299580] Review Request: python-grafyaml - Tools to make Grafana dashboards from templates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580



--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
pabelanger's scratch build of python-grafyaml-0.0.5-1.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12593864

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

[Bug 1299583] Review Request: perl-Number-Fraction - Perl extension to model fractions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299583

Petr Šabata  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1296524




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296524
[Bug 1296524] perl-Math-PlanePath-121-1.fc24 FTBFS: t/bigfloat.t test fails
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1299313] Review Request: nodejs-is-retry-allowed - Is retry allowed for Error?

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299313



--- Comment #7 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-is-retry-allowed

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

[Bug 1297281] Review Request: endless-sky - Space exploration, trading, and combat game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297281

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #8 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
(In reply to Link Dupont from comment #5)
> (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #4)
> > "cp %{SOURCE1} ." can be replaced with "-a1" argument to %autosetup.
> 
> The -a# tries to uncompress the source. In this case, my %SOURCE1 is not a
> compressed file. It's just XML. I could compress it so that "-a1" works, but
> that felt like more work on my part to maintain changes to the appdata.xml.

I didn't know that. cp is fine of course.

> > - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
> >   file-validate if there is such a file.
> 
> Was there a change that needed to be made from this recommendation? Does the
> SConstruct not install via desktop-file-install?

OK, I missed that, so it's not necessary ...

> I added a call to desktop-file-validate in %check

... but doing it explicitly is probably better.

> > You should also call appstream-util validate-relax --nonet on the appstream
> > file in %check. You should also manually call appstream-util validate by
> > hand, and fix the issues it reports. This is more strict, so you don't want
> > to use it in %check:
> > 
> > /usr/share/appdata/endless-sky.appdata.xml: FAILED:
> > • tag-missing   :  is not present
> > • style-invalid :  is too long [Finding trade routes, made
> > easy: the map view shows commodity prices for other star systems and can
> > color them based on price, to help you decide what trade goods you should
> > buy in the current system for sale elsewhere]
> > • style-invalid :  is too long [Strange discoveries await
> > you beyond the boundaries of known space]
> > • style-invalid :  is too long [You can earn a living just
> > by buying commodities for a low price in one star system and selling them at
> > a profit elsewhere]
> > • style-invalid :  is too long [XXX: Insert Company
> > or Developer Name]
> > Validation of files failed
> > 
> 
> Fixed all that up and got some better screenshots.
...
> Has the appdata spec changed in rawhide?

Maybe, it changes all the time ;)
The litmus test is whether gnome-software shows it. On my F23 machine it didn't
want to show the previous version, but it shows this one, and it looks great.

+ latest version
+ license is acceptable for Fedora
+ license files are present, %license is used
+ latest version
+ builds, installs, runs OK
+ has appdata and desktop files
+ scriptlets look sane
+ provides and requires are OK

Package is APPROVED.

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

[Bug 1299147] Review Request: kpmcore - Library for managing partitions by KDE programs.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299147

Mattia Verga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-01-18 11:54:35



--- Comment #3 from Mattia Verga  ---
kpmcore has been built in rawhide.

I've retired KPMcore.

Thanks.

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

[Bug 1299583] New: Review Request: perl-Number-Fraction - Perl extension to model fractions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299583

Bug ID: 1299583
   Summary: Review Request: perl-Number-Fraction - Perl extension
to model fractions
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: psab...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-Number-Fraction/perl-Number-Fraction.spec
SRPM URL:
https://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/perl-Number-Fraction/perl-Number-Fraction-2.00-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description:
Number::Fraction allows you to work with fractions (i.e. rational numbers)
in your Perl programs in a very natural way.
Fedora Account System Username: psabata

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

[Bug 1299605] Review Request: nodejs-tap-mocha-reporter - Format a TAP stream using Mocha's set of reporters

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299605



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "ISC MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 36 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1299605
 -nodejs-tap-mocha-reporter/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file 

[Bug 1299605] Review Request: nodejs-tap-mocha-reporter - Format a TAP stream using Mocha's set of reporters

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299605

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes  ---
I don't think slow.js and fast.js need to be packaged - they look like some
sort of benchmark experiment.

Also index.js has bogus execute bits.

Other than that it looks fine.

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

[Bug 1299610] Review Request: nodejs-isexe - Minimal module to check if a file is executable

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299610

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||t...@compton.nu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1299610] Review Request: nodejs-isexe - Minimal module to check if a file is executable

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299610



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---
This is missing a BR on rimraf at least.

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #20 from Pavel Alexeev  ---
SRPM url incorrect.

It is very bad practice make changes without touch changelog and bump version
(release). And until it is not imported in Fedora I look at that now. But
please, do not do such in the future.

Why you direct run tests instead of use recommended %{__python2} setup.py test?
It is not stop issue, but I recommend use setup.py. For example it may then be
changed upstream and require some parameters, bootstraping, options and so on.


If you provide binaries with version suffixes in both packages python 2 package
must contain one without suffix:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Naming

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

[Bug 1293214] Review Request: python-betamax - A VCR imitation for python-requests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293214



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

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

[Bug 1295209] Review Request: lua-fun - functional programming library for Lua and LuaJIT

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209



--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/lua-fun

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295249



--- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
lupinix's scratch build of python-gatspy-0.2.1-2.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12597694

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

[Bug 1279755] Review Request: rubygem-racc - LALR(1) parser generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279755

Mamoru TASAKA  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW



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

[Bug 1299126] Review Request: qt5-qtquickcontrols2 - Qt5 - module with set of QtQuick controls for embedded

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299126



--- Comment #2 from Pier Luigi Fiorini  ---
*** Bug 1299125 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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

[Bug 1299125] Review Request: qt5-qtquickcontrols2 - Qt5 - module with set of QtQuick controls for embedded

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299125

Pier Luigi Fiorini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2016-01-19 02:57:38



--- Comment #2 from Pier Luigi Fiorini  ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1299126 ***

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

[Bug 1299583] Review Request: perl-Number-Fraction - Perl extension to model fractions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299583

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jples...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.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 1299610] Review Request: nodejs-isexe - Minimal module to check if a file is executable

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299610



--- Comment #5 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-isexe

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

[Bug 1299605] Review Request: nodejs-tap-mocha-reporter - Format a TAP stream using Mocha's set of reporters

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299605



--- Comment #3 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-tap-mocha-reporter

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #21 from Julien Enselme  ---
> SRPM url incorrect.

Sorry about that.

> It is very bad practice make changes without touch changelog and bump version 
> (release). And until it is not imported in Fedora I look at that now. But 
> please, do not do such in the future.

I know it is a bad practice. Since the package is not yet imported, I did it to
avoid creating a changelog entry for a silly mistake. I would never have done
that on an imported package.


> Why you direct run tests instead of use recommended %{__python2} setup.py 
> test?

In this case (as with some other packages) running %{__python2} setup.py test
doesn't discover test because of missing information about tests in the
setup.py file. In such cases, I found that using pytest is an easy way out. If
it causes problem with the package, I will change it.

> If you provide binaries with version suffixes in both packages python 2 
> package must contain one without suffix

Indeed.

SPEC: http://dl.jujens.eu/SPECS/python-recommonmark.spec
SRPM:
http://dl.jujens.eu/SRPMS/python-recommonmark-0.4.0-4.git7ca5247.fc23.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1293214] Review Request: python-betamax - A VCR imitation for python-requests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293214



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-betamax-0.5.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3c7aa108b1

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

[Bug 1293214] Review Request: python-betamax - A VCR imitation for python-requests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293214

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1297629] Review Request: python-crane - A WSGI app providing a docker-registry-like API with redirection

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297629

Adam Miller  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(admiller@redhat.c |fedora-review+
   |om) |



--- Comment #5 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". 141 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/admiller/reviews/1297629
 -python-crane/licensecheck.txt
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files

 Bundled and marked as such, upstream issue filed to fix this.

[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages 

[Bug 1299610] Review Request: nodejs-isexe - Minimal module to check if a file is executable

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299610



--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1299610-nodejs-
 isexe/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-isexe-1.0.0-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
  

[Bug 1294872] Review Request: python-backports_abc - A backport of recent additions to the 'collections.abc' module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294872



--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
williamjmorenor's scratch build of python-backports_abc-0.4-1.fc24.src.rpm for
rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12597302

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295249



--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
williamjmorenor's scratch build of python-gatspy-0.2.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for
rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12597308

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

[Bug 1299610] Review Request: nodejs-isexe - Minimal module to check if a file is executable

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299610

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes  ---
Looks good.

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

[Bug 1299313] Review Request: nodejs-is-retry-allowed - Is retry allowed for Error?

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299313



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-is-retry-allowed-1.0.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b69b2bf35a

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

[Bug 1299313] Review Request: nodejs-is-retry-allowed - Is retry allowed for Error?

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299313

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1295456] Review Request: python-urwidtrees - Tree Widget Container API for the urwid toolkit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295456



--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
williamjmorenor's scratch build of python-urwidtrees-1.0.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm for
rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12597310

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