date:20160213

[Bug 1300005] Review Request: fleet-commander-client - Profile data retriever for Fleet Commander client hosts

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=135

Alberto Ruiz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-02-13 05:34:03



--- Comment #8 from Alberto Ruiz  ---
Package is in

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

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

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

Alberto Ruiz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-02-13 05:33:45



--- Comment #17 from Alberto Ruiz  ---
Package is in

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

[Bug 1307228] New: Review Request: dynafed- The Dynamic Federations system allows to expose via HTTP and WebDAV a very fast dynamic name space

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307228

Bug ID: 1307228
   Summary: Review Request: dynafed-  The Dynamic Federations
system allows to expose via HTTP and WebDAV a very
fast dynamic name space
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: andrea.ma...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://svnweb.cern.ch/world/wsvn/lcgdm/ugr/tags/dynafed_1_1_0/packaging/rpm/specs/dynafed.spec?op=dl
SRPM URL:
http://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgdm/repos/release-candidate/el6/x86_64/dynafed-1.1.0-1.el6.src.rpm
Description: The Dynamic Federations system allows to expose via HTTP and
WebDAV a very fast dynamic name space
Fedora Account System Username: andreamanzi

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

[Bug 1307228] Review Request: dynafed- The Dynamic Federations system allows to expose via HTTP and WebDAV a very fast dynamic name space

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307228



--- Comment #1 from Andrea  ---
better Spec URL:
http://svn.cern.ch/guest/lcgdm/ugr/tags/dynafed_1_1_0/packaging/rpm/specs/dynafed.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 1291558] Review Request: mariadb-java-client - MariaDB connector for java

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291558

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||punto...@libero.it



--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo  ---
is available https://downloads.mariadb.com/files/MariaDB/connector-java-1.3.5

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

[Bug 1306353] Review Request: libunity - Library for integrating with Unity and Plasma

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306353



--- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter  ---
Yes, no need for nitpicking... let's try to prioritize fixing review blockers
first. :)

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

[Bug 1307238] New: Review Request: gdouros-avdira-fonts - A font based on elements created by Demetrios Damilas (late 15th c.)

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307238

Bug ID: 1307238
   Summary: Review Request: gdouros-avdira-fonts - A font based on
elements created by Demetrios Damilas (late 15th c.)
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: alex.ploumis...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-avdira-fonts/gdouros-avdira-fonts.spec

SRPM URL:
https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-avdira-fonts/gdouros-avdira-fonts-6.31-1.fc24.src.rpm

Description: The first edition of Isocrates, edited by Demetrius Chalcondyles,
was published
by Uldericus Scinzenzeler & Sebastianus de Ponte Tremolo, in 1493 in Milan. It
was set in letters cut in 1481 by Bonus Accursius, copying the older elements
of Demetrius Damilas. A digital revival was prepared by Ralph P. Hancock for
his Milan (Mediolanum) font in 2000.

The font covers the Windows Glyph List, IPA Extensions, Greek Extended, Ancient
Greek Numbers, Byzantine and Ancient Greek Musical Notation, various
typographic extras and several Open Type features (Case-Sensitive Forms, Small
Capitals, Subscript, Superscript, Numerators, Denominators, Fractions, Old
Style Figures, Historical Forms, Stylistic Alternates, Ligatures).

It was created by George Douros.

Fedora Account System Username: alexpl

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

[Bug 1306353] Review Request: libunity - Library for integrating with Unity and Plasma

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306353



--- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter  ---
The library under %{_libdir}/libunity was put there only because it is private,
so it should never get linked  (and need the .so symlink).  That said, it's
presence is mostly harmless 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 1307238] Review Request: gdouros-avdira-fonts - A font based on elements created by Demetrios Damilas (late 15th c.)

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307238

Alexander Ploumistos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproj
   ||ect.org



--- Comment #1 from Alexander Ploumistos  ---
A couple of days ago Mr. Douros released a new font in the "TextFonts" family,
Avdira. This family includes Alexander, Anaktoria, Aroania and Asea, all of
which I maintain.

The spec, metainfo and fontconfig files are all based on my previous work with
the other fonts.

I have performed all the tasks and checks outlined in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle .

The linked source rpm is from a successful scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12955667

I have also created a wiki page for the font:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Gdouros_Avdira_fonts


ttfcoverage reports the following about the font:

Alphabetic Presentation Forms: 7/80 (8.75%)
Ancient Greek Musical Notation: 70/80 (87.50%)
Ancient Greek Numbers: 77/80 (96.25%)
Ancient Symbols: 12/64 (18.75%)
Arrows: 7/112 (6.25%)
Basic Latin: 97/128 (75.78%)
Block Elements: 8/32 (25.00%)
Box Drawing: 40/128 (31.25%)
Byzantine Musical Symbols: 246/256 (96.09%)
Combining Diacritical Marks: 41/112 (36.61%)
Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement: 4/64 (6.25%)
Combining Half Marks: 4/16 (25.00%)
Currency Symbols: 23/48 (47.92%)
Cyrillic: 106/256 (41.41%)
Dingbats: 16/192 (8.33%)
General Punctuation: 65/112 (58.04%)
Geometric Shapes: 20/96 (20.83%)
Greek Extended: 233/256 (91.02%)
Greek and Coptic: 121/144 (84.03%)
IPA Extensions: 96/96 (100.00%)
Latin Extended Additional: 19/256 (7.42%)
Latin Extended-A: 128/128 (100.00%)
Latin Extended-B: 27/208 (12.98%)
Latin Extended-C: 1/32 (3.12%)
Latin-1 Supplement: 96/128 (75.00%)
Letterlike Symbols: 8/80 (10.00%)
Mathematical Operators: 25/256 (9.77%)
Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-A: 9/48 (18.75%)
Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B: 1/128 (0.78%)
Miscellaneous Symbols: 21/256 (8.20%)
Miscellaneous Symbols and Arrows: 1/256 (0.39%)
Miscellaneous Technical: 18/256 (7.03%)
Number Forms: 16/64 (25.00%)
Spacing Modifier Letters: 13/80 (16.25%)
Specials: 2/16 (12.50%)
Superscripts and Subscripts: 29/48 (60.42%)
Supplemental Punctuation: 35/128 (27.34%)
Supplementary Private Use Area-A: 98/65536 (0.15%)
Variation Selectors: 4/16 (25.00%)


PS1: A user had messed with the new font template in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_description_template and I reverted their
changes. Could someone please check that everything is as it should be?

PS2: Once this font is accepted, could someone point me in the right direction
for making a group or a metapackage to install all of the "TextFonts" together?

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

[Bug 1307243] Review Request: nodejs-load-json-file - Read and parse a JSON file

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307243

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews)




Referenced Bugs:

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

[Bug 1307243] New: Review Request: nodejs-load-json-file - Read and parse a JSON file

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307243

Bug ID: 1307243
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-load-json-file - Read and parse
a JSON file
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-load-json-file/nodejs-load-json-file.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-load-json-file/nodejs-load-json-file-1.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Read and parse a JSON file
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

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

[Bug 1307245] Review Request: nodejs-path-type - Check if a path is a file, directory, or symlink

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307245

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews)




Referenced Bugs:

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

[Bug 1307245] New: Review Request: nodejs-path-type - Check if a path is a file, directory, or symlink

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307245

Bug ID: 1307245
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-path-type - Check if a path is
a file, directory, or symlink
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-path-type/nodejs-path-type.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-path-type/nodejs-path-type-1.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Check if a path is a file, directory, or symlink
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

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

[Bug 1307247] Review Request: nodejs-pseudomap - A thing that is a lot like ES6 `Map`, but without iterators

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307247

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews)




Referenced Bugs:

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

[Bug 1307247] New: Review Request: nodejs-pseudomap - A thing that is a lot like ES6 `Map`, but without iterators

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307247

Bug ID: 1307247
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-pseudomap - A thing that is a
lot like ES6 `Map`, but without iterators
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-pseudomap/nodejs-pseudomap.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-pseudomap/nodejs-pseudomap-1.0.2-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: A thing that is a lot like ES6 `Map`, but without iterators, for
use in environments where `for..of` syntax and `Map` are not available.
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

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

[Bug 1307243] Review Request: nodejs-load-json-file - Read and parse a JSON file

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307243

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  ---
The %check is all mangled so the test load isn't done when the tests are
disabled, plus there are no BRs for any of the dependencies so the test load
wouldn't work anyway.

In addition it needs strip-bom which doesn't seem to be packaged yet.

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

[Bug 1307245] Review Request: nodejs-path-type - Check if a path is a file, directory, or symlink

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307245

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/1307245
 -nodejs-path-type/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1307245] Review Request: nodejs-path-type - Check if a path is a file, directory, or symlink

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307245

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes  ---
If we ever get ava packaged then you will need to create a symbolic link called
symlink pointing at test.js for the test to pass (the upstream git has this).

Other than that it looks fine, though test.js doesn't need to be included in
the built 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 1307247] Review Request: nodejs-pseudomap - A thing that is a lot like ES6 `Map`, but without iterators

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307247

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: "ISC", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1307247-nodejs-
 pseudomap/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

[Bug 1281801] Review Request: tinycompress - A library for compress audio offload in alsa

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281801



--- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
pbrobinson's scratch build of tinycompress-1.1.0-2.fc23.src.rpm for f24
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12968201

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

[Bug 1306407] Review Request: ansible1.9 - SSH-based configuration management, deployment, and task execution system

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306407



--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/ansible1.9

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

[Bug 1281801] Review Request: tinycompress - A library for compress audio offload in alsa

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281801



--- Comment #5 from Peter Robinson  ---
src: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/tinycompress-1.1.0-2.fc23.src.rpm
spec: as above

The commented out file is removed. I don't intend to push it to F-22 so
hardened is irrelevant (and it's not a long running process as per the < F-23
hardening guidelines). I don't believe there's anything blocking this approval
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 1304571] Review Request: nodejs-arr-diff - Returns an array with only the unique values from the first array

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304571



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

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

[Bug 1281801] Review Request: tinycompress - A library for compress audio offload in alsa

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281801

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande  ---
Package 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 1281801] Review Request: tinycompress - A library for compress audio offload in alsa

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281801

Peter Robinson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-02-13 11:48:27



--- Comment #7 from Peter Robinson  ---
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 1268716] Review Request: cjdns - IP6 VPN with crypto address allocation

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268716

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #27 from Jared Smith  ---
I'm working on the formal review of this package 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 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(taylor@braun-jone
   ||s.org)



--- Comment #29 from Raphael Groner  ---
Friendly ping?

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

[Bug 1306407] Review Request: ansible1.9 - SSH-based configuration management, deployment, and task execution system

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306407

Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- 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.
  Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

- Non blocker/minor: Might drop the defattr and clean sections. They are no
longer needed 
  anywhere (and we could drop them also from the ansible package 
  next time we touch it. 

- There's an existing bug about all the non executable scripts rpmlint output:
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272193 
  We should fix it, but it doesn't seem to be a blocker to me. 

- The conflicting files and directories are expected, since this will conflict 
  with newer ansible package. 

Please fix the %license issue before checkin, but as I see no other blockers 
this package is APPROVED.


= 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", "PSF (v2) BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3
 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or
 later)", "BSD (2 clause)". 58 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in
 /home/fedora/kevin/1306407-ansible1.9/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/core/inventory(ansible), /usr/lib/python2.7
 /site-packages/ansible/playbook(ansible), /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/core/packaging(ansible),
 /etc/ansible/roles(ansible), /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/extras/database/misc(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/core/cloud/amazon(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/extras/messaging(ansible), /usr/lib/python2.7
 /site-packages/ansible/modules/core(ansible), /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/core/cloud/rackspace(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/extras/packaging/language(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/extras/files(ansible), /usr/lib/python2.7
 /site-packages/ansible/modules/core/files(ansible), /usr/lib/python2.7
 /site-packages/ansible/modules/extras/cloud/google(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/extras/network/f5(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/extras/database(ansible), /usr/lib/python2.7
 /site-packages/ansible/modules/core/commands(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/core/source_control(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/extras/source_control(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/modules/core/cloud(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/extras/cloud(ansible), /usr/lib/python2.7
 /site-packages/ansible(ansible), /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/core/utilities/logic(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/modules(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/core/packaging/os(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible/modules/core/system(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/core/cloud/docker(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/core/cloud/azure(ansible),
 /etc/ansible(ansible), /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/core/cloud/openstack(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/core/network/basics(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/extras/cloud/lxc(ansible), /usr/lib/python2.7
 /site-packages/ansible/utils/module_docs_fragments(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/extras/packaging/os(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ansible/modules/extras/monitoring(ansible),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-

[Bug 1304580] Review Request: nodejs-kind-of - Get the native type of a value

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304580



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

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

[Bug 1307245] Review Request: nodejs-path-type - Check if a path is a file, directory, or symlink

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307245



--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-path-type

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

[Bug 1307247] Review Request: nodejs-pseudomap - A thing that is a lot like ES6 `Map`, but without iterators

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307247



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

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

[Bug 1268716] Review Request: cjdns - IP6 VPN with crypto address allocation

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268716



--- Comment #28 from Stuart D Gathman  ---
I see that there is a compat-libuv010, which will probably work with cjdns. 
That will get rid of the last embedded 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 1307257] New: Review Request: nodejs-strip-bom - Strip UTF-8 byte order mark (BOM) from a string/buffer

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307257

Bug ID: 1307257
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-strip-bom - Strip UTF-8 byte
order mark (BOM) from a string/buffer
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-strip-bom/nodejs-strip-bom.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-strip-bom/nodejs-strip-bom-2.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Strip UTF-8 byte order mark (BOM) from a string/buffer
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

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

[Bug 1307257] Review Request: nodejs-strip-bom - Strip UTF-8 byte order mark (BOM) from a string/buffer

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307257

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1307243
 Depends On||1305893




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305893
[Bug 1305893] Review Request: nodejs-is-utf8 - Detect if a buffer is utf8
encoded
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307243
[Bug 1307243] Review Request: nodejs-load-json-file - Read and parse a JSON
file
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1305893] Review Request: nodejs-is-utf8 - Detect if a buffer is utf8 encoded

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305893

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1307257




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307257
[Bug 1307257] Review Request: nodejs-strip-bom - Strip UTF-8 byte order
mark (BOM) from a string/buffer
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1307243] Review Request: nodejs-load-json-file - Read and parse a JSON file

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307243

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1307257




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307257
[Bug 1307257] Review Request: nodejs-strip-bom - Strip UTF-8 byte order
mark (BOM) from a string/buffer
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1305893] Review Request: nodejs-is-utf8 - Detect if a buffer is utf8 encoded

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305893

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-02-13 12:50:10



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

[Bug 1307257] Review Request: nodejs-strip-bom - Strip UTF-8 byte order mark (BOM) from a string/buffer

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307257
Bug 1307257 depends on bug 1305893, which changed state.

Bug 1305893 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-is-utf8 - Detect if a buffer is 
utf8 encoded
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305893

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|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 1305655] Review Request: liblsl - Lab streaming layer API

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305655



--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Mikhirev  ---
> I'm don't think boost license applies to the binary rpm
You are right, the Boost license does not apply to the binary package. It is
used only for headers that are not installed.

> Do not use %define, use %global instead
fixed

> pugixml is packaged for fedora
Added a patch to use system pugixml.

>You might want to also package examples/ as docs in devel.
done

Spec URL:
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/bizdelnick/neuro/liblsl.git/plain/liblsl.spec?id=892489a7b7018eca4dff211329f405284886b98f
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bizdelnick/neuro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00159673-liblsl/liblsl-1.11.0-1.fc24.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1307271] New: Review Request: vswm - Very Simple Wireless Manager

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307271

Bug ID: 1307271
   Summary: Review Request: vswm - Very Simple Wireless Manager
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: dmel...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://23.21.222.16/vswm.spec
SRPM URL: http://23.21.222.16/vswm-0.2-0.fc22.src.rpm
Description: vswm - Very Simple Wireless Manager - allow simple control over
the wireless interface. In contrast with NetworkManager, that automate a great
deal of the process, vswm will simply connect your wireless interface to the
first network that is both available during scanning and present on the config
file.
Fedora Account System Username: dmelo
Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12964436
GitHub URL: https://github.com/dmelo/vswm

This is my first package. I need a sponsor.

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

[Bug 1133950] Review Request: mariadb-connector-c - The MariaDB Native Client library (C driver)

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133950

Honza Horak  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-02-13 15:43:29



--- Comment #10 from Honza Horak  ---
Already built, closing.

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

[Bug 1013374] Review Request: mariadb-mroonga - A fast fulltext searchable storage engine for MariaDB

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013374

Honza Horak  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||hho...@redhat.com
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2016-02-13 15:48:11



--- Comment #5 from Honza Horak  ---
mroonga is now part of mariadb-server package, so closing this bug.

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

[Bug 1307216] New: Review Request: php-sebastian-code-unit-reverse-lookup - Looks up which function or method a line of code belongs to

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307216

Bug ID: 1307216
   Summary: Review Request: php-sebastian-code-unit-reverse-lookup
- Looks up which function or method a line of code
belongs to
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/a8823e71c9e9759c4e02da60d2285836ba3079e8/php/phpunit/php-sebastian-code-unit-reverse-lookup/php-sebastian-code-unit-reverse-lookup.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-sebastian-code-unit-reverse-lookup-1.0.0-1.remi.src.rpm
Description: 
Looks up which function or method a line of code belongs to.

Fedora Account System Username: remi

-- 

New dependency of PHPUnit 5.2.5

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

[Bug 1307216] Review Request: php-sebastian-code-unit-reverse-lookup - Looks up which function or method a line of code belongs to

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307216

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias||sebastian/code-unit-reverse
   ||-lookup



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

[Bug 1307459] New: Review Request: perl-Test-Fake-HTTPD - Fake HTTP server module for testing

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307459

Bug ID: 1307459
   Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Fake-HTTPD - Fake HTTP
server module for testing
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: de...@fateyev.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora22/perl-Test-Fake-HTTPD.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora22/perl-Test-Fake-HTTPD-0.07-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Test::Fake::HTTPD is a fake HTTP server module for testing.
Written by NAKAGAWA Masaki 
Fedora Account System Username: dfateyev

Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12971225 (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 1305737] Review Request: reprepro - Tool to handle local repositories of Debian packages

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305737



--- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer  ---
Unfortunately fedorapeople.org's cgit is not operational. Here are alternative
links:

Spec URL: https://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/reprepro.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/reprepro-4.17.0-1.fc24.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1264337] Review Request: semweb4j - Java RDF Library

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264337

Marcus Karlsson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from Marcus Karlsson  ---
Package Review
==

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



Issues:
===
- License check detected this one file licensed under AFL-3.0.
  Perhaps add it to the license field before importing the package.

AFL-3.0.

semweb4j-rootbuilder-5.0.1/org.semweb4j.rdf2go.impl.sesame/src/main/java/org/openrdf/rdf2go/osgi/Activator.java



= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "AFL-3.0.", "Unknown or generated". 322 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/mk/fedora/review-semweb4j/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

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
 Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
 is pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
 subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
 when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
 utils for

[Bug 1264337] Review Request: semweb4j - Java RDF Library

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264337



--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Marcus Karlsson from comment #3)
> Package Review

> Issues:
> ===
> - License check detected this one file licensed under AFL-3.0.
>   Perhaps add it to the license field before importing the package.
> 
> AFL-3.0.
> 
> semweb4j-rootbuilder-5.0.1/org.semweb4j.rdf2go.impl.sesame/src/main/java/org/
> openrdf/rdf2go/osgi/Activator.java
> 
> 
> 
> = MUST items =
> 
> Generic:

> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>  found: "BSD (3 clause)", "AFL-3.0.", "Unknown or generated". 322 files
>  have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>  /home/mk/fedora/review-semweb4j/licensecheck.txt

Done

Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/semweb4j.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/semweb4j-5.0.1-1.fc23.src.rpm

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

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

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

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #15 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #12)
> > Please, ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s
> > adding license headers
> 
> https://github.com/timmolter/XChange/issues/1185

Approved, but https://github.com/timmolter/XChange/issues/1185 should be 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 1303764] Review Request: xchange - Java library providing API for Bitcoin and Altcoin exchanges

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #12 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
> Please, ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s
> adding license headers

https://github.com/timmolter/XChange/issues/1185

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

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #13 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
> can you take this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282063 ?

Yes, I will spend my next available "Fedora package time session" looking at
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 1305655] Review Request: liblsl - Lab streaming layer API

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305655

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
rpmlint:
liblsl.src:18: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
liblsl.src:18: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
liblsl.src:18: W: macro-in-comment %{commit}
liblsl.src:18: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE0}
liblsl.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 18: #
git archive --prefix=%{name}-%{version}/ %{commit} `ls | grep -v '^external$'`
| xz > %{SOURCE0}
liblsl.src: E: specfile-error 

You really should fix those because rpm will complain about those on every
build (replace % with %%).

You should also add
Provides: bundled(boost-endian)
Provides: bundles(portable-archive)
I don't think it'll make any practical difference, but the guidelines require
that [1], and there's no reason not to.

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries

There's a number of warnings during build about initialization issues in the
code... You might want to look into those.

Package is APPROVED.

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

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

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

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

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||heg...@gmail.com



--- Comment #17 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
gil cattaneo asked me to have a look at this ticket. I am just curious, should
we use the upstream cmake script? We spend more lines changing how it work,
instead of just calling GCC directly (only two files we need to 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 1303764] Review Request: xchange - Java library providing API for Bitcoin and Altcoin exchanges

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #14 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #13)
> > can you take this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282063 ?
> 
> Yes, I will spend my next available "Fedora package time session" looking at
> it.

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 1189015] Review Request: python-MDAnalysis - Analyze and manipulate molecular dynamics trajectories

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189015



--- Comment #19 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #18)
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> Issues:
> ===
> - Permissions on files are set properly.
>   Note: See rpmlint output
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions

Fixed the permissions.

> - doc/sphinx/source/logos is released under CC-BY-ND license.
>   I guess -doc subpackage must contain an own License tag:
>   License:  CC-BY-ND and GPLv2+

Why? These two licenses are already in the main package license list.

> - -doc subpackage does not provide its own doc files
>   (LICENSE AUTHORS CHANGELOG README SUMMARY.txt)

Should it?

> - The libxdr code for accessing Gromacs trajectories including our
>   modifications is published under the Lesser GNU Public Licence
>   (LGPL).
>   LGPLv2 license is missing.

I can't find any file stating the above. Please tell me where you found this
information, exactly.

> - Package does not provide python2-MDAnalysis (see Provides list)
>   Since, sooner or later, this software will support Python3, I think it's
>   better to package a python2-MDAnalysis already now.
>   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file
> - python_provide macro is missing

Done.

> - Please, fix non-standard-executable-perm and unused-direct-shlib-dependency
>   errors (see rpmlint output)

Fixed the 775 permissions.

[...]
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
> 
> python-MDAnalysis.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MDAnalysis/lib/_transformations.so
> /lib64/libpthread.so.0
> python-MDAnalysis.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MDAnalysis/lib/c_distances_openmp.so
> /lib64/libpthread.so.0
> python-MDAnalysis.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MDAnalysis/lib/c_distances.so
> /lib64/libpthread.so.0
> python-MDAnalysis.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/MDAnalysis/lib/qcprot.so
> /lib64/libpthread.so.0

The -pthread option in gcc command used to compile these comes from python
distutils and I'm not sure it's safe to drop it, considering our python
interpreter is built with thread support.

Spec URL:
https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-MDAnalysis/python-MDAnalysis.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-MDAnalysis/python-MDAnalysis-0.13.0-3.fc23.src.rpm

* Fri Feb 12 2016 Dominik Mierzejewski  0.13.0-3
- backport a fix for failing tests on f24 (due to numpy 1.11 changes)
- install LICENSE with the doc subpackage as well
- move building of docs to the build section
- use some python-related convenience macros

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

[Bug 1260254] Review Request: mongo-c-driver - High-performance MongoDB driver for C

2016-02-13 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1260254



--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng  ---
(In reply to Remi Collet from comment #4)
> For your information:
> - pecl/mongodb 1.0.x is compatible with version 1.2.x
> - pecl/mongodb 1.1.x is compatible with version 1.3.x
> 
> So I'm fine with either 1.2 or 1.3 (of course, latest seems better)

I will submit soon, since the dep just got pushed into SCM.

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

56 matches

Mail list logo