[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 #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-responses-0.5.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b637810fa5

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

[Bug 1294714] Review Request: python3-chardet - Character encoding auto-detection in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294714

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-02-05 21:25:13



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

[Bug 1294714] Review Request: python3-chardet - Character encoding auto-detection in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294714



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-chardet-2.3.0-3.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 1299558] Review Request: python-inifile - A small INI library for Python

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-inifile-0.3-2.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 1302871] Review Request: golang-github-vbatts-tar-split - tar archive assembly/disassembly

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/golang-github-vbatts-tar-split

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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: golang-github-vbatts-tar-split - tar archive assembly/disassembly

[bugzilla]

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

Antonio Murdaca  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: tar-split - |Review Request:
   |tar archive |golang-github-vbatts-tar-sp
   |assembly/disassembly|lit - tar archive
   ||assembly/disassembly



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

[Bug 1285767] Review Request: golang-github-seccomp-libseccomp-golang - The libseccomp golang bindings repository

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285767

Boris Ranto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version||golang-github-seccomp-libse
   ||ccomp-golang-0-0.2.git1b506
   ||fc.fc24



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

[Bug 1302770] Review Request: python-coveralls - Coveralls.io is service to publish your coverage stats online with a lot of nice features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302770



--- Comment #10 from Germano Massullo  ---
rpmbuild log
https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/python-coveralls/log

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

[Bug 1304574] Review Request: nodejs-filename-regex - Regular expression for matching file names

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304574

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes  ---
You can drop test.js from the built package. Other than that it's fine.

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

[Bug 1304574] Review Request: nodejs-filename-regex - Regular expression for matching file names

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304574

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1304574
 -nodejs-filename-regex/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
 Note: Found : Packager: Tom Hughes 
 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No f

[Bug 1304567] Review Request: nodejs-array-unique - Return an array free of duplicate values

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304567

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1304567
 -nodejs-array-unique/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1299038] Review Request: prunerepo - remove old packages from rpm-md repository

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-02-05 16:22:23



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

[Bug 1266429] Review Request: cmark - CommonMark parsing and rendering

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266429



--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System  ---
cmark-0.23.0-3.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 1304876] Review Request: nodejs-read-dir-files - Recursively read files from a directory

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304876

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1304876
 -nodejs-read-dir-files/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1294368] Review Request: erlang-p1_iconv - Erlang bindings for iconv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294368



--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/erlang-p1_iconv

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

[Bug 1304900] Review Request: nodejs-file-sync-cmp - Synchronous file comparison

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304900

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1304900
 -nodejs-file-sync-cmp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1304152] Review Request: nodejs-is-path-inside - Check if a path is inside another path

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304152

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1304152
 -nodejs-is-path-inside/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1304152] Review Request: nodejs-is-path-inside - Check if a path is inside another path

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304152

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes  ---
You can drop test.js from the packaged files but other than that it looks fine.

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

[Bug 1304576] Review Request: nodejs-is-buffer - Determine if an object is Buffer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304576

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1304576
 -nodejs-is-buffer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1299179] Review Request: editorconfig - tools for text editors

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299179



--- Comment #4 from Andy Lutomirski  ---
Comments:

You have the ldconfig scriptlets attached to the wrong package -- they belong
on -libs.

This is wrong:

%package -n %{name}-libs
Summary:Shared libraries for EditorConfig
Group:Documentation
Requires:%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

The main package should require the -libs package (which rpm will do for you by
figuring it out from DT_NEEDED), not the other way around.  In particular, your
current variant breaks multilib installs.

If you fix that, please move the %license to -libs.  You may need it in -doc,
too.

fedora-review is chugging away at this, and I may have more comments when it
finishes.

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

[Bug 1293100] Review Request: tarantool - an in-memory database and Lua application server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293100



--- Comment #21 from Roman Tsisyk  ---
A new version.

Spec URL:
https://gist.github.com/rtsisyk/8a8d2dcae143d0699e76/raw/623b434534e369bd80cd282bb5ccd8c05ca3/tarantool.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gist.github.com/rtsisyk/8a8d2dcae143d0699e76/raw/623b434534e369bd80cd282bb5ccd8c05ca3/tarantool-1.6.8.451-1.fc24.src.rpm
Fedora-Review: https://gist.github.com/rtsisyk/8a8d2dcae143d0699e76
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12894139

Changelog:

- Implement proper support of multi-instance management using systemd
https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/blob/e15bc621f1bca24c1ee61405f8511369f9489716/README.systemd.md
- Enable hardened builds and -debuginfo
- Add coreutils, make and sed to BuildRequires
- Drop binutils-devel, zlib-devel dependencies
- Drop all legacy stuff

Current problems:

1.
tarantool.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/tarantool 750
tarantool.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/tarantool 750
I use 0750 to allow read database files only for members of tarantool group.

Please help me to resolve this problem.

2. tarantool-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Documentation for /usr/inc.ude/tarantool/module.h is provided on the web-site:
http://tarantool.org/doc/reference/capi.html
I can generate a man page from Doxygen, but does it make sense?

3. tar.gz contains some JS crap in doc/sphinx
=> Upstream's buildbot will be fixed soonto generate proper tarballs.

4. I'm working on enabling %check
Tarantool has the extensive test suite, so I'm trying to get test-run.py
working under mock on all platforms.
https://travis-ci.org/tarantool/tarantool/jobs/107191725#L1187  It would be
nice to have an access to some Fedora/RHEL armhf box to check mock...

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

Mat Booth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mat.bo...@redhat.com



--- Comment #19 from Mat Booth  ---
(In reply to Pavel Alexeev from comment #14)
> $ rpm -qlp super-csv-2.4.0-3.fc22.noarch.rpm
> /usr/share/doc/super-csv
> /usr/share/doc/super-csv/README.md
> /usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv.jar
> /usr/share/licenses/super-csv
> /usr/share/licenses/super-csv/LICENSE.txt
> /usr/share/maven-metadata/super-csv-super-csv.xml
> /usr/share/maven-poms/super-csv/super-csv.pom
> 
> It contains /usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv.jar but not
> /usr/share/java/super-csv/
> 
> And noone contain it:
> $ rpm -qlp super-csv*.noarch.rpm | grep /usr/share/java/super-csv/
> /usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv.jar
> /usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv-dozer.jar
> /usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv-java8.jar
> /usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv-joda.jar

It looks like you are using F22? When I run it for F23 it works perfectly:

[mbooth@thinkpad ~]$ rpm -ql -p super-csv-2.4.0-3.fc23.noarch.rpm 
/usr/share/doc/super-csv
/usr/share/doc/super-csv/README.md
/usr/share/java/super-csv
/usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv.jar
/usr/share/licenses/super-csv
/usr/share/licenses/super-csv/LICENSE.txt
/usr/share/maven-metadata/super-csv-super-csv.xml
/usr/share/maven-poms/super-csv
/usr/share/maven-poms/super-csv/super-csv.pom


Don't forget that you can specify different Fedora versions by passing "-m
fedora-rawhide-x86_64" or "-m fedora-23-x86_64" to the fedora-review command.

You have probably seen this warning when using the fedora-review tool:

INFO: WARNING: Probably non-rawhide buildroot used. Rawhide should be used for
most package reviews

Please try to at least test on rawhide.

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

[Bug 1293100] Review Request: tarantool - an in-memory database and Lua application server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293100



--- Comment #20 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
rtsisyk's scratch build of tarantool-1.6.8.451-1.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12894137

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

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133

David King  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #14 from David King  ---
Package review 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 1300070] Review Request: octave-doctest - Documentation tests for Octave

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070

Colin Macdonald  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-02-05 13:34:20



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

[Bug 1305134] Review Request: perl-Data-Page-Pageset - Change long page list to be shorter and well navigate

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305134

Ralf Corsepius  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1304825




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304825
[Bug 1304825] rt-4.4.0 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 1305134] New: Review Request: perl-Data-Page-Pageset - Change long page list to be shorter and well navigate

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305134

Bug ID: 1305134
   Summary: Review Request:  perl-Data-Page-Pageset - Change long
page list to be shorter and well navigate
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: rc040...@freenet.de
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Data-Page-Pageset.spec
SRPM URL:
https://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Data-Page-Pageset-1.02-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: 
Pages number can be very high, and it is not comfortable to show user from
the first page to the last page list. Sometimes we need split the page list
into some sets to shorten the page list.

Fedora Account System Username: corsepiu

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

[Bug 1304882] Review Request: openqa - OS-level automated test framework and web UI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304882



--- Comment #6 from John Dulaney  ---
What is %{_prefix}/lib/systemd/system-generators used for?  I see it defined,
and that's it.

Also, I note that if I get reverse-depcheck finished, new builds of any
packages required by %requires_eq will wind up failing that check.  I'd rather
see this done another way, tbh.  I admit, I'm not quite sure what that way
might could be, but I also agree it's a bit of a security concern to have the
OpenQA server do it.  If the updated versions of these packages get installed,
does OpenQA break immediately (besides the detection logic, that is).  Would it
be possible to disable automatic checks and instead run the check and recompile
as a cron job?

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

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133



--- Comment #13 from Oliver Gutiérrez  ---
Fixed. Tested on mock, fedora-review and built with koji in rawhide
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12893992)

SRPM url:
https://github.com/fleet-commander/fc-admin/releases/download/0.7.3/fleet-commander-admin-0.7.3-2.fc23.src.rpm

Spec url:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fleet-commander/fc-admin/0.7.3/fleet-commander-admin.spec

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

[Bug 1304882] Review Request: openqa - OS-level automated test framework and web UI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304882



--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
jdulaney's scratch build of openqa-4.3-7.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12894011

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

[Bug 1265265] Review Request: mlt - A multimedia framework designed for television broadcasting

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265265



--- Comment #13 from Sergio Monteiro Basto  ---
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #12)
> Be in mind Synfigstudio is part of Fedora Design Suite. It will be nice to
> inform the suitation to Design team mailing list.

This is a good reason to have mlt in Fedora ...



(In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #7)
> I made a build with avformat, kdenlive and kino removed.  Doesn't require
> ffmpeg.
> 
> SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/mlt/mlt.spec
> SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/mlt/mlt-0.9.8-2.fc23.src.rpm

I was looking for at it takes remove avformat, kdenlive and kino , but your
mlt.spec is really different of the rpmfusion [1].


+#Source0:  https://github.com/mltframework/mlt/archive/v%%{version}.tar.gz
+#Created from the above with avformat, kdenlive and kino removed.
+Source0:   v%{version}.tar.gz

You have remove things from the source ? what and how ? have you a script of
what is removed ? 

[1]
https://github.com/rpmfusion/mlt/blob/master/mlt.spec
https://github.com/rpmfusion/mlt/raw/master/mlt.spec

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

[Bug 1190735] Review Request: mycila-pom - Mycila parent POM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190735

Mat Booth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mat.bo...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Mat Booth  ---
Zdeněk,

Are you still interested in pursuing these mycila package reviews?

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

[Bug 1304882] Review Request: openqa - OS-level automated test framework and web UI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304882



--- Comment #4 from awill...@redhat.com  ---
Here's 4.3-7, with all of Neal's comments addressed, and a couple of other
changes:

- package review improvements:
- * no need for worker to Requires(post) os-autoinst
- * explain why tests are currently disabled
- * fix a few macro invocations to use curly braces
- * use directory macros where appropriate in scriptlets
- * split apache configuration into a subpackage

I forgot to put it in the changelog, but I also made the summaries and
descriptions of the packages better, and dropped the superfluous Group tags
(we're not really targeting EPEL with this ATM).

I'm trying something new for my reviews too - keeping the old specs around and
providing diffs for easy comparison. The latest spec will always be symlinked
as 'openqa.spec', but you can look at a specific spec as
'openqa.spec.version-release', so:

https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/openqa/openqa.spec (links to
https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/openqa/openqa.spec.4.3-7 )
https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/openqa/openqa-4.3-7.fc23.src.rpm
https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/openqa/4.3-6_4.3-7.diff (diff from 4.3-6
to 4.3-7)

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

[Bug 1304882] Review Request: openqa - OS-level automated test framework and web UI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304882

John Dulaney  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jdula...@fedoraproject.org
  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 1302770] Review Request: python-coveralls - Coveralls.io is service to publish your coverage stats online with a lot of nice features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302770
Bug 1302770 depends on bug 1305101, which changed state.

Bug 1305101 Summary: New spec file to make package spec file compliant to 
Fedora packaging guidelines for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305101

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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

[Bug 1302770] Review Request: python-coveralls - Coveralls.io is service to publish your coverage stats online with a lot of nice features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302770

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||projects...@smart.ms



--- Comment #9 from Raphael Groner  ---
Please provide a link to a proper SRPM. SPEC only is not sufficient and
fedora-review tool will complain.

You should use %global srcname %{pypi_name} to not confuse %python_provide
about wrong Obsoletes.

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



--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/php-nette-deprecated

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

[Bug 1298180] Review Request: python-libcnml - a CNML parser library for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298180



--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-libcnml

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 #4 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/uflash

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 #17 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-responses

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

[Bug 1304052] Review Request: python-sphinx-argparse - Automatic Sphinx documentation for argparse

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304052



--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-sphinx-argparse

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

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rcol...@redhat.com



--- Comment #6 from Remi Collet  ---
Thanks!

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

[Bug 1302770] Review Request: python-coveralls - Coveralls.io is service to publish your coverage stats online with a lot of nice features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302770



--- Comment #8 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
fale's scratch build of python-coveralls-1.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for f24 failed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12893731

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

[Bug 1302770] Review Request: python-coveralls - Coveralls.io is service to publish your coverage stats online with a lot of nice features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302770



--- Comment #7 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
It's not a bug. Currently the policy affirms that you should use python2- if is
present otherwise use python-.

While not including (in your spec) python2-devel and python3-devel is a big bug
(it does not compile)

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

[Bug 1302770] Review Request: python-coveralls - Coveralls.io is service to publish your coverage stats online with a lot of nice features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302770



--- Comment #6 from Germano Massullo  ---
(In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #3)
> This package can build properly without the bug 1305101. It's a nice to
> have, but is not a must

I don't like to edit spec file to hack around someone else's bugs, I prefer to
wait for the bug to being fixed

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

[Bug 1302770] Review Request: python-coveralls - Coveralls.io is service to publish your coverage stats online with a lot of nice features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302770

Germano Massullo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fa...@locati.cc



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

[Bug 1302770] Review Request: python-coveralls - Coveralls.io is service to publish your coverage stats online with a lot of nice features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302770



--- Comment #5 from Germano Massullo  ---
Wrongly removed Fabio from assignee during resolution of bugzilla "mid air
collision"

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

[Bug 1302770] Review Request: python-coveralls - Coveralls.io is service to publish your coverage stats online with a lot of nice features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302770

Germano Massullo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1305101
   Assignee|fa...@locati.cc |nob...@fedoraproject.org



--- Comment #4 from Germano Massullo  ---
We have to wait for 1305101 being resolved


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305101
[Bug 1305101] New spec file to make package spec file compliant to Fedora
packaging guidelines for Python
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1302770] Review Request: python-coveralls - Coveralls.io is service to publish your coverage stats online with a lot of nice features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302770



--- Comment #3 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
This package can build properly without the bug 1305101. It's a nice to have,
but is not a must

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

[Bug 1302770] Review Request: python-coveralls - Coveralls.io is service to publish your coverage stats online with a lot of nice features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302770

Germano Massullo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1305101




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305101
[Bug 1305101] New spec file to make package spec file compliant to Fedora
packaging guidelines for Python
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1302770] Review Request: python-coveralls - Coveralls.io is service to publish your coverage stats online with a lot of nice features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302770

Fabio Alessandro Locati  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On|1305101 |
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fa...@locati.cc
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
It seems like you are missing the buildrequire to python2-devel and
python3-devel


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305101
[Bug 1305101] New spec file to make package spec file compliant to Fedora
packaging guidelines for Python
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1302770] Review Request: python-coveralls - Coveralls.io is service to publish your coverage stats online with a lot of nice features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302770



--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
fale's scratch build of python-coveralls-1.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for f24 failed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12893614

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

[Bug 1305091] New: Review Request: statsite - A C implementation of statsd

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305091

Bug ID: 1305091
   Summary: Review Request: statsite - A C implementation of
statsd
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: piotr1...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/statsite.spec
SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/statsite-0.7.1-2.fc23.src.rpm
Description: 
Statsite is a metrics aggregation server. Statsite is based heavily on Etsy's
StatsD https://github.com/etsy/statsd, and is wire compatible.
Fedora Account System Username: piotrp

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 #18 from gil cattaneo  ---
Please, if you do not understand leave this bug to some other with with more
experience with Java before I lose my patience. thanks anyway

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 #17 from gil cattaneo  ---
rpm -qlp super-csv-2.4.0-3.fc24.noarch.rpm
/usr/share/doc/super-csv
/usr/share/doc/super-csv/README.md
/usr/share/java/super-csv
/usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv.jar
/usr/share/licenses/super-csv
/usr/share/licenses/super-csv/LICENSE.txt
/usr/share/maven-metadata/super-csv-super-csv.xml
/usr/share/maven-poms/super-csv
/usr/share/maven-poms/super-csv/super-csv.pom

rpm -qlp super-csv-2.4.0-3.fc23.noarch.rpm
/usr/share/doc/super-csv
/usr/share/doc/super-csv/README.md
/usr/share/java/super-csv
/usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv.jar
/usr/share/licenses/super-csv
/usr/share/licenses/super-csv/LICENSE.txt
/usr/share/maven-metadata/super-csv-super-csv.xml
/usr/share/maven-poms/super-csv
/usr/share/maven-poms/super-csv/super-csv.pom

You're wrong, I do not seem exactly as you say

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198498

Rich Mattes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(richmattes@gmail. |
   |com)|



--- Comment #20 from Rich Mattes  ---
Thanks for tagging me, I missed the latest spec/srpm update.  I will try to
finish the review this weekend.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about 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 #16 from Pavel Alexeev  ---
That absolutely same for your build
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12774319 mentioned in that
task early.

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

[Bug 1298180] Review Request: python-libcnml - a CNML parser library for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298180

Germano Massullo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |python-libcnml, a CNML  |python-libcnml - a CNML
   |parser library for Python   |parser library for Python



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

[Bug 1298180] Review Request: python-libcnml, a CNML parser library for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298180

Fabio Alessandro Locati  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #14 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
Very good, the package is APPROVED. Remember to re-enable the checks as soon as
the network connection problem is fixed upstream.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/fale/Downloads/python-libcnml/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: 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
 python2-libcnml , python3-libcnml
[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 availab

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133



--- Comment #12 from David King  ---
Some of the tests fail (and so the package does not build in koji nor mock):

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12890833
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/839/12890839/build.log

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

[Bug 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133



--- Comment #11 from Oliver Gutiérrez  ---
New release including fixes for last revision by David King

SRPM url:
https://github.com/fleet-commander/fc-admin/releases/download/0.7.3/fleet-commander-admin-0.7.3-1.fc23.src.rpm

Spec url:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fleet-commander/fc-admin/0.7.3/fleet-commander-admin.spec

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

[Bug 1304996] Review Request: ghc-cmark - Fast, accurate CommonMark (Markdown) parser and renderer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304996



--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen  ---
I had to disable the testsuite on armv7 due to
.

This is needed by latest pandoc.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12881418

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

[Bug 1264288] Review Request: ghc-filemanip - Expressive file and directory manipulation for Haskell

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264288

Jens Petersen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1095644




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095644
[Bug 1095644] pandoc-1.16.0.2 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 1304996] Review Request: ghc-cmark - Fast, accurate CommonMark (Markdown) parser and renderer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304996

Jens Petersen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1095644




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095644
[Bug 1095644] pandoc-1.16.0.2 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 1304996] New: Review Request: ghc-cmark - Fast, accurate CommonMark (Markdown) parser and renderer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304996

Bug ID: 1304996
   Summary: Review Request: ghc-cmark - Fast, accurate CommonMark
(Markdown) parser and renderer
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: peter...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-cmark.spec
SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-cmark-0.5.1-1.fc23.src.rpm

Description:
This package provides Haskell bindings for , the reference parser for , a fully
specified variant of Markdown.

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

[Bug 1304882] Review Request: openqa - OS-level automated test framework and web UI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304882



--- Comment #3 from awill...@redhat.com  ---
1. Good point on the Requires(post), I'm not entirely sure why it's there; I
don't see why os-autoinst would be required for %post, unless it's somehow
needed for database creation (I don't see why). I'll ask.

2. The tests have some deps that are not yet packaged. The test deletion comes
from the openSUSE spec, where they do run the tests (see the note about staying
in sync with upstream where possible).

3. I don't think it's 100% consistent, but yeah, I prefer %{} style. I'll have
to check if it makes the diff to upstream uglier, but I think it might be OK to
change.

4. Hmm, yep, especially the one which uses the macro in one line and hard codes
the location in the next :) I think I agree, I will change that. Thanks!

5. Yeah, I was thinking of that too. It doesn't really need to be a subpackage,
but it wouldn't hurt anything, and at least probably we shouldn't hard require
Apache. I'm not very familiar with nginx config so would need someone to
contribute it, but it'd be great to have a subpackage.

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

Fabio Alessandro Locati  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #16 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
Good work Germano, the package is APPROVED :)

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/fale/Downloads/python-
 responses/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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/__pycache__(python3-decorator, python3-six, python3-libs,
 python3-augeas, langtable-python3, python3-setuptools, python3-ntplib)
[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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-responses , python3-responses
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description