[Bug 1302871] Review Request: tar-split - tar archive assembly/disassembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302871 --- Comment #2 from Antonio Murdaca --- spec and SRPM updated Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/runcom/fedora-pkgs/master/golang-github-vbatts-tar-split/fedora/golang-github-vbatts-tar-split/golang-github-vbatts-tar-split.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/runcom/fedora-pkgs/raw/master/golang-github-vbatts-tar-split/fedora/golang-github-vbatts-tar-split/golang-github-vbatts-tar-split-0.9.11-1.fc23.src.rpm Koji builds: - f23: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12738989 - rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12738992 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1302809] Review Request: ne - ne, the nice editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302809 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1302989] Review Request: linux-eoip - Linux support for Mikrotik EoIP protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302989 Paul Wouters changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|puiterw...@gmail.com|puiterw...@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 1302809] Review Request: ne - ne, the nice editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302809
--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande ---
- Very short name; can you consider to use 'ne-editor' as package name?
Name:ne-editor
Version: 3.0.1
Release: 1%{?dist}
Summary: Nice text editor
- Source0 is a complete link to the archive
- cd src; make NE_GLOBAL_DIR=/usr/share/ne; strip ne
Use macros as much as possible and parallel 'make':
make -C src NE_GLOBAL_DIR=%{_datadir}/ne %{?_smp_mflags}; strip ne
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300070] Review Request: octave-doctest - Documentation tests for Octave
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1294862] Review Request: python3-nose - Discovery-based unittest extension for Python 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294862
--- Comment #2 from Denis Fateyev ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 308 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mock/sandbox/review/1294862-python3-nose/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/nose(python3-nose), /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/nose/sphinx/__pycache__(python3-nose), /usr/lib/python3.4
/site-packages/nose/tools(python3-nose), /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/nose/sphinx(python3-nose), /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages/nose/plugins/__pycache__(python3-nose), /usr/lib/python3.4
/site-packages/nose-1.3.7-py3.4.egg-info(python3-nose),
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/nose/__pycache__(python3-nose),
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/nose/tools/__pycache__(python3-nose),
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/nose/ext(python3-nose),
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/nose/ext/__pycache__(python3-nose),
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/nose/plugins(python3-nose)
Note: not related to epel7
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to inclu
[Bug 1297977] Review Request: python3-Cython - A language for writing Python 3 extension modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297977 Denis Fateyev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||de...@fateyev.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|de...@fateyev.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300070] Review Request: octave-doctest - Documentation tests for Octave
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070 --- Comment #15 from Antonio Trande --- Unfortunately, does not compile on Rawhide: make: Entering directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/doctest-0.4.1/src' /usr/bin/mkoctfile-4.0.0 --verbose doctest_evalc.cc g++ -c -fPIC -I/usr/include/octave-4.0.0/octave/.. -I/usr/include/octave-4.0.0/octave -pthread -fopenmp -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic doctest_evalc.cc -o doctest_evalc.o g++ -shared -Wl,-Bsymbolic -o doctest_evalc.oct doctest_evalc.o -L/usr/lib64/octave/4.0.0 -L/usr/lib64 -loctinterp -loctave -Wl,-z,relro -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/6.0.0/crtbeginS.o: unrecognized relocation (0x2a) in section `.text' /usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Bad value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300092] Review Request: python-socketIO-client - A socket.io client library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300092 --- Comment #6 from Paul Wouters --- adding note for fedora-review with fixed build number Spec URL: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/socketIO-client/0.6.5-2/python-socketIO-client.spec SRPM URL: https://jvcelak.fedorapeople.org/review/socketIO-client/0.6.5-2/python-socketIO-client-0.6.5-2.fc23.src.rpm COPR build: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jvcelak/ripe-atlas-tools/package/python-socketIO-client/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1300092] Review Request: python-socketIO-client - A socket.io client library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300092 --- Comment #7 from Paul Wouters --- so i am not running rawhide and so I'm running into issues with python2-six not being available. Searching yum, it seems it should be able to do both: python-six.noarch : Python 2 and 3 compatibility utilities They really made python a giant mess :( -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1302809] Review Request: ne - ne, the nice editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302809
Mamoru TASAKA changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mtas...@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #2 from Mamoru TASAKA ---
* %optflags
- Honor %optflags. Current compilation does not other them.
Also changing optimization level from -O2 is discouraged, please
fix this.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
* Debuginfo
- Don't strip binary. This disables debuginfo rpm generation.
(And as I said above, currently %optflags is not honored, including
"-g". This is one of the reason why debuginfo file is not
generated. Remove %global debug_package %{nil} and generate
useful debuginfo rpm correctly)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Debuginfo_packages
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1198498] Review Request: libwebsockets - A lightweight C library for Websockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198498 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Flags||needinfo?(richmattes@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #19 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- libwebsockets came up as an optional dependency of qlcplus (#1297821). It would be nice to get this package into Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 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|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-01-30 13:22:21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- python-inifile-0.3-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1299583] Review Request: perl-Number-Fraction - Perl extension to model fractions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299583 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Number-Fraction-2.00-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1299583] Review Request: perl-Number-Fraction - Perl extension to model fractions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299583 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-01-30 13:23:07 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1286867] Review Request: python-novaclient-os-virtual-interfaces - Adds Virtual Interfaces support to python-novaclient
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286867 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- python-novaclient-os-virtual-interfaces-0.19-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c3d1f85f1d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1264653] Review Request: php-guzzlehttp-guzzle6 - PHP HTTP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264653 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- php-guzzlehttp-guzzle6-6.1.1-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7e0f762e8d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1301589] Review Request: super-csv - A fast, programmer-friendly, free CSV library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301589
Pavel Alexeev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||pa...@hubbitus.info
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pa...@hubbitus.info
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev ---
Take it in answer to #1302053 (thanks).
I recommend you extend description from your single line at least copy 4
sentences from https://github.com/super-csv/super-csv
Package Review
==
Legend:
[+] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [x] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[+]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown
license.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
F.e. installation of super-csv-benchmark does noot trigger it.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/java/super-csv,
/usr/share/maven-poms/super-csv
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-poms/super-csv,
/usr/share/java/super-csv
[+]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[+]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[+]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[+]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[+]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[+]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[+]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[+]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[+]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[+]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[+]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[+]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[+]: Package installs properly.
[+]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[+]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %license.
[+]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[+]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[+]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[+]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[+]: Dist tag is present.
[+]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[+]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work.
[+]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[+]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[+]: Package is not relocatable.
[+]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[+]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[+]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[+]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[+]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[+]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[+]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[+]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[+]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[+]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[?]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[?]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[+]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[+]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils
for %update_maven_d
[Bug 1264653] Review Request: php-guzzlehttp-guzzle6 - PHP HTTP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264653 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- php-guzzlehttp-guzzle6-6.1.1-2.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-f3f370291d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1286867] Review Request: python-novaclient-os-virtual-interfaces - Adds Virtual Interfaces support to python-novaclient
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286867 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- python-novaclient-os-virtual-interfaces-0.19-1.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-2016-478a3b580e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1302053] Review Request: pgcenter - Top-like PostgreSQL statistics viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302053 --- Comment #8 from Pavel Alexeev --- Thank you gil. I took super-csv. Changes: https://github.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/commit/d5f1b01151f8c0e05de363244f42fb271d3924e9 Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/d5f1b01151f8c0e05de363244f42fb271d3924e9/SPECS/pgcenter.spec Srpm: http://rpm.hubbitus.info/Fedora23/pgcenter/pgcenter-0.2.0-2.fc24.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 977116] Review Request: pgmodeler - PostgreSQL Database Modeler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977116 --- Comment #38 from Pavel Alexeev --- Christopher do you plan continue review??? Months without answer! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1301589] Review Request: super-csv - A fast, programmer-friendly, free CSV library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301589
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo ---
You should use:
fedora-review -b 1301589 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-ARCH
because prevent those problems:
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/java/super-csv,
/usr/share/maven-poms/super-csv
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-poms/super-csv,
/usr/share/java/super-csv
with newer Java tools these directories are already handle (in the generated
files.dir file). If i owned this directory would be created only duplicate
files in rpm
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
F.e. installation of super-csv-benchmark does noot trigger it.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
super-csv-benchmark, super-csv-dozer, super-csv-java8, super-csv-joda,
super-csv-parent, super-csv-javadoc
Not needed to add extras "Requires: ..." (expecially if are noarch).
These are handled by our Java tools
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Package contains tests. Please run it in %check.
These a maven build style and %check section is unnecessary
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1301589] Review Request: super-csv - A fast, programmer-friendly, free CSV library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301589 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo --- [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. F.e. installation of super-csv-benchmark does noot trigger it. Good catch! Fixed Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/cassandra/super-csv.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/cassandra/super-csv-2.4.0-2.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1301589] Review Request: super-csv - A fast, programmer-friendly, free CSV library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301589 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo --- For referencies see: https://fedorahosted.org/released/javapackages/doc/ https://fedorahosted.org/released/javapackages/doc/#maven is a bit outdate about directories ownership -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1302053] Review Request: pgcenter - Top-like PostgreSQL statistics viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302053
--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/gil/1302053-pgcenter/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
pgcenter-0.2.0/qstats.h
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
pgcenter-debuginfo
[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
[Bug 1302053] Review Request: pgcenter - Top-like PostgreSQL statistics viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302053 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo --- Suggestions: install man page. pgcenter.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pgcenter Manual page is available in pgcenter-0.2.0/doc/pgcenter.1.gz install, also, pgcenter-0.2.0/doc/Changelog Seem all ok. 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 1301589] Review Request: super-csv - A fast, programmer-friendly, free CSV library for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301589 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1293735] Review Request: boomaga - A virtual printer for viewing a document before printing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293735 Dmitry Mikhirev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #19 from Dmitry Mikhirev --- All issues fixed. rpmlint reports no errors/warnings. 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 1293735] Review Request: boomaga - A virtual printer for viewing a document before printing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293735 --- Comment #20 from MartinKG --- @Dmitry Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: boomaga Short Description: A virtual printer for viewing a document before printing Owners: martinkg Branches: f23 rawhide InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1303331] New: Review Request: cmst - A Qt based GUI front end for the connman connection manager with systemtray icon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303331 Bug ID: 1303331 Summary: Review Request: cmst - A Qt based GUI front end for the connman connection manager with systemtray icon Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mgans...@alice.de QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/cmst.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/cmst-2016.01.26-0.1gitcfe10e5.fc23.src.rpm Description: Qt GUI for Connman with system tray icon. The program provides graphical user interface to control the connman daemon. The connman daemon must be started as you normally would, this program just interfaces with that daemon. You can see what technologies and services connman has found, and for wifi services an agent is registered to assist in obtaining the information from you necessary to logon the wifi service. Fedora Account System Username: martinkg rpmlint -v cmst.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/cmst-2016.01.26-0.1gitcfe10e5.fc23.x86_64.rpm ../SRPMS/cmst-2016.01.26-0.1gitcfe10e5.fc23.src.rpm cmst.spec: I: checking cmst.spec:39: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 5, tab: line 39) cmst.spec: I: checking-url https://github.com/andrew-bibb/cmst/archive/cfe10e5145b17dfd80928e7f6b314f5a98cc279c/cmst-cfe10e5145b17dfd80928e7f6b314f5a98cc279c.tar.gz#/cmst-cfe10e5.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) cmst.x86_64: I: checking cmst.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) systemtray -> system tray, system-tray, systematic cmst.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wifi -> wife, wiki, WiFi cmst.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logon -> login, logo, loon cmst.x86_64: I: checking-url https://github.com/andrew-bibb/cmst (timeout 10 seconds) cmst.src: I: checking cmst.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) connman -> conman, Conan cmst.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) systemtray -> system tray, system-tray, systematic cmst.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US connman -> conman, Conan cmst.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wifi -> wife, wiki, WiFi cmst.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logon -> login, logo, loon cmst.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/andrew-bibb/cmst (timeout 10 seconds) cmst.src:39: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 5, tab: line 39) cmst.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/andrew-bibb/cmst/archive/cfe10e5145b17dfd80928e7f6b314f5a98cc279c/cmst-cfe10e5145b17dfd80928e7f6b314f5a98cc279c.tar.gz#/cmst-cfe10e5.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1293735] Review Request: boomaga - A virtual printer for viewing a document before printing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293735 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Comment #21 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Martin, you need to do https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/request/package/ instead. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about 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 #36 from Fedora Update System --- codec2-0.5-1.el7 freedv-1.1-5.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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1215762] Review Request: py4j - Dynamically access in Python programs to arbitrary Java objects (for Python 2 and 3)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215762 --- Comment #59 from Fedora Update System --- py4j-0.9.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1273601] Review Request: python-qutepart - Code editor widget
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273601 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2015-12-16 04:53:47 |2016-01-30 23:33:24 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1273601] Review Request: python-qutepart - Code editor widget
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273601 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- enki-15.11.0-2.el7, python-qutepart-2.2.2-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1281876] Review Request: enki - Extensible text editor for programmers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281876 --- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System --- enki-15.11.0-2.el7, python-qutepart-2.2.2-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 984560] Review Request: enki - Extensible text editor for programmers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984560 Bug 984560 depends on bug 1273601, which changed state. Bug 1273601 Summary: Review Request: python-qutepart - Code editor widget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273601 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1281876] Review Request: enki - Extensible text editor for programmers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281876 Bug 1281876 depends on bug 1273601, which changed state. Bug 1273601 Summary: Review Request: python-qutepart - Code editor widget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273601 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1302909] Review Request: drupal8 - An open source content management platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302909 --- Comment #1 from Shawn Iwinski --- Mostly rpmbuild sub-package fixes Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/siwinski/rpms/31009ca02a60597a89b97eebc93581a5165c/drupal8/drupal8.spec SRPM URL: https://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/drupal8-8.0.2-2.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1302909] Review Request: drupal8 - An open source content management platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302909 --- Comment #2 from Shawn Iwinski --- Fix build requires and %check in clean buildroot Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/siwinski/rpms/42e0ed3ff7a456b138741da45139ee9fecd8a61c/drupal8/drupal8.spec SRPM URL: https://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/drupal8-8.0.2-3.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1263941] Review Request: tayga - Simple out-of-kernel stateless NAT64 daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263941 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- tayga-0.9.2-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 1292216] Review Request: libwhirlpool - Whirlpool cryptographic hash function library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292216 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- libwhirlpool-1.0-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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
