[Bug 1316186] Review Request: librosa - a python package for music and audio analysis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316186

Miro Hrončok  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mhron...@redhat.com
Summary|Review Request:  - |Review Request: librosa - a
   | |and audio analysis



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

[Bug 1315134] Review Request: erlang-ezlib - Native zlib driver for Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315134



--- Comment #6 from Randy Barlow  ---
Hello Peter! I have added the debug package in release 5:

Spec URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-ezlib.spec
SRPM URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-ezlib-1.0.1-5.fc25.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 1317131] Review Request: python-coverage_pth - Coverage PTH file to enable coverage at the virtualenv level

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317131



--- Comment #7 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
Not applied here

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

[Bug 1294054] Review Request: libiwpm - iWarp Port Mapper userspace daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294054

Honggang LI  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(ho...@redhat.com) |



--- Comment #6 from Honggang LI  ---
(In reply to Neil Horman from comment #5)
> Generic:
> [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
>  other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>  Guidelines.
>  Instead of just adding the COPYING file to the srpm, you need to propose
> that this be done upstream.  All the source files seem to agree with it, so
> its likely ok, but we shouldn't carry a COPYING file thats not in the upstream
> project if we can help it.
> 

I had sent an email to upstream maintainer about the blank COPYING and AUTHORS
file. Hope "Tatyana E. Nikolova"  will populate
COPYING with a appropriate license.

> [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
>  must be documented in the spec.
>  Add a comment to the SPEC file indicating that the binaries are
> licensed as GPLv2 in the %files section

Will fix it as required. 

> [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
>  names).
> [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> Technically I think this passes, but it seems a bit odd to call the package
> libiwpm when there are no libraries in the package.  Perhaps rename the
> package to iwpmd?

Yes, the name is odd. It dose not include any library. And that is why we do
not install the header files. As it had been imported into RHEL-6.8 with name
"libiwpm", I'd prefer to keep the name.

> I prefixed my comments with .  I think if you take care of the licensing
> and the name issue, we should be good to go.

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

[Bug 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779

Greg Bailey  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard||trivial



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

[Bug 1316186] Review Request: python-librosa - a python package for music and audio analysis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316186



--- Comment #9 from Miro Hrončok  ---
%define debug_package %{nil}

This is useless as the package is noarch.


When you say Python in summary/description, please capitalize the P, also it is
a good idea to use Python 2 or Python 3 in the summaries of subpackages.


You install to %{_mandir}/man1/librosa.1* - did you chack the manual page, what
is it about? Man pages in man1 usually refer to executables in /usr/bin (user
commands), while this package brings no executable.

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #13 from gil cattaneo  ---
BLOCKING issues:

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "LGPL", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3
 clause) LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 84 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1291558-mariadb-java-
 client/licensecheck.txt

The following source files are without license headers:

./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/MariaXaResource.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/MariaXaConnection.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/MariaDbXid.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/MariaDbPooledConnection.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/MariaDbClob.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/MariaDbCallableStatement.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/HostAddress.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/internal/packet/result/LocalInfilePacket.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/internal/packet/dao/parameters/ParameterWriter.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/internal/protocol/AbstractQueryProtocol.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/internal/queryresults/ColumnNameMap.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/internal/queryresults/StreamingSelectResult.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/internal/queryresults/ValueObject.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/internal/socket/NamedPipeSocket.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/internal/socket/NamedPipeSocket.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/internal/socket/SharedMemorySocket.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/internal/socket/UnixDomainSocket.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/internal/stream/CompressOutputStream.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/internal/stream/DecompressInputStream.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/internal/stream/PacketOutputStream.java
./src/main/java/org/mariadb/jdbc/internal/util/constant/Version.java

Please, ask to upstream to include license headers where are missing

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification

License field is not correct as reported in the license header "This particular
MariaDB Client for Java file is work
derived from a Drizzle-JDBC. Drizzle-JDBC file which is covered by subject to
the following copyright and notice provisions: "
Please, change license field in "License:BSD and LGPLv2+"
and adding a motivation of the cause (as commented note)

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

[Bug 1318278] New: Review Request: erlang-cuttlefish - A library for dealing with sysctl-like configuration syntax

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318278

Bug ID: 1318278
   Summary: Review Request: erlang-cuttlefish - A library for
dealing with sysctl-like configuration syntax
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: lemen...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/erlang-cuttlefish.spec
SRPM URL:
https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/erlang-cuttlefish-2.0.6-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Cuttlefish is a library for Erlang applications that wish to walk
the fine line between Erlang app.configs and a sysctl-like syntax. The name is
a pun on the pronunciation of 'sysctl' and jokes are better explained.
Fedora Account System Username: peter

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

[Bug 1318687] New: Review Request: perl-XML-NamespaceFactory - Simple factory objects for SAX name-spaced names

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318687

Bug ID: 1318687
   Summary: Review Request: perl-XML-NamespaceFactory - Simple
factory objects for SAX name-spaced names
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-XML-NamespaceFactory/perl-XML-NamespaceFactory.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-XML-NamespaceFactory/perl-XML-NamespaceFactory-1.02-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description:
This is a simple object-oriented storage for XML name spaces.

Fedora Account System Username: ppisar

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

[Bug 1316186] Review Request: python-librosa - a python package for music and audio analysis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316186



--- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Plesa always provide both spec and srpm in the same form as in the bug
description, otherwise fedora-review is unhappy.

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

[Bug 1318328] Review Request: python-detox - Distributing activities of the tox tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318328



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

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

[Bug 1318328] Review Request: python-detox - Distributing activities of the tox tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318328

mulhern  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||amulh...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|amulh...@redhat.com



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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-MDAnalysis-0.14.0-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-208b886ecc

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

[Bug 1317939] Review Request: dump1090 - Decode ADS-B messages from RTL-SDR

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317939

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review+  |fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1318933] Add (extend) yajl package to EPEL-5

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318933



--- Comment #1 from Daniel Berrange  ---
Personally I do not invest any time in maintaniing EPEL branches for any
packages I maintain, since I don't want to commit to long term support of them.
So if yajl is desired in EPEL it'll need a co-maintainer to volunteer

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

[Bug 1317621] Review Request: erlang-triq - A property-based testing library for Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317621



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
erlang-triq-0-0.1.gitc7306b8.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5741411154

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

[Bug 1270357] Review Request: nacl-gcc - Various compilers (C, C++) for nacl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270357

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1270358
 Depends On|1270358 |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270358
[Bug 1270358] Review Request: nacl-newlib - C library intended for use on
embedded systems
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1318676] New: Review Request: perl-MooseX-ArrayRef - Blessed array references with Moose

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318676

Bug ID: 1318676
   Summary: Review Request: perl-MooseX-ArrayRef - Blessed array
references with Moose
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-MooseX-ArrayRef/perl-MooseX-ArrayRef.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-MooseX-ArrayRef/perl-MooseX-ArrayRef-0.005-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description:
Objects implemented with array references are often faster than those
implemented with hash references. Moose's default object implementation is
hash reference based. This is object implementation based on array references.

Fedora Account System Username: ppisar

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

[Bug 1318933] Add (extend) yajl package to EPEL-5

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318933



--- Comment #2 from yopito  ---
This is needed specifically for EPEL5, since RHEL6 and RHEL7 provides yajl
packages.
If no one wish to maintain, I could offer my help to (co)maintain the EPEL5
version of yajl.
But I'm a newbie in the Fedora world at this point, without any specific roles
assigned 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 1262426] Review Request: golang-github-go-fsnotify-fsnotify - File system notifications for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262426



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-go-fsnotify-fsnotify-1.2.0-0.4.git96c060f.fc22 has been pushed to
the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note
of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-2b8e447a89

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

[Bug 1269964] Rebase clufter component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269964

Jan Pokorný  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version|clufter-0.55.0-3.el6|clufter-0.56.2-1.el6



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1306575] Review Request: disruptor-thrift-server - Thrift Server implementation backed by LMAX Disruptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306575

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||punto...@libero.it
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it
  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 1318251] Review Request: perl-Test-Time - Overrides the time() and sleep() core functions for testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318251

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1292040] Review Request: tng - Trajectory Next Generation binary format manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292040



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
tng-1.7.8-3.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-526243015e

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

[bugzilla]

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

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo  ---
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "LGPL", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3
 clause) LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 84 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1291558-mariadb-java-
 client/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: 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 870400 bytes in 8 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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 %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
   

[Bug 1294054] Review Request: libiwpm - iWarp Port Mapper userspace daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294054

Neil Horman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nhor...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nhor...@redhat.com



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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-MDAnalysis-0.14.0-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0cfcd23be2

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

[Bug 1318781] New: Review Request: python-pygments-markdown-lexer - A Markdown lexer for Pygments to highlight Markdown code snippets.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318781

Bug ID: 1318781
   Summary: Review Request: python-pygments-markdown-lexer - A
Markdown lexer for Pygments to highlight Markdown code
snippets.
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: rb...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-pygments-markdown-lexer.spec
SRPM URL:
http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-pygments-markdown-lexer-0.1.0.dev39-1.fc23.src.rpm

Description:
A Markdown lexer for Pygments to highlight Markdown code snippets.

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #14 from gil cattaneo  ---
NON blocking issues:
Please, use 
%setup -q -n mariadb-connector-j-%{version}
instead of
%setup -qcn %{name}-%{version}
mv mariadb-connector-j-%{version}/* .
rm -r mariadb-connector-j-%{version}

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

[Bug 1318933] New: Add (extend) yajl package to EPEL-5

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318933

Bug ID: 1318933
   Summary: Add (extend) yajl package to EPEL-5
   Product: Fedora EPEL
   Version: el5
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: pierre.bour...@free.fr
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Created attachment 1137710
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1137710=edit
patch on yajl.spec against master branch for EPEL-5

Description of problem:
yajl (and -devel) already in Fedora, but lacks in EPEL-5.
Need yajl-devel to build burp (1.x) for EPEL-5.
Worked on it: build and usage is fine with a minor diff (see attached)

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
2.1.0-5

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. create a el5 branch in yajl git repo
2. patch yajl.spec
3. rebuild for EPEL-5


Additional info:
Patch against yajl.spec attached
build and runtime is fine in my COPR [1]
SRPM file:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/yopito/burp2/epel-5-x86_64/00167962-yajl/yajl-2.1.0-5.git.2.20c9073.src.rpm
SPEC file: https://github.com/yopito/fedora-epel-pkg/blob/el5/yajl/yajl.spec

[1]: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yopito/burp2/

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

[Bug 1317592] Review Request: rubygem-websocket-extensions - Generic extension manager for WebSocket connections

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317592

Jun Aruga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||rubygem-websocket-extension
   ||s-0.1.2-1.fc25
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-03-16 11:09:17



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

[Bug 1292040] Review Request: tng - Trajectory Next Generation binary format manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292040



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
tng-1.7.8-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d5397411e9

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

[Bug 1292040] Review Request: tng - Trajectory Next Generation binary format manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292040

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1306945] Review Request: ohc - Java large off heap cache

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306945



--- Comment #11 from jiri vanek  ---
Hello! The launchers seems not to be working.
The  ohc-batch-bench is misisng dependences. You have put just main jar to
classapth. You need all dependencies to..
Also I think that you can drop `which java` and just keep java. (but I may miss
why you did it)
I changed : 

jar=/usr/share/java/guava.jar:/usr/share/java/jmh/jmh-core.jar:/usr/share/java/slf4j/nop.jar:/usr/share/java/slf4j/api.jar:/usr/share/java/slf4j/simple.jar:/usr/share/java/slf4j/slf4j-api.jar:/usr/share/java/slf4j/slf4j-nop.jar:/usr/share/java/slf4j/slf4j-simple.jar:/usr/share/java/metrics/metrics-core.jar:/usr/share/java/commons-math3.jar:/usr/share/java/log4j.jar:/usr/share/java/jna.jar:/usr/share/java/commons-cli.jar:/usr/share/java/apache-commons-cli.jar:/usr/share/java/apache-commons-math.jar:/usr/share/java/log4j/log4j-to-slf4j.jar:/usr/share/java/log4j/log4j-slf4j-impl.jar:/usr/share/java/log4j/log4j-iostreams.jar:/usr/share/java/log4j/log4j-jul.jar:/usr/share/java/log4j/log4j-core.jar:/usr/share/java/log4j/log4j-api.jar:/usr/share/java/log4j/log4j-1.2-api.jar:/usr/share/java/jopt-simple/jopt-simple.jar:/usr/share/java/ohc/ohc-benchmark.jar:/usr/share/java/ohc/ohc-jmh.jar:/usr/share/java/ohc/ohc-core.jar:/usr/share/java/ohc/ohc-core-j8.jar

#if [ ! -f $jar ] ; then
#echo "Executable jar file $jar does not exist" > /dev/stderr
#exit 1
#fi
java -cp $jar org.caffinitas.ohc.benchmark.BenchmarkOHC -h > /dev/null
if [ ! $? ] ; then
echo "Cannot execute ohc-benchmark jar file $jar" > /dev/stderr
exit 1
fi
...
To make it work. Please dont copypaste my chnagehs, they may nto be enough
(best is to generate launcher for ohc-benchmark.jar package, and then copypaste
generated classpath :)
Also you need to require "time" package , as the script is calling "time" (dont
confuse it with embedded shell function time)

After that I had quite a lot of cvs files to tes second launcher, and that
worked fine


One fatal issue I overlooked in first iteration
 - you have main classes in jar:
  - ohc-benchmark.jar have org.caffinitas.ohc.benchmark.BenchmarkOHC
  - thats forbidden by guidelines


Also there is:
Rpmlint (installed packages)

sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory

But I was nto able to reproduce it.

Please fix the launcher and the main class ( I guess you need to remove maven
attribute which is setting it)

Few more notes -
%jpackage_script - maybe prefix the launcher by ohc too?
chmod 755  - its better to specifi this in filles like
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/java-1.8.0-openjdk.git/tree/java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec#n516
(just without ghosts :) )

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

[Bug 1317483] Review Request: perl-iCal-Parser - Parse iCalendar files into a data structure

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317483



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-iCal-Parser-1.20-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-355b8de7f5

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

[Bug 1313942] Review Request: golang-github-docker-go - Go packages with small patches autogenerated

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313942



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-docker-go-1.5.1-0.2.gitd30aec9.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora
22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in
this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-82db92772f

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

[Bug 1317131] Review Request: python-coverage_pth - Coverage PTH file to enable coverage at the virtualenv level

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317131



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-coverage_pth-0.0.1-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1ea4c96a56

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

[Bug 1312350] Review Request: python-rjsmin - Javascript Minifier

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312350



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-rjsmin-1.0.12-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-9ea5c5e2b4

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

[Bug 1317392] Review Request: perl-Git-Version-Compare - Functions to compare Git versions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317392

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Git-Repository-1.318-1.fc24, perl-Git-Version-Compare-1.001-1.fc24 has
been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist,
please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9af442bcb2

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

[Bug 1318988] Review Request: -

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318988



--- Comment #2 from jiri vanek  ---
Also - this pacckage is now not providing java/java devel. But will soon, once
it will be really stable. Until then, you will be able to select it via
alternatives only.

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

[Bug 1255370] Review Request: golang-github-opencontainers-specs - Open Container Specifications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255370

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---



--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-opencontainers-specs-0.4.0-0.1.git3ce138b.el6 has been pushed to
the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make
note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-1001021a29

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

[Bug 1262426] Review Request: golang-github-go-fsnotify-fsnotify - File system notifications for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262426

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-go-fsnotify-fsnotify-1.2.0-0.4.git96c060f.el6 has been pushed to
the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make
note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-49821494c3

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

[Bug 1318328] Review Request: python-detox - Distributing activities of the tox tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318328

mulhern  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  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 1294054] Review Request: libiwpm - iWarp Port Mapper userspace daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294054

Neil Horman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ho...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(ho...@redhat.com)



--- Comment #5 from Neil Horman  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
 Instead of just adding the COPYING file to the srpm, you need to propose
that this be done upstream.  All the source files seem to agree with it, so its
likely ok, but we shouldn't carry a COPYING file thats not in the upstream
project if we can help it.

[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". 16 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/nhorman/1294054-libiwpm/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
 Add a comment to the SPEC file indicating that the binaries are licensed
as
GPLv2 in the %files section

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Technically I think this passes, but it seems a bit odd to call the package
libiwpm when there are no libraries in the package.  Perhaps rename the package
to iwpmd?

[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name 

[Bug 1315801] Review Request: rubygem-nio4r - New IO for Ruby

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315801



--- Comment #3 from Jun Aruga  ---
Hi, Vit

Thank you for your review!! This is in detail, and clear for me.
I updated my spec and srpm files for your review. The URLs is same with
previous review.

Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13376459

Can you do review again?

Also let me comment for your review comment.

(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #2)
> * Use virtual rubygem provides
>   - In you spec file, you are using "BuildRequires: rubygem-rspec", but this
> would be nice to replace by "BuildRequires: rubygem(rspec)"

I got it. I updated to use "BuildRequires: rubygem(rspec)".


> * Simlify %prep section
>   - First of all, it is the best to do all the custom steps you need at the
> end 
> of the %prep section. In that case, you are already in the right
> directory
> and you can remove the pushd/popd stuff.
>   - Secondly, I would suggest to move the rpmlint fixes to %install section.
> In this specific case, they are harmless, but it might happen that
> different
> modification will cause troubles with gem rebuild done in %build section

Yes. I moved the rpmlint fixes to end of %install section.


> * rpmlint fixes
>   - I would suggest to delete the shebang ling instead of commenting it out.
> It
> might be completely harmless, but I have the feeling that it might cause
> some
> issues (but I might be totall wrong as well ;))
>   - It would be nice to report the fixes upstream. In case you have already
> reported them, please provide link, so anybody can check next time what
> is the status.

I deleted the shebang line in Rakefile by sed command.
And add the reported URL as a comment to spec file.


> * Bundled library
>   - It seems that this package bundles libev. Is there any chance to use the
> system version of libev instead [1]? Or in the worst case provide the
> "bundled" virtual provide.

I tried to separate bundled libev and using system libev (libev-devel). And I
suceeded to compile the nio4r with system libev, and to pass almost all the
rspec test cases.
But when I compared the bundled libev (version 4.22) and original source [1], I
found that the bundled libev had individually modified. [2][3]

So, finally I made a choice to use "bundled() = ".

Also let me post the difference from previous review, as a reference. [4]


[1] http://dist.schmorp.de/libev/libev-4.22.tar.gz
[2]
https://github.com/celluloid/nio4r/commit/680143345726c5a64bb22376ca8fc3c6857019ae
[3]
https://github.com/celluloid/nio4r/commit/fba5c68ad25404b51c5e179111d91ca7c3fc073b
[4] The difference from previous review

--- a/rubygem-nio4r.spec
+++ b/rubygem-nio4r.spec
@@ -12,7 +12,15 @@ Source0:
https://rubygems.org/gems/%{gem_name}-%{version}.gem
 BuildRequires: ruby(release)
 BuildRequires: rubygems-devel
 BuildRequires: ruby-devel
-BuildRequires: rubygem-rspec
+BuildRequires: rubygem(rspec)
+
+# Bundled libev ev.c is modified from original version 4.22.
+# We have to use the bundled libev
+# intead of separating the bundled libev and using system libev.
+# See the modificaiton for ev.c
+#
https://github.com/celluloid/nio4r/commit/680143345726c5a64bb22376ca8fc3c6857019ae
+#
https://github.com/celluloid/nio4r/commit/fba5c68ad25404b51c5e179111d91ca7c3fc073b
+Provides: bundled(libev) = 4.22

 %description
 New IO for Ruby.
@@ -30,13 +38,6 @@ Documentation for %{name}.
 %prep
 gem unpack %{SOURCE0}

-PACKED_DIR=`basename %{SOURCE0} | sed 's/\.gem$//'`
-pushd ./${PACKED_DIR}
-# Fix the issues for rpmlint
-sed -i '/#!\/usr\/bin\/env rake/ s/^/#/' Rakefile
-chmod +x examples/echo_server.rb
-popd
-
 %setup -q -D -T -n  %{gem_name}-%{version}

 gem spec %{SOURCE0} -l --ruby > %{gem_name}.gemspec
@@ -50,6 +51,7 @@ gem build %{gem_name}.gemspec
 %gem_install

 %install
+
 mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}
 cp -a .%{gem_dir}/* \
 %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}/
@@ -60,6 +62,17 @@ cp -a .%{gem_extdir_mri}/{gem.build_complete,*.so}
%{buildroot}%{gem_extdir_mri}
 # Prevent dangling symlink in -debuginfo (rhbz#878863).
 rm -rf %{buildroot}%{gem_instdir}/ext/

+# Fix the issue for rpmlint
+# I reported it to upstream, and its fix was merged to master branch.
+# https://github.com/celluloid/nio4r/pull/86
+sed -i 's|^#!/usr/bin/env rake$||' %{buildroot}%{gem_instdir}/Rakefile
+
+# Fix the issue for rpmlint
+# I reported it to upstream, and its fix was merged to master branch.
+# https://github.com/celluloid/nio4r/pull/85
+chmod 755 %{buildroot}%{gem_instdir}/examples/echo_server.rb
+
+
 # Run the test suite
 %check
 pushd .%{gem_instdir}

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

[Bug 1230213] Review Request: perl-Cookie-Baker - Cookie string generator / parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230213

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rc040...@freenet.de
  Flags||needinfo?(rc040203@freenet.
   ||de)



--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar  ---
Any progress?

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #22 from Michel Normand  ---
Awaiting package request creation in fedora db, before to commit above.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packager/michelmno/requests

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

[Bug 1306945] Review Request: ohc - Java large off heap cache

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306945



--- Comment #10 from Tomas Repik  ---
Spec URL: https://trepik.fedorapeople.org/ohc/v1/ohc.spec
SRPM URL: https://trepik.fedorapeople.org/ohc/v1/ohc-0.4.2-3.fc23.src.rpm

* Wed Mar 16 2016 Tomas Repik  - 0.4.2-3
- launcher BenchmarkOHC installation
- benchmark scrips added

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

[Bug 1318251] Review Request: perl-Test-Time - Overrides the time() and sleep() core functions for testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318251

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
It looks good now. 

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 1299139] Review Request: astrometry - Tools from Astrometry.net

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299139



--- Comment #23 from Mattia Verga  ---
...sorry, I saw later that your mock was i686.
So the only change is 'make -j2' vs 'make -j12'

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

[Bug 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779

Anoop C S  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|anoo...@redhat.com  |nob...@fedoraproject.org



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

[Bug 1255179] Review Request: runc - CLI for running Open Containers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179
Bug 1255179 depends on bug 1255370, which changed state.

Bug 1255370 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-opencontainers-specs - Open 
Container Specifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255370

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---



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

[Bug 1316186] Review Request: python-librosa - a python package for music and audio analysis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316186



--- Comment #11 from Miro Hrončok  ---
When I build the docs, I see a lot of errors about joblib, maybe python3-joblib
should be added to BR?

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

[Bug 1317622] Review Request: erlang-cowlib - Support library for manipulating Web protocols

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317622

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1317939] Review Request: dump1090 - Decode ADS-B messages from RTL-SDR

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317939



--- Comment #8 from Benji Wiebe  ---
OK, I've improved the description, and added empty lines between changelog
entries. And here are the latest and greatest links:

SRPM:
https://www.benjiwiebe.com/packages/dump1090-20160303git85aa200-4.fc23.src.rpm

SPEC: https://www.benjiwiebe.com/packages/dump1090.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 1269964] Rebase clufter component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269964

Jan Pokorný  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Comment #9 is|1   |0
private||



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1313942] Review Request: golang-github-docker-go - Go packages with small patches autogenerated

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313942



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-docker-go-1.5.1-0.2.gitd30aec9.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora
23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in
this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-24c77dc8fc

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