[Bug 1299558] Review Request: python-inifile - A small INI library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299558 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-inifile-0.3-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-18c1b36a18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1277476] Review Request: php-nette-bootstrap - Nette Bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277476 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- php-nette-bootstrap-2.3.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-577bbe1de7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1298475] Review Request: php-league-flysystem - Filesystem abstraction: Many filesystems, one API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298475 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- php-league-flysystem-1.0.16-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-223d61d41a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1296901] Review Request: php-mcnetic-zipstreamer - Stream zip files without i/o overhead
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296901 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- php-mcnetic-zipstreamer-0.7-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f2107c60da -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1298649] Review Request: php-interfasys-lognormalizer - Parses variables and converts them to string
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298649 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- php-interfasys-lognormalizer-1.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-56f7c7209d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1294714] Review Request: python3-chardet - Character encoding auto-detection in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294714 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python3-chardet-2.3.0-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-ca5fc259d5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1296939] Review Request: php-owncloud-tarstreamer - Streaming dynamic tar files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296939 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- php-owncloud-tarstreamer-0.1-0.1.beta3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-3fc1891837 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1278638] Review Request: freedv - FreeDV Digital Voice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278638 --- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7, freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1277476] Review Request: php-nette-bootstrap - Nette Bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277476 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- php-nette-bootstrap-2.3.4-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-c10103f6c5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300944] Review Request: lldb - LLVM based debugger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300944 Dave Airlie changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1300945 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300945 [Bug 1300945] tracker bug for splitting llvm packages and moving to cmake -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300943] Review Request: compiler-rt - LLVM compiler-rt runtime libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300943 Dave Airlie changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1300945 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300945 [Bug 1300945] tracker bug for splitting llvm packages and moving to cmake -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300942] Review Request: clang - llvm clang compiler package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300942 Dave Airlie changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1300945 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300945 [Bug 1300945] tracker bug for splitting llvm packages and moving to cmake -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300944] New: Review Request: lldb - LLVM based debugger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300944 Bug ID: 1300944 Summary: Review Request: lldb - LLVM based debugger Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: airl...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Note: this is a splitting up of the current llvm package, and moving to using cmake as per upstream recommendations going forward. This package won't build in mock as it requires the llvm base package to be built first from the same URL. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~airlied/llvm/cmake/lldb.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~airlied/llvm/cmake/lldb-3.7.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: LLVM debugger Fedora Account System Username: airlied -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300943] New: Review Request: compiler-rt - LLVM compiler-rt runtime libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300943 Bug ID: 1300943 Summary: Review Request: compiler-rt - LLVM compiler-rt runtime libraries Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: airl...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Note: this is a splitting up of the current llvm package, and moving to using cmake as per upstream recommendations going forward. This package won't build in mock as it requires the llvm base package to be built first from the same URL. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~airlied/llvm/cmake/compiler-rt.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~airlied/llvm/cmake/compiler-rt-3.7.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: LLVM compiler-rt runtime libraries Fedora Account System Username: airlied -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300942] New: Review Request: clang - llvm clang compiler package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300942 Bug ID: 1300942 Summary: Review Request: clang - llvm clang compiler package Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: airl...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Note: this is a splitting up of the current llvm package, and moving to using cmake as per upstream recommendations going forward. This package won't build in mock as it requires the llvm base package to be built first from the same URL. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~airlied/llvm/cmake/clang.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~airlied/llvm/cmake/clang-3.7.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: C language frontend for LLVM Fedora Account System Username: airlied -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1282640] Review Request: lastpass-cli - Command line interface to LastPass.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282640 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- lastpass-cli-0.8.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1247442] Review Request: emacs-yaml-mode - major mode to edit YAML file for emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247442 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-yaml-mode-0.0.12-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1157255] Review Request: ufoai - UFO: Alien Invasion strategy game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157255 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(kvo...@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 1157255] Review Request: ufoai - UFO: Alien Invasion strategy game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157255
--- Comment #13 from Neal Gompa ---
(In reply to Karel Volný from comment #12)
> (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #11)
> > Your ufoai-data package spec is missing the %{?dist} tag in the Release
> > field (like how the ufoai package spec has it).
>
> originally that was done on purpose, not to duplicate the same data in
> buildsys and on mirrors
>
> > @Karel, it seems your email got moderated out of Fedora Legal, as I don't
> > see it in the archives[0].
>
> it seems that the archives are broken (or just late?) as I don't see
> anything for this January while I've already received my e-mail back from
> the list and also an answer from Dmitry Alexandrov
>
> note that I also do not see any 2016's messages on e.g. test-list:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/
>
> the archive for December suggests that it stopped on Christmas:
>
> Starting: Sun Nov 1 03:04:30 UTC 2015
> Ending: Mon Nov 23 01:00:31 UTC 2015
>
>
> > The Umefont license[1] appears to be an extremely permissive license, so I
> > don't expect it to be a problem, but that said, this font license question
> > does need to be answered, so I'm setting FE-Legal to block it.
>
> well, the only problem now is that I cannot find *that much* permissive
> licence on the list of approved
>
> Dmitry suggested that it might be substituted with CopyrightOnly
> [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:CopyrightOnly]
>
> The page says "You don't have to list this if you don't want to." which
> would probably apply here too, but not listing any license in the spec is
> considered blocker these days if I recall correctly ...
I just saw your email thread in Fedora Legal about the Umefont license[0]. Have
you received a sufficient answer for packaging it yet?
[0]:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal%40lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/VEPUXYCFJG6XSLPJHDBDH5NUXSWAEH2I/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295209] Review Request: lua-fun - functional programming library for Lua and LuaJIT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- lua-fun-0.1.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-913bb8547c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- lua-fun-0.1.3-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-596707fc4d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- lua-fun-0.1.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-913bb8547c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- lua-fun-0.1.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-913bb8547c --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- lua-fun-0.1.3-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-56433d5b18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1298649] Review Request: php-interfasys-lognormalizer - Parses variables and converts them to string
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298649 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- php-interfasys-lognormalizer-1.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-70790f2076 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1298475] Review Request: php-league-flysystem - Filesystem abstraction: Many filesystems, one API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298475 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- php-league-flysystem-1.0.16-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-cab0ed021e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1296901] Review Request: php-mcnetic-zipstreamer - Stream zip files without i/o overhead
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296901 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- php-mcnetic-zipstreamer-0.7-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-20a57d7c40 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1296939] Review Request: php-owncloud-tarstreamer - Streaming dynamic tar files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296939 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- php-owncloud-tarstreamer-0.1-0.1.beta3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f4e180b95c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1277476] Review Request: php-nette-bootstrap - Nette Bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277476 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- php-nette-bootstrap-2.3.4-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-bb9024 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299558 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-inifile-0.3-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-843bee847e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1298019] Review Request: nvme-cli - NVMe management command line interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298019 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- nvme-cli-0.2-2.20160112gitbdbb4da.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d174565d42 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1278638] Review Request: freedv - FreeDV Digital Voice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278638 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297622] Review Request: pulp-docker - Support for Docker content in the Pulp platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297622 --- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- rbarlow's scratch build of pulp-docker-2.0.0-0.3.beta.1.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12642835 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297622] Review Request: pulp-docker - Support for Docker content in the Pulp platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297622 Randy Barlow changed: What|Removed |Added CC||admil...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(admiller@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #3 from Randy Barlow --- Hello Adam! I believe that the first issue (about not owning the folders) was due to Pulp platform not having been in Fedora at the time of your review yet. When I run fedora-review now that Pulp is in Fedora, I do not see those errors. I removed the defattr statements, and used attr instead in the one place it was needed. "Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable." There is not actually a package called pulp-docker, so I don't think it makes sense for the subpackages to depend on pulp-docker. Do you agree? I've gone ahead and packaged a 0.3.beta from upstream that was released this week and fixed the defattr thing: Spec URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/pulp-docker.spec SRPM URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/pulp-docker-2.0.0-0.3.beta.1.fc24.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297704] Review Request: python-cookies - Friendlier RFC 6265-compliant cookie parser/renderer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297704 awill...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||awill...@redhat.com --- Comment #11 from awill...@redhat.com --- Can you please go ahead and get this imported and built? I need it to package python-responses, which I need to be able to run python-mwclient's test suite. Thanks :) It'd also be good if there could be EPEL builds (as I have EPEL builds of python-mwclient). Python 3 on EPEL is a bit of a complex topic ATM, so my approach so far has just been to disable the py3 stuff for my packages on EPEL, see e.g. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/python-mimerender.git/tree/python-mimerender.spec , note the with_python3 stuff. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300457] Review Request: python-mimerender - RESTful HTTP Content Negotiation for Flask, Bottle, etc.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300457 awill...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2016-01-21 21:38:17 --- Comment #9 from awill...@redhat.com --- Now built in Rawhide, and updates-testing pending for other releases. Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295478] Review Request: python-astroquery - Access astronomical online data resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295478 --- Comment #8 from Christian Dersch --- Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-astroquery.spec SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-astroquery-0.3.1-2.fc23.src.rpm Koji raehide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12640871 Docs generation works with F23, but not Rawhide. Looks like astropy changed from 1.0.x to 1.1.x release => Disabled in spec, will be enabled when working again. I don't think this is a review blocker, astroquery doesn't work at all without internet conection. And with internet connection one can browse online docs too. Builds with enabled doc: Koji rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12640496 Koji F23: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12640777 Running the provided tests via nosetests doesn't make any sense. astroquery is made to query astronomical online services, so the tests do exactly that. But downloading stuff for buildtime, even for tests, is forbidden (and disabled in Koji) in our guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Build_time_network_access Thank you for reviewing :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295478] Review Request: python-astroquery - Access astronomical online data resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295478 --- Comment #7 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- lupinix's scratch build of python-astroquery-0.3.1-2.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12640777 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1266429] Review Request: cmark - CommonMark parsing and rendering
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266429 --- Comment #12 from Jens Petersen --- (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #11) > I feel https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL may be out of date (Well I think it is mostly about the case of when there is no release tarball. I feel there should be specific coverage of github etc releases somewhere.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295478] Review Request: python-astroquery - Access astronomical online data resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295478 --- Comment #6 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- lupinix's scratch build of python-astroquery-0.3.1-2.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12640496 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1247442] Review Request: emacs-yaml-mode - major mode to edit YAML file for emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247442 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-yaml-mode-0.0.12-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1247442] Review Request: emacs-yaml-mode - major mode to edit YAML file for emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247442 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2016-01-15 18:25:12 |2016-01-21 19:58:02 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1294278] Review Request: python-usbtmc - Python implementation of the USBTMC protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294278
William Moreno changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from William Moreno ---
Package Aproved
===
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12639772
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12639785
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12639787
[!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: python2-usbtmc (summary)
Hte build still fail in epel6, note the unexpandable macro.
I do not find bloquers, any way think about to keep a more moder python spex
for Fedora an Epel7, there is no not need to support epel6 in current packaging
guidelines for Fedora and epel7
= 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]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[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]: 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:
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, P
[Bug 1294278] Review Request: python-usbtmc - Python implementation of the USBTMC protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294278 --- Comment #7 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- williamjmorenor's scratch build of python-usbtmc-0.6-2.fc23.src.rpm for epel7 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12639785 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1294278] Review Request: python-usbtmc - Python implementation of the USBTMC protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294278 --- Comment #6 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- williamjmorenor's scratch build of python-usbtmc-0.6-2.fc23.src.rpm for el6-candidate failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12639772 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1294872] Review Request: python-backports_abc - A backport of recent additions to the 'collections.abc' module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294872
--- Comment #2 from William Moreno ---
Package Review
==
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
packages/__pycache__(python3-pytest, python3-pytest-pep8,
python3-virtualenv, python3-decorator, python3-six, python3-libs,
python3-augeas, langtable-python3, python3-setuptools, python3-pytest-
cache, python3-ntplib)
= 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]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: 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:
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/b
[Bug 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338
--- Comment #9 from William Moreno ---
Package Review
==
1. There is a docs directory than you can build with sphinx and include in a
doc subpackage.
2. You can get the License text from upstream to include it in the spec:
https://bitbucket.org/emptypage/uniseg-python/src/d6436d00e293cb1b4876def8501959da5b6716bd/LICENSE?fileviewer=file-view-default
3. Include the README.txt with %doc also include uniseg/docs/uniseg.ja.html
4. There is a docs directory than you can build with sphinx and include in a
doc subpackage.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[Pass]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[Na]: 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.
[Pass]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[NA]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[Pass]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[Pass]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[Pass]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[Pass]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[NA]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[NA]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[NA]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[Pass]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[Pass]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[Pass]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[Pass]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[Pass]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[Pass]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[Pass]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[Pass]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[Pass]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[Pass]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[Pass]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[Pass]: Package installs properly.
[Pass]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[Pass]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[Pass]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[Pass]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[Pass]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[Pass]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[Pass]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[Pass]: Dist tag is present.
[Pass]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[Pass]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[Pass]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[Pass]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[Pass]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[Pass]: Package is not relocatable.
[Pass]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[Pass]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[Pass]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[Pass]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[Pass]: 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:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-uniseg
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Note
[Bug 1295478] Review Request: python-astroquery - Access astronomical online data resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295478
--- Comment #5 from William Moreno ---
Package Review
==
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Looks like you can test this app with nosetest there are many test directories
with test_ files.
There is a docs directoy with sphinx documentation than you can build with
sphinx and include in a docs subpackage.
Also rpmlint is unhappy with many non executales files.
= 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]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: 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:
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint
[Bug 1295478] Review Request: python-astroquery - Access astronomical online data resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295478 --- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- lupinix's scratch build of python-astroquery-0.3.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12638424 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295478] Review Request: python-astroquery - Access astronomical online data resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295478 --- Comment #3 from Christian Dersch --- Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-astroquery.spec SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-astroquery-0.3.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Koji rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12638424 New upstream release 0.3.1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300457] Review Request: python-mimerender - RESTful HTTP Content Negotiation for Flask, Bottle, etc.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300457 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-mimerender -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209 --- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Now you should release updates for all branches (except f24). This is best done through the web interface, because it allows doing one update for all branches. Go to https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/new, and specify lua-fun in Packages, this bug in Related bugs, and check all Candidate Builds. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1288731] Review Request: os-autoinst - OS-level test automation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288731 awill...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2016-01-21 15:05:38 --- Comment #24 from awill...@redhat.com --- Now built for Rawhide and update pending for 23. Thanks a lot for the detailed review! I really appreciate it. openQA coming soon. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295217] Review Request: msgpuck - a MsgPack serialization library in a self-contained header file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295217 --- Comment #5 from Roman Tsisyk --- Status update: I've made all review fixes and I plan push the updated version of spec after finishing with the lua-fun #1295209. I need to get some experience and finish with the one package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295209] Review Request: lua-fun - functional programming library for Lua and LuaJIT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209 --- Comment #14 from Roman Tsisyk --- I pushed specs to all four branches (f24, f23, f22, epel7). What else should be done from my side? Should I use Bodhi for f22, f23? [1] It is not so clear for me after studying available documentation. [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Submit_Package_as_Update_in_Bodhi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1293100] Review Request: tarantool - an in-memory database and Lua application server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293100 --- Comment #19 from Roman Tsisyk --- Status update: 1. I've been sponsored to packager group by Zbigniew. Thanks a lot for that. 2. New systemd scripts have been implemented as it was suggested - "preferrably replace tarantool.service with a bunch of tarantool@.service instances and use systemd enable/disable to manage instance enablement". This patch will be merged to the upstream after review inside Tarantool Team (probably tomorrow). 3. Probably it is possible to disable backtraces entirely for Fedora packages and get rid of binutils-dev, debuginfo and problems with hardening. I'm still investigating this option. 4. I plan to make a new version of RPM spec after finishing with 3 and 4. Please stay in touch ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1298019] Review Request: nvme-cli - NVMe management command line interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298019 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- nvme-cli-0.2-2.20160112gitbdbb4da.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d174565d42 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1298019] Review Request: nvme-cli - NVMe management command line interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298019 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1299179] Review Request: editorconfig - tools for text editors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299179 Andy Lutomirski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||l...@kernel.org Docs Contact||l...@kernel.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Andy Lutomirski --- Given that you're packaged editorconfig-devel, can you split out editorconfig-libs? That way the 32-bit version will be installable on 64-bit machines. editorconfig-doc should either include the license or should require something that does. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300158] Review Request: python-editorconfig - A python based distribution of EditorConfig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300158 Andy Lutomirski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||l...@kernel.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@kernel.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Andy Lutomirski --- A few comments: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT: shouldn't be needed Does a simple: %py2_install %py3_install not work? You've arranged to produce scripts that use python2. On Fedora 23 and up, should it be the other way around? At the very top: # sitelib for noarch packages, sitearch for others (remove the unneeded one) please remove that comment and the sitearch macro. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297629] Review Request: python-crane - A WSGI app providing a docker-registry-like API with redirection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297629 Randy Barlow changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2016-01-21 12:58:56 --- Comment #7 from Randy Barlow --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=712891 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1185275] Review Request: rome-utils - Utility classes for ROME projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185275 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to Alexander Kurtakov from comment #4) > Source files are missing license headers. Would you please contact upstream > to fix it? > Until this is fixed we can't continue with the review. reported @ https://github.com/rometools/rome-utils/issues/2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1278638] Review Request: freedv - FreeDV Digital Voice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278638 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-86353fa95c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1278638] Review Request: freedv - FreeDV Digital Voice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278638 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1278638] Review Request: freedv - FreeDV Digital Voice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278638 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1278638] Review Request: freedv - FreeDV Digital Voice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278638 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1278638] Review Request: freedv - FreeDV Digital Voice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278638 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1278638] Review Request: freedv - FreeDV Digital Voice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278638 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1278638] Review Request: freedv - FreeDV Digital Voice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278638 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1278638] Review Request: freedv - FreeDV Digital Voice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278638 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1278638] Review Request: freedv - FreeDV Digital Voice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278638 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1278638] Review Request: freedv - FreeDV Digital Voice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278638 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1278638] Review Request: freedv - FreeDV Digital Voice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278638 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- freedv-1.1-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a8343a0e9 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d007a8affa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300457] Review Request: python-mimerender - RESTful HTTP Content Negotiation for Flask, Bottle, etc.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300457 --- Comment #7 from awill...@redhat.com --- Basically the reason it doesn't feel right to me is that I don't see where it'll be any *use*. So, let me try to articulate. For me the classic use of Suggests: is if a program works perfectly fine without something, but gets some extra capabilities if you add something. So far that sounds like this, right? But the thing is, the dependency is ultimately intended as a signal to a human; the idea is that package managers can tell humans 'hey, if you install this other package too, you'll get extra functionality!' That doesn't fit this case, for me. The reason being, I don't see any circumstance in which "install python-mimerender" is a sensible entry point to "get some web frameworks". I suspect the only use case for installing python-mimerender directly would be if you wanted to write some code using it, and I can't really see a scenario in which you're writing some kind of web service code and you start out by saying "OK, well, I DEFINITELY want to use python-mimerender. Now, what web framework should I use?" That just doesn't seem likely. Otherwise, python-mimerender is only ever going to be pulled in as a dep of something else which wants to use it, and I don't see that the Suggests: fulfils any useful function in this case, because as I said, whatever wants to use it will already have the necessary dependencies on web frameworks, and Suggesting other ones to a person who's just trying to install a webapp or something does not seem to be in their interest. So I just can't foresee a use case in which the Suggests actually improves anyone's experience, which is the ultimate goal. Do you? Thanks for the review! I'll change the Summary: bit on import. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293909
--- Comment #13 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
1) directory ownership is missing therefore change
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}/*
to
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}
do same for python3 subpackage in %files
2) Add to following to the end of %install section
# Delete tests
rm -fr %{buildroot}%{python2_sitelib}/tests
we don't want to install test files. Also they can conflict with other packages
as other packages test files may have same file names.
3) with above change also remove following from respective %files section
%{python2_sitelib}/tests/*
= 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". 21 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/parag/1293909-python-simplepath/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/tests,
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/simplepath, /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/simplepath,
/usr/lib/python3.5
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
packages/tests, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/tests,
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/simplepath, /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/simplepath,
/usr/lib/python3.5
[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 40960 bytes in 8 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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:
[-]: If the s
[Bug 1299558] Review Request: python-inifile - A small INI library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299558 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-inifile-0.3-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-18c1b36a18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244678] Review Request: duperemove - Tools for deduping file systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244678 --- Comment #9 from Francesco Frassinelli (frafra) --- (In reply to James Hogarth from comment #8) > I've marked it as blocking to make it clear :) Thank you :) > Do you have the other library in review to block as well? No, I'm sorry. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282063 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1244678 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244678 [Bug 1244678] Review Request: duperemove - Tools for deduping file systems -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244678] Review Request: duperemove - Tools for deduping file systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244678 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1282063 --- Comment #8 from James Hogarth --- (In reply to Francesco Frassinelli (frafra) from comment #7) > (In reply to James Hogarth from comment #6) > > Francesco are you still interested in packing this > > Sure I am! I'm waiting for > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282063 I've marked it as blocking to make it clear :) Do you have the other library in review to block as well? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282063 [Bug 1282063] Review Request: xxhsum - Extremely fast hash algorithm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1278638] Review Request: freedv - FreeDV Digital Voice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278638 --- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/freedv -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1299305] Review Request: erlang-p1_tls - TLS / SSL native driver for Erlang / Elixir
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299305 --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/erlang-p1_tls -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244678] Review Request: duperemove - Tools for deduping file systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244678 Francesco Frassinelli (frafra) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(frap...@gmail.com | |) | --- Comment #7 from Francesco Frassinelli (frafra) --- (In reply to James Hogarth from comment #6) > Francesco are you still interested in packing this Sure I am! I'm waiting for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282063 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1298019] Review Request: nvme-cli - NVMe management command line interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298019 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nvme-cli -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1297629] Review Request: python-crane - A WSGI app providing a docker-registry-like API with redirection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297629 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-crane -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1244678] Review Request: duperemove - Tools for deduping file systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244678 James Hogarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||frap...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(frap...@gmail.com ||) --- Comment #6 from James Hogarth --- The dedupe stuff happening is solely around in-band so this tool still has a use. Francesco are you still interested in packing this (and now the two dependencies identified of course, I'd defend the use of the rbtree stuff though realistically since it's not linked in via those headers). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297413
--- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
1) directory ownership is missing therefore change
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}/*
to
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}
do same for python3 subpackage in %files
2) Add to following to the end of %install section
# Delete tests
rm -fr %{buildroot}%{python2_sitelib}/tests
we don't want to install test files. Also they can conflict with other packages
as other packages test files may have same file names.
3) with above change also remove following from respective %files section
%{python2_sitelib}/tests/*
= 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". 17 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/parag/1297413-python-importanize/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/importanize,
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.5,
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/tests, /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
packages/importanize
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
packages/tests, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/importanize,
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/tests, /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
packages, /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/importanize,
/usr/lib/python3.5
[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 40960 bytes in 8 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: 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 ==
[Bug 1300698] Review Request: perl-Fuse - Write filesystems in Perl using FUSE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300698 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1038595 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1038595] Review Request: perl-Fuse - Write filesystems in Perl using FUSE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038595 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1300698 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300698] Review Request: perl-Fuse - Write filesystems in Perl using FUSE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300698 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jplesnik's scratch build of perl-Fuse-0.16.1-1.fc24.src.rpm for f24 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12634416 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1278638] Review Request: freedv - FreeDV Digital Voice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278638 --- Comment #20 from Richard Shaw --- Thanks for the thorough review and patience! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300457] Review Request: python-mimerender - RESTful HTTP Content Negotiation for Flask, Bottle, etc.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300457 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Suggests is nice because it is a standard way to look for optional dependencies. I'd think this usecase is more or less it's purpose. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with the package. 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 1300698] New: Review Request: perl-Fuse - Write filesystems in Perl using FUSE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300698 Bug ID: 1300698 Summary: Review Request: perl-Fuse - Write filesystems in Perl using FUSE 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-Fuse/perl-Fuse.spec SRPM URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Fuse/perl-Fuse-0.16.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: This lets you implement filesystems in perl, through the FUSE (Filesystem in USErspace) kernel/lib interface. 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 1300222] Review Request: ripe-atlas-tools - The official command line client for RIPE Atlas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300222 --- Comment #1 from Jan Včelák --- The package has been updated. Spec URL: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/ripe-atlas-tools/1.2.2-2/ripe-atlas-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/ripe-atlas-tools/1.2.2-2/ripe-atlas-tools-1.2.2-2.fc23.src.rpm COPR builds: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jvcelak/ripe-atlas-tools/package/ripe-atlas-tools/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297425
Parag AN(पराग) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
1) directory ownership is missing therefore change
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}/*
to
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}
do same for python3 subpackage in %files
= 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/parag/1297425-python-contexttimer/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/contexttimer, /usr/lib/python3.5,
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/contexttimer
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
packages, /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/contexttimer,
/usr/lib/python3.5, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/contexttimer
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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:
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicabl
[Bug 1185275] Review Request: rome-utils - Utility classes for ROME projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185275 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov --- Source files are missing license headers. Would you please contact upstream to fix it? Until this is fixed we can't continue with the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300689] New: Review Request: python-pika-pool - Pools for pikas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300689 Bug ID: 1300689 Summary: Review Request: python-pika-pool - Pools for pikas Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jp...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-pika-pool/python-pika-pool.spec SRPM URL: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-pika-pool/python-pika-pool-0.1.3-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Pika connection pooling inspired by: flask-pika sqlalchemy.pool.Pool Fedora Account System Username: jpena Koji scratch build available at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12634192 Please note the following: - License file was not available in the GitHub repo, it is currently included as Source1. https://github.com/bninja/pika-pool/issues/7 has been opened to fix this. - python3 subpackage creation is currently disabled, since there is no python3 package for python-pika. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300217] Review Request: python-ripe-atlas-sagan - A parsing library for RIPE Atlas measurement results
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300217 --- Comment #2 from Jan Včelák --- Sorry, correct links. Spec URL: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/ripe-atlas-sagan/1.1.8-3/python-ripe-atlas-sagan.spec SRPM URL: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/ripe-atlas-sagan/1.1.8-3/python-ripe-atlas-sagan-1.1.8-3.fc23.src.rpm COPR builds: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jvcelak/ripe-atlas-tools/package/python-ripe-atlas-sagan/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300217] Review Request: python-ripe-atlas-sagan - A parsing library for RIPE Atlas measurement results
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300217 Jan Včelák changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |ripe-atlas-sagan - A|python-ripe-atlas-sagan - A |parsing library for RIPE|parsing library for RIPE |Atlas measurement results |Atlas measurement results --- Comment #1 from Jan Včelák --- Renamed: Spec URL: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/ripe-atlas-sagan/1.1.8-3/python-ripe- atlas-sagan.spec SRPM URL: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/ripe-atlas-sagan/1.1.8-3/python-ripe-atlas-sagan-1.1.8-3.fc23.src.rpm COPR builds: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jvcelak/ripe-atlas-tools/package/python-ripe-atlas-sagan/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300219] Review Request: python-ripe-atlas-cousteau - Python wrapper for RIPE Atlas API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300219 Jan Včelák changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |ripe-atlas-cousteau - |python-ripe-atlas-cousteau |Python wrapper for RIPE |- Python wrapper for RIPE |Atlas API |Atlas API --- Comment #2 from Jan Včelák --- Renamed. Spec URL: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/ripe-atlas-cousteau/1.0.7-2/python-ripe-atlas-cousteau.spec SRPM URL: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/ripe-atlas-cousteau/1.0.7-2/python-ripe-atlas-cousteau-1.0.7-2.fc23.src.rpm COPR builds: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jvcelak/ripe-atlas-tools/package/python-ripe-atlas-cousteau/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1185275] Review Request: rome-utils - Utility classes for ROME projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185275 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |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
