[Bug 1302871] Review Request: tar-split - tar archive assembly/disassembly

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302871

Jan Chaloupka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Jan Chaloupka  ---
Summary:
- golang side of the spec file fine
- license ok
- rpmlint ok

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301589



--- Comment #11 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
gil's scratch build of super-csv-2.4.0-3.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12774319

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

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

[bugzilla]

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

Denis Fateyev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||de...@fateyev.com



--- Comment #23 from Denis Fateyev  ---
> 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

Small addition: as Zbigniew said above, normally you can use Bodhi web
interface to create package updates. But you can also use "fedpkg update" for
the same purpose - it's a CLI interface to the same functionality.

As it's seen the package updates
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-56433d5b18 and
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-596707fc4d already reached
7 days in testing, so you can push them to stable just clicking on a green
button on the page top.

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

[Bug 1303434] Review Request: erlang-p1_sip - ProcessOne SIP server component in Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303434

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1295217] Review Request: msgpuck - a MsgPack serialization library in a self-contained header file

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295217



--- Comment #28 from Denis Fateyev  ---
Looked at the current version in rawhide. Just a small nit-pick:

1) Please use "install -Dpm 0644 doc/man/man3/msgpuck.h.3*
%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man3/" instead of "cp -f" to preserve files timestamps;

2) Though I'm not really insisting, but pointing out full BRs is according the
current guidelines. As pointed above, you should also add `make` and
`coreutils`;

3) Changelog list will shortly become messy, e.g. during the next mass rebuild
by rel-eng: they'll add a changelog entry with an empty line in the end making
the whole list ragged. As also pointed above, it would better to use an empty
line as the changelog items delimiter.

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

[Bug 1302871] Review Request: tar-split - tar archive assembly/disassembly

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302871



--- Comment #8 from Antonio Murdaca  ---
Spec URL:
https://github.com/gofed/reviews/raw/master/golang-github-vbatts-tar-split/golang-github-vbatts-tar-split.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/gofed/reviews/raw/master/golang-github-vbatts-tar-split/golang-github-vbatts-tar-split-0.9.12-1.fc23.src.rpm

Koji builds:

- f23: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12774264
- rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12774380

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295217



--- Comment #29 from Roman Tsisyk  ---
> 1) Please use "install -Dpm 0644 doc/man/man3/msgpuck.h.3* 
> %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man3/" instead of "cp -f" to preserve files timestamps;

Good catch. Thanks!

> 2) Though I'm not really insisting, but pointing out full BRs is according 
> the current guidelines. As pointed above, you should also add `make` and 
> `coreutils`;

I see that even core packages ignores this practice. I'm just curious do I need
a dependency on kernel? :) I'll update my spec anyway, but I have no idea how
to check BR on the base system. 

> 3) Changelog list will shortly become messy, e.g. during the next mass 
> rebuild by rel-eng: they'll add a changelog entry with an empty line in the 
> end making the whole list ragged. As also pointed above, it would better to 
> use an empty line as the changelog items delimiter.

OK, I'll take this into account too.
Probably I need to learn some more examples from
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/.

I'll update my spec tomorrow and push. 
I hope that is it.

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

[Bug 1263600] Review Request: perl-Log-Log4perl-Appender-Socket-UNIX - Log4perl appender for writing to UNIX domain sockets

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263600

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |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 751119] Review Request: perl-Judy - Perl wrapper for Judy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751119



--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Judy-0.41-4.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 1263600] Review Request: perl-Log-Log4perl-Appender-Socket-UNIX - Log4perl appender for writing to UNIX domain sockets

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263600



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Log-Log4perl-Appender-Socket-UNIX-1.04-3.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 1303451] Review Request: pusher-java-client - Pusher Java Client Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303451

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1303764




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303764
[Bug 1303764] Review Request: xchange - Java library providing API for
Bitcoin and Altcoin exchanges
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1303764] New: Review Request: xchange - Java library providing API for Bitcoin and Altcoin exchanges

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303764

Bug ID: 1303764
   Summary: Review Request: xchange - Java library providing API
for Bitcoin and Altcoin exchanges
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: heg...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/xchange/xchange.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/xchange/xchange-3.1.0-2.fc23.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jonny
Description: XChange is a Java library providing a streamlined API for
interacting with 50+ Bitcoin and Altcoin exchanges
providing a consistent interface for trading and
accessing market data.

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

[Bug 1294717] Review Request: python3-PyYAML - YAML parser and emitter for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294717

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-02-01 17:55:16



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

[Bug 751119] Review Request: perl-Judy - Perl wrapper for Judy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751119

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |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 1303764] Review Request: xchange - Java library providing API for Bitcoin and Altcoin exchanges

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303764



--- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
Some of the exchanges/modules have been disables because of missing transitive
dependencies. These might be enabled later.

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

[Bug 1303764] Review Request: xchange - Java library providing API for Bitcoin and Altcoin exchanges

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303764

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
 Depends On||1303451




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303451
[Bug 1303451] Review Request: pusher-java-client - Pusher Java Client
Library
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 751119] Review Request: perl-Judy - Perl wrapper for Judy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751119



--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Judy-0.41-4.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 1263600] Review Request: perl-Log-Log4perl-Appender-Socket-UNIX - Log4perl appender for writing to UNIX domain sockets

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263600



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Log-Log4perl-Appender-Socket-UNIX-1.04-4.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 1295217] Review Request: msgpuck - a MsgPack serialization library in a self-contained header file

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295217



--- Comment #30 from Denis Fateyev  ---
(In reply to Roman Tsisyk from comment #29)
> > 2) Though I'm not really insisting, but pointing out full BRs is according 
> > the current guidelines. As pointed above, you should also add `make` and 
> > `coreutils`;
> 
> I see that even core packages ignores this practice.

It's a recent invention, so many packages just don't have these changes for
historical reasons. Generally speaking, there are tons of packages in pkgdb
that don't fully comply with current guidelines and will probably never be
(intricate/superfluous buildroot tags, buildroot cleanup, %clean section,
%license missing, etc. deprecated stuff), but new packages should certainly
follow the current guidelines. 

> I'm just curious do I need a dependency on kernel? :) I'll update my spec
> anyway, but I have no idea how to check BR on the base system.

Well, it's quite simple: along build deps, you just add deps on things that are
used through your package spec (make for `make`, coreutils for `mv`, `install`,
`mkdir`, etc.)

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

[Bug 1303434] Review Request: erlang-p1_sip - ProcessOne SIP server component in Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303434

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Randy Barlow  ---
The only suggestion is to add a comment explaining what the patch is for to the
spec file. Approved!


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or
 generated". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/rbarlow/1303434-erlang-p1_sip/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[-]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
 Note: Can you add a comment to the spec explaining the patch at a high
level?
[-]: 

[Bug 1293075] Review Request: lximage-qt - The image viewer and screenshot tool for lxqt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293075



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
lximage-qt-0.4.0-4.fc22, lxqt-runner-0.10.0-3.fc22 has been pushed to the
Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it
in this bug report.

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

[Bug 751119] Review Request: perl-Judy - Perl wrapper for Judy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751119



--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Judy-0.41-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1271379] Review Request: q-text-as-data - Q - Text as Data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271379

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
q-text-as-data-1.5.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0c4c01223d

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

[Bug 1301008] Review Request: python-port-for - Utility that helps with local TCP ports management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301008

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-port-for-0.3.1-2.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-2016-61d63926a6

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

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

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-contexttimer-0.3.1-1.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-ecbd8587be

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

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

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-importanize-0.4.1-2.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-2016-0b13d942cd

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

[Bug 1302197] Review Request: python-livereload - LiveReload server in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302197

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-livereload-2.4.1-1.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-2016-4552e30907

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

[Bug 1277504] Review Request: apigen - PHP source code API generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277504
Bug 1277504 depends on bug 1277476, which changed state.

Bug 1277476 Summary: Review Request: php-nette-bootstrap - Nette Bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277476

   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 1277476] Review Request: php-nette-bootstrap - Nette Bootstrap

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277476

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2016-01-23 02:03:29 |2016-02-01 19:53:39



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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277476



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-nette-bootstrap-2.3.4-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1296939] Review Request: php-owncloud-tarstreamer - Streaming dynamic tar files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296939



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-owncloud-tarstreamer-0.1-0.1.beta3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.

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

[Bug 1277484] Review Request: php-nette - Nette Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277484
Bug 1277484 depends on bug 1277476, which changed state.

Bug 1277476 Summary: Review Request: php-nette-bootstrap - Nette Bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277476

   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 1296939] Review Request: php-owncloud-tarstreamer - Streaming dynamic tar files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296939

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-02-01 19:53:46



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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296901



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-mcnetic-zipstreamer-0.7-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1277478] Review Request: php-nette-deprecated - APIs and features removed from Nette Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277478
Bug 1277478 depends on bug 1277476, which changed state.

Bug 1277476 Summary: Review Request: php-nette-bootstrap - Nette Bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277476

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

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-simplepath-0.3.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a8f623e1bb

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-inifile-0.3-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1303331] Review Request: cmst - A Qt based GUI front end for the connman connection manager with systemtray icon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303331

MartinKG  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

URL||https://github.com/andrew-b
   ||ibb/cmst
  Alias||cmst



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

[Bug 1301260] Review Request: python-responses - An utility library for mocking out the requests Python library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301260



--- Comment #14 from awill...@redhat.com  ---
If it's at least been built in Koji, you can request a buildroot override for
it, but you should then still wait for it to go stable before submitting an
update for python-responses (or add python-responses to the same update).

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

[Bug 1223843] Review Request: python-anymarkup - Parse or serialize any markup in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223843



--- Comment #23 from Petr Viktorin  ---
Jan, are you planning to push the update to f22/f23 stable?

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

[Bug 1267037] Review Request: perl-Mojolicious-Plugin-Bootstrap3 - Mojolicious + http://getbootstrap.com/

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267037



--- Comment #5 from awill...@redhat.com  ---
That looks fine to me, so far as I understand the new policy and the
discussions around it. 'Unbundling' this package might have interesting
consequences, though - things that use plugin-bootstrap but don't have write
access to the 'bundled' files would have to pin their dependencies on the
packages which actually provided the files, I think.

(the SUSE guys packaged openQA such that the assets are generated during
package build, and the app cannot write to the asset dir; the benefit is
reducing the amount of stuff the app needs write access to, but the drawback is
the package must be rebuilt any time bootstrap3 changes. I'm still deciding
whether to follow this for the Fedora 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 1263941] Review Request: tayga - Simple out-of-kernel stateless NAT64 daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263941



--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System  ---
tayga-0.9.2-3.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 1292216] Review Request: libwhirlpool - Whirlpool cryptographic hash function library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292216



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
libwhirlpool-1.0-1.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 1290530] Review Request: smtpping - Small tool for measuring SMTP parameters

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290530



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
smtpping-1.1.2-2.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 1297527] Review Request: perl-WWW-Twilio-API - Accessing Twilio's REST API with Perl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297527



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-WWW-Twilio-API-0.18-2.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 1223843] Review Request: python-anymarkup - Parse or serialize any markup in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223843



--- Comment #25 from Petr Viktorin  ---
Ah, sorry, I meant f21/f22. Or, whatever needs to be done to close this bug :)

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

[Bug 1302053] Review Request: pgcenter - Top-like PostgreSQL statistics viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302053



--- Comment #11 from Pavel Alexeev  ---
Thank you very much. I'll include man and changelog 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 1301589] Review Request: super-csv - A fast, programmer-friendly, free CSV library for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301589



--- Comment #7 from Pavel Alexeev  ---
I have tested on Fedora 23. Directory owning should be addressed here then.

> [!]: 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

No, it does not happened. Please look at review requires above.
And it easy to check, f.e. super-csv-benchmark easy installed without
super-csv:
$ rpm -qa 'super-csv*'
[empty]
$ sudo rpm -Uh super-csv-benchmark-2.4.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
$ rpm -qa 'super-csv*'
super-csv-benchmark-2.4.0-1.fc22.noarch

> These a maven build style and %check section is unnecessary
Yes. It should, not must item:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Test_Suites
But strongly recommended if upstream include tests.

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

[Bug 1291390] Review Request: nodejs-graceful-readlink - The graceful fs.readlink functionality

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
 Blocks||1120123




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120123
[Bug 1120123] nodejs-commander-2.9.0 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1303569] Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python onto the BBC micro:bit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303569

Praveen Kumar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||prku...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kumarpraveen.nitdgp@gmail.c
   ||om



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

[Bug 1301253] Review Request: color - A string colorizer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301253

Petr Šabata  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
   ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1268697,
   ||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
   ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1300465



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

[Bug 1268697] Review Request: color - colorize text

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268697

Petr Šabata  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
   ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1301253



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

[Bug 1300465] Review Request: color - A string colorizer.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300465

Petr Šabata  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
   ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1301253



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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302809

Petr Šabata  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||psab...@redhat.com



--- Comment #3 from Petr Šabata  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> - Very short name; can you consider to use 'ne-editor' as package name?

Hmm, I'm curious -- why is this an issue?  `ne' is the name of the project and
also the name of the binary.  Nobody's going to try installing `ne-editor'
first.

I also maintain a few packages with two-letter names so I'm wondering why you
think it's problematic in any way.

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

[Bug 1303569] New: Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python onto the BBC micro:bit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303569

Bug ID: 1303569
   Summary: Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python
onto the BBC micro:bit
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@kushaldas.in
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://kushal.fedorapeople.org/packages/uflash.spec
SRPM URL:
https://kushal.fedorapeople.org/packages/uflash-0.9.18b0-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: A utility for flashing the BBC micro:bit with Python scripts and
the
MicroPython runtime. You pronounce the name of this utility "micro-flash". ;-)
It provides two services. A library of functions to programatically create a
hex file and flash it onto a BBC micro:bit.  A command line utility called
uflash that will flash Python scripts onto a BBC micro:bit.
Fedora Account System Username: kushal

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301589



--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Pavel Alexeev from comment #7)
> I have tested on Fedora 23. Directory owning should be addressed here then.
> 
> > [!]: 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
> 
> No, it does not happened. Please look at review requires above.
> And it easy to check, f.e. super-csv-benchmark easy installed without
> super-csv:
> $ rpm -qa 'super-csv*'
> [empty]
> $ sudo rpm -Uh super-csv-benchmark-2.4.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
> $ rpm -qa 'super-csv*'
> super-csv-benchmark-2.4.0-1.fc22.noarch

As wrote above "Requires are handled by our Java tools" and i do not see a
reason to explicit. "super-csv" JAR is used only as test deps, nothing more
And you should rub fedora-review for f23 or major

> > These a maven build style and %check section is unnecessary
> Yes. It should, not must item:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Test_Suites
> But strongly recommended if upstream include tests.

Test Suite is already running in the build section. You should see the
documentation that I mentioned above, it is one of the few exceptions.

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

[Bug 1223843] Review Request: python-anymarkup - Parse or serialize any markup in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223843



--- Comment #24 from Jan Chaloupka  ---
Push to stable request for f22, f23 was rawhide build built by that time.

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

[Bug 1301116] Review Request: libcxl - Coherent accelerator interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301116

Sinny Kumari  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ksi...@gmail.com



--- Comment #6 from Sinny Kumari  ---
Few comments on latest spec file:
* With recent changes in guideline, C application should include compiler used
for compilation source. In this case add, 
BuildRequires: gcc
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires
* %install section contains "ldconfig -n $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}", not sure
why it is mentioned here? ld cache will already be updated through %post and
%postrun section
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=PackagingGuidelines#Shared_Libraries
* In %file and %file devel section, specifying %defattr(-,root,root) is not
required now
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=PackagingGuidelines#File_Permissions
* LICENSE file is getting installed in both main and devel package. Since,
devel package has dependency on main package, removing %license LICENSE from
%files devel section will be fine.
* Is there any significance of including static library (libcxl.a) in devel
package? If yes, static libraries must be packaged in a -static sub-package
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=PackagingGuidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries_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 1302552] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-hydrator - Zend Framework Hydrator component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302552

Shawn Iwinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski  ---
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[!]: Buildroot is not present
 Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
 Note: %clean present but not required

As usual, remove EPEL 5 bits after initial import.



[!]: Latest version is packaged.

 Latest version for dependent RPM-packaged versions of Zend Framework v2. 
As noted
 in the review request, "Version ^1.0.0 required (v2 is released for ZF3)".



rpmlint:
W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.1-1 ['1.0.0-1.fc24', '1.0.0-1']

Minor.  Fix after initial import.



No blockers.

= 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 1303430] Review Request: python-click-log - Logging integration for python-click

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303430

Charalampos Stratakis  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cstra...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
Not able to download the SRPM. 

"You don't have permission to access
/files/rpms/python-click-log/python-click-log-0.1.3-1.fc24.src.rpm on this
server"

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

[Bug 1303432] Review Request: python-click-threading - Multithreaded support for python click apps

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303432



--- Comment #2 from Michele Baldessari  ---
ops, selinux. fixed now

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

[Bug 1303430] Review Request: python-click-log - Logging integration for python-click

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303430



--- Comment #2 from Michele Baldessari  ---
ops, selinux. fixed now

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

[Bug 1302552] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-hydrator - Zend Framework Hydrator component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302552



--- Comment #2 from Shawn Iwinski  ---
Created attachment 1120112
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1120112=edit
phpcompatinfo-lib.log

phpCompatInfo version 5.0.0 DB built Jan 09 2016 15:36:21 CET

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

[Bug 1302552] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-hydrator - Zend Framework Hydrator component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302552



--- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski  ---
Created attachment 1120113
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1120113=edit
fedora-review.txt

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1302552
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

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

[Bug 1303432] Review Request: python-click-threading - Multithreaded support for python click apps

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303432

Charalampos Stratakis  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cstra...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
Not able to download the SRPM. 

"You don't have permission to access
/files/rpms/python-click-threading/python-click-threading-0.1.2-1.fc24.src.rpm
on this server."

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

[Bug 1302552] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-hydrator - Zend Framework Hydrator component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302552



--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/php-zendframework-zend-hydrator

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

[Bug 1303596] Review Request: perl-Lchown - Use the lchown(2) system call from Perl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303596



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Lchown

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

[Bug 1267037] Review Request: perl-Mojolicious-Plugin-Bootstrap3 - Mojolicious + http://getbootstrap.com/

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267037



--- Comment #6 from Petr Šabata  ---
The SRPM link doesn't work, assuming it's actually
http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Mojolicious-Plugin-Bootstrap3/perl-Mojolicious-Plugin-Bootstrap3-3.3600-1.fc23.src.rpm

All points besides bundling addressed.  Since I understand the current bundling
policy as `anything goes' and I'm not sure how this package is supposed to be
used, I'm willing to approve this and leave it to you.

However, I think the License tag should include the content license as well. 
So in this case it should be `Artistic 2.0 and MIT'.

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

[Bug 1303569] Review Request: uflash - An utility to flash Python onto the BBC micro:bit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303569



--- Comment #1 from Praveen Kumar  ---
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.
[-]: 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". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/prkumar/fedora-
 scm/1303569-uflash/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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, 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.

[Bug 1302552] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-hydrator - Zend Framework Hydrator component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302552

Shawn Iwinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||sh...@iwin.ski
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sh...@iwin.ski
  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 1302552] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-hydrator - Zend Framework Hydrator component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302552



--- Comment #1 from Shawn Iwinski  ---
Created attachment 1120111
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1120111=edit
phpcompatinfo-full.log

phpCompatInfo version 5.0.0 DB built Jan 09 2016 15:36:21 CET

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

[Bug 1295549] Review Request: qt5-qtwebengine - Qt5 - QtWebEngine components

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295549

Kevin Kofler  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1303611




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303611
[Bug 1303611] QtWebEngine
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302809



--- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #3)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> > - Very short name; can you consider to use 'ne-editor' as package name?
> Hmm, I'm curious -- why is this an issue?

It's not mandatory. If you prefer use a '2-letter' name I think there is not
any rule that prevents this choice.
Even if I don't remember any package with name so short on Fedora.

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

[Bug 1302552] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-hydrator - Zend Framework Hydrator component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302552



--- Comment #5 from Remi Collet  ---
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 1303245] Review Request: lrbd - Configure iSCSI access to Ceph rbd images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303245

Boris Ranto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Boris Ranto  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-]: 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. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 112640 bytes in 32 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: 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/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

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

[Bug 1302053] Review Request: pgcenter - Top-like PostgreSQL statistics viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302053



--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/pgcenter

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302809



--- Comment #5 from Petr Šabata  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4)
> (In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> > > - Very short name; can you consider to use 'ne-editor' as package name?
> > Hmm, I'm curious -- why is this an issue?
> 
> It's not mandatory. If you prefer use a '2-letter' name I think there is not
> any rule that prevents this choice.
> Even if I don't remember any package with name so short on Fedora.

Well, that doesn't really answer my question why you think it's strange or bad.

And just to name a few from the top of my head -- at, mc, nc, ii, jj, st, xz,
bc, ... :)

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278638

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System  ---
codec2-0.5-1.el7, freedv-1.1-5.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 1303649] Review Request: perl-Tie-Sub - Tying a subroutine, function or method to a hash

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303649

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1302871] Review Request: tar-split - tar archive assembly/disassembly

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302871



--- Comment #5 from Antonio Murdaca  ---
https://github.com/gofed/reviews/pull/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 1303411] Review Request: geteltorito - A El Torito boot image extractor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303411



--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
License is clear GPLv2+.

Others I will fix.

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

[Bug 1297524] Review Request: golang-github-asaskevich-govalidator - Validators and sanitizers for strings, numerics, slices and structs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297524

Michael Scherer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@zarb.org



--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer  ---
Seems to not build on Fedora Review:
Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.VXfc9R
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd govalidator-5fe52de9fffecc6df9539fcfd6ac6ae6aa6fc626
+ export
GOPATH=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-asaskevich-govalidator-2-1.fc23.x86_64//usr/share/gocode:/usr/share/gocode
+
GOPATH=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-asaskevich-govalidator-2-1.fc23.x86_64//usr/share/gocode:/usr/share/gocode
+ go test -compiler gc -ldflags '' github.com/asaskevich/govalidator
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.VXfc9R: line 33: go: command not found
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.VXfc9R (%check)
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.VXfc9R (%check)
Child return code was: 1
EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output.

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

[Bug 1171746] Review Request: garmon - Gnome/GTK+ Car Monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171746

Papadeas Pierros  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(ppapadeas@gmail.c |
   |om) |



--- Comment #2 from Papadeas Pierros  ---
Thanks William!

Let me know how we can proceed.

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

[Bug 1297531] Review Request: golang-github-golang-snappy - The Snappy compression format in the Go programming language.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297531

Michael Scherer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@zarb.org



--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer  ---
Test requires 'go' binary to run go test, so this can't be built in mock it
seems.

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

[Bug 1303596] Review Request: perl-Lchown - Use the lchown(2) system call from Perl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303596

Petr Šabata  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1303596] Review Request: perl-Lchown - Use the lchown(2) system call from Perl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303596

Petr Šabata  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata  ---
The package is okay.

If I had to comment on something, it'd be the %description -- we do support
lchown(2) so maybe saying what the call does would be more useful than "on
platforms that support it".  Anyhow, no packaging errors here.  Approving.

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

[Bug 1303245] Review Request: lrbd - Configure iSCSI access to Ceph rbd images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303245

Boris Ranto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bra...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bra...@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 1303596] Review Request: perl-Lchown - Use the lchown(2) system call from Perl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303596

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1300698




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300698
[Bug 1300698] Review Request: perl-Fuse - Write filesystems in Perl using
FUSE
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1303596] New: Review Request: perl-Lchown - Use the lchown(2) system call from Perl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303596

Bug ID: 1303596
   Summary: Review Request: perl-Lchown - Use the lchown(2) system
call from Perl
   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-Lchown/perl-Lchown.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Lchown/perl-Lchown-1.01-1.fc24.src.rpm

Description:
Provides a perl interface to the lchown() system call, on platforms that
support it.

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 1300698] Review Request: perl-Fuse - Write filesystems in Perl using FUSE

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300698

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1303596




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303596
[Bug 1303596] Review Request: perl-Lchown - Use the lchown(2) system call
from Perl
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1246792] Review Request: ndctl - Manage "libnvdimm" subsystem devices (Non-volatile Memory)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792

Ralf Corsepius  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rc040...@freenet.de



--- Comment #19 from Ralf Corsepius  ---
Some remarks on your spec:

* I do not consider these defines useful:
%define lname ndctl-libs
%define dname ndctl-devel
IMO, all they do is to reduce readability.

* %define should not be used in new specs anymore (Use %global instead).

* Except if you want to support very outdated distros (IIRC, < rhel5),
%defattr(-,root,root) is not necessary, anymore and should not be used in specs
anymore.

* github supports downloading tarballs.
Consider to change Source0: into
https://github.com/pmem/ndctl/archive/v50.tar.gz#/ndctl-0.50.tar.gz
and to remove your make-git-shapshot.sh scripts.

* Append --disable-silent-rules %configure to make building verbose.

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

[Bug 1246792] Review Request: ndctl - Manage "libnvdimm" subsystem devices (Non-volatile Memory)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792

Dan Williams  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment|0   |1
#1072378 is||
   obsolete||



--- Comment #17 from Dan Williams  ---
Created attachment 1120314
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1120314=edit
Updated ndctl.spec in response to comment 16

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277476



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-nette-bootstrap-2.3.4-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1296939] Review Request: php-owncloud-tarstreamer - Streaming dynamic tar files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296939



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-owncloud-tarstreamer-0.1-0.1.beta3.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 1296901] Review Request: php-mcnetic-zipstreamer - Stream zip files without i/o overhead

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296901



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-mcnetic-zipstreamer-0.7-1.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 1303819] New: Review Request: python-tinydb - A tiny, document oriented database

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303819

Bug ID: 1303819
   Summary: Review Request: python-tinydb - A tiny, document
oriented database
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: suan...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://bitbucket.org/sundeep_co_in/python-pkgs/downloads/python-tinydb.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bitbucket.org/sundeep_co_in/python-pkgs/downloads/python-tinydb-3.1.2-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: TinyDB is a lightweight document oriented database.

It’s written in pure Python and has no external dependencies. The target are
small apps that would be blown away by a SQL-DB or an external database server.

Fedora Account System Username: suanand

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247442



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
emacs-yaml-mode-0.0.12-2.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 1246792] Review Request: ndctl - Manage "libnvdimm" subsystem devices (Non-volatile Memory)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792

Dan Williams  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment|0   |1
#1120314 is||
   obsolete||



--- Comment #18 from Dan Williams  ---
Created attachment 1120316
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1120316=edit
Updated ndctl.spec in response to comment 16

Fix up the license names.

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

[Bug 1303819] Review Request: python-tinydb - A tiny, document oriented database

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303819



--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
suanand's scratch build of python-tinydb-3.1.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12782886

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

[Bug 1293156] Review Request: lxqt-sudo - GUI frontend for sudo/su

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-02-02 00:50:25



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