[Bug 1309782] Review Request: bugyou_plugins - Plugins and Services for Bugyou
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309782 --- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System --- bugyou_plugins-0.1.3-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284638] Review Request: bugyou - An Automatic Bug Reporting Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284638 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System --- bugyou-0.2.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter - A generic message filter library and command-line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685 --- Comment #41 from Ranjan Maitra --- New files uploaded for the record: SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-10.fc23.src.rpm Will proceed with package approval. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1132661] Review Request: atom - Atom editor from github
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1132661 --- Comment #19 from Mohammed Safwat --- I tried scratch builds with koji and got stuck at errors during build like the ones found here http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13462846. The build steps for atom seem to contact github to grab some stuff related to npm and grunt(; I'm not an expert but that's what the logs are telling I assume). I guess koji build servers confine building packages inside a sandbox that wouldn't allow network access to external servers like github(and I don't blame this setup). Now I'm left with installing npm package for F24 manually as Milan suggested or building from a private recent version of npm(created during build) as Helber suggested. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1320583] Review Request: php-swiftmailer - Free Feature-rich PHP Mailer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320583 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- php-swiftmailer-5.4.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f3d4bb9e55 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1299179] Review Request: editorconfig - tools for text editors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299179 --- Comment #8 from Dennis Chen --- Ok. Fixed all the above issues: SRPM: https://barracks510.fedorapeople.org/packaging/editorconfig-0.12.0-4.fc23.src.rpm SPEC: https://barracks510.fedorapeople.org/packaging/editorconfig.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 1284638] Review Request: bugyou - An Automatic Bug Reporting Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284638 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System --- bugyou-0.2.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1293100] Review Request: tarantool - an in-memory database and Lua application server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293100 --- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System --- tarantool-1.6.8.530-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1309782] Review Request: bugyou_plugins - Plugins and Services for Bugyou
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309782 --- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System --- bugyou_plugins-0.1.3-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1312296] Review Request: 3dprinter-udev-rules - Rules for udev to give regular users access to operate 3D printers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312296 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- 3dprinter-udev-rules-0.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1277493] Review Request: php-kdyby-events - Events for Nette Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277493 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- php-kdyby-events-2.4.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1293100] Review Request: tarantool - an in-memory database and Lua application server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293100 --- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System --- tarantool-1.6.8.530-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284638] Review Request: bugyou - An Automatic Bug Reporting Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284638 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- bugyou-0.2.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1284638] Review Request: bugyou - An Automatic Bug Reporting Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284638 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2016-03-02 00:57:24 |2016-03-25 17:26:10 -- 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 1305669] Review Request: rubygem-benchmark-ips - An iterations per second enhancement to Benchmark
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305669 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-03-25 17:25:18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1309782] Review Request: bugyou_plugins - Plugins and Services for Bugyou
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309782 --- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System --- bugyou_plugins-0.1.3-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1305669] Review Request: rubygem-benchmark-ips - An iterations per second enhancement to Benchmark
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305669 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-benchmark-ips-2.5.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1305154] Review Request: python-notario - A dictionary validator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305154 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- python-notario-0.0.11-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1309782] Review Request: bugyou_plugins - Plugins and Services for Bugyou
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309782 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-03-25 17:25:44 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1318363] Review Request: eclipse-epp-logging - Eclipse Error Reporting tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318363 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- eclipse-epp-logging-1.100.0-0.5.gitc6ce9f2.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-2016-11c759b632 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1320583] Review Request: php-swiftmailer - Free Feature-rich PHP Mailer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320583 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- php-swiftmailer-5.4.1-1.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-2016-3fd018d4b5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321208] Review Request: julietaula-montserrat-fonts - Sans-serif typeface created by Julieta Ulanovsky
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321208 --- Comment #8 from Luya Tshimbalanga --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7) > $ appstream-util validate > /usr/share/appdata/julietaula-montserrat.metainfo.xml > /usr/share/appdata/julietaula-montserrat.metainfo.xml: FAILED: > • style-invalid : Not enough tags for a good description > Validation of files failed > > Would be nice to extend the description with a second paragraph to make > gnome-software happy. > > No other issues. Package is APPROVED. Thank you, Zbigniew. appstram-util is too picky sometimes. I will do on the next update. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295144] Review Request: xss-lock - Use external locker as X screen saver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295144 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- xss-lock-0.3.0-4.20140302git.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1e35732096 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295144] Review Request: xss-lock - Use external locker as X screen saver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295144 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- xss-lock-0.3.0-4.20140302git.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-bdb30b18c7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1295144] Review Request: xss-lock - Use external locker as X screen saver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295144 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 1321208] Review Request: julietaula-montserrat-fonts - Sans-serif typeface created by Julieta Ulanovsky
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321208 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- $ appstream-util validate /usr/share/appdata/julietaula-montserrat.metainfo.xml /usr/share/appdata/julietaula-montserrat.metainfo.xml: FAILED: • style-invalid : Not enough tags for a good description Validation of files failed Would be nice to extend the description with a second paragraph to make gnome-software happy. No other issues. 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 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter - A generic message filter library and command-line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #40 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
In comments and changelog percent signs must be escaped by doubling:
- removes %description to after Requires
→
- move %%description after Requires
%files
...
%{_libdir}/libsylfilter.*
%{_libdir}/libsylfilter.so.*
Everything which is matched by the second glob is also matched by the first
glob. You only need the second line.
And as discussed before: there's no need to say "addresses comments of Zbigniew
Jędrzejewski-Szmek". I understand that the intent is to give due credit, but we
try to keep changelogs short. You can just remove those lines.
Package is APPROVED. Please fix up those minor issues in the initial upload.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321208] Review Request: julietaula-montserrat-fonts - Sans-serif typeface created by Julieta Ulanovsky
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321208 --- Comment #6 from Luya Tshimbalanga --- Here is the updated files addressing following issues: - Change %doc to %license - Deleted oft and ttf subdirectories SPEC url: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/julietaula-montserrat-fonts.spec SRMP url: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-3.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter - A generic message filter library and command-line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685 --- Comment #39 from Ranjan Maitra --- Thanks! It appears to work. New files posted: SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-9.fc23.src.rpm However, I seem to be getting a warning in my rpmlint now and I can't figure out where this third warning came from. Very perplexing! $ rpmlint sylfilter-0.8-9.fc23.src.rpm sylfilter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bogofilter -> bogometer sylfilter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bsfilter -> filterer, filter sylfilter.src:70: W: macro-in-%changelog %description 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321208] Review Request: julietaula-montserrat-fonts - Sans-serif typeface created by Julieta Ulanovsky
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321208 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- - 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 LICENSE.txt is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text + license is acceptable (OFL) + license file is present + version is recent (git snapshot) + provides/requires look OK + font packaging guidelines are followed One question: why do you add separate otf, ttf subdirs? Other font packages don't do that afaics. There's a problem with directory ownership too: No known owner of /usr/share/fonts/julietaula-montserrat/otf, /usr/share/fonts/julietaula-montserrat/ttf. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter - A generic message filter library and command-line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685
--- Comment #38 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
(In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #37)
> How does one remove the .la file after installation? The webpage does not
> seem to me to be clear. It only says remove after installation.
At the end of the %install section add:
rm %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.la
(adjust path as necessary)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321208] Review Request: julietaula-montserrat-fonts - Sans-serif typeface created by Julieta Ulanovsky
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321208 --- Comment #4 from Luya Tshimbalanga --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3) > One small note - move appstream-util call to check section. Done. Here is the updated spec and new srpm: SPEC url: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/julietaula-montserrat-fonts.spec SRMP url: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/julietaula-montserrat-fonts-20151221-2.fc23.src.rpm Note: appdata guideline was unclear about appstream-util located on %check section, it mentioned either that or %install. Perhaps updating a spec file example for good reference. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1319522] Review Request: kactivitymanagerd - Plasma service to manage user's activities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319522 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2016-03-25 11:31:03 --- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter --- imported (5.5.0), 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 1319522] Review Request: kactivitymanagerd - Plasma service to manage user's activities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319522 --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter --- I'm guessing yes. I'll take the liberty of importing 5.5.0 fow 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 1319522] Review Request: kactivitymanagerd - Plasma service to manage user's activities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319522 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter --- Looks like we'll want 5.5.0 http://download.kde.org/stable/kactivities/kactivitymanagerd-5.5.0.tar.xz in the short term before plasma-5.6 lands Has a pkgdb request been submitted 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 1310092] Review Request: cryptobone - Secure Communication Under Your Control
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310092 --- Comment #24 from Ralf Senderek --- (In reply to Ralf Senderek from comment #23) > (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #21) > > Package Review URL: https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/c/POS36-C.+Observe+correct+revocation+order+while+relinquishing+privileges -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1310092] Review Request: cryptobone - Secure Communication Under Your Control
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310092
--- Comment #23 from Ralf Senderek ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #21)
> Package Review
My analysis of the RPMLINT-issue:
This executable is calling setuid and setgid without setgroups or initgroups.
There is a high probability this means it didn't relinquish all groups, and
this would be a potential security issue to be fixed. Seek POS36-C on the web
for details about the problem.
The problem is described in the following URL:
https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/c/POS36C.+Observe+correct+revocation+order+while+relinquishing+privileges
The relevant part of the source code file "random/unix.c" (lines 1258 and 1259)
uses setresuid to set all three uids (real, effective and saved) as __linux__
is set.
The author notes that dropping the privileges here occurs as a precautionary
measure.
I cannot see that there is any chance that there are supplementary groups set
that
will not be relinquished, so I don't see any reason to bother the author to
include
setgroups or initgroups to address this issue.
source code:
1215 /* If we're root, give up our permissions to make sure
that we don't
1216inadvertently read anything sensitive. If the
getpwnam() fails
1217(this can happen if we're chrooted with no "nobody"
entry in the
1218local passwd file) we default to -1, which is usually
nobody.
1219The newer setreXid() and setresXid() calls use a
parameter value
1220of -1 to indicate "don't change this value" so this
isn't
1221possible any longer, but then there's not really much
else that
1222we can do at this point.
1223
1224We don't check whether the change succeeds since it's
not a major
1225security problem but just a precaution (in theory an
attacker
1226could do something like fork()ing until RLIMIT_NPROC is
reached,
1227at which point it'd fail, but that doesn't really give
them
1228anything) */
1229 if( geteuid() == 0 )
1248 if( gathererUID != ( uid_t ) -1 )
1249 {
1250 #if 0 /* Not available on some OSes */
1251 ( void ) setuid( gathererUID );
1252 ( void ) seteuid( gathererUID );
1253 ( void ) setgid( gathererGID );
1254 ( void ) setegid( gathererGID );
1255 #else
1256 #if( defined( __linux__ ) || ( defined( __FreeBSD__ ) && OSVERSION >= 5
) || \
1257( defined( __hpux ) && OSVERSION >= 11 ) )
1258 ( void ) setresuid( gathererUID,
gathererUID, gathererUID );
1259 ( void ) setresgid( gathererGID,
gathererGID, gathererGID );
1260 #else
1261 ( void ) setreuid( gathererUID,
gathererUID );
1262 ( void ) setregid( gathererGID,
gathererGID );
1263 #endif /* OSses with setresXid() */
1264 #endif /* 0 */
1265 }
1266 }
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1315193] Review Request (EPEL): cmake3 - Cross-platform make system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315193 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- cmake3-3.5.1-1.el6 jsoncpp-0.6.0-0.9.rc2.el6 libarchive3-3.1.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-a82c466e38 -- 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 1315307] Review Request: libarchive3 - A library for handling streaming archive formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315307 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- 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 1315307] Review Request: libarchive3 - A library for handling streaming archive formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315307 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- cmake3-3.5.1-1.el6 jsoncpp-0.6.0-0.9.rc2.el6 libarchive3-3.1.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-a82c466e38 -- 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 1315193] Review Request (EPEL): cmake3 - Cross-platform make system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315193 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- cmake3-3.5.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-1b4a2161de -- 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 1315193] Review Request (EPEL): cmake3 - Cross-platform make system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315193 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- 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 1321300] Review Request: eclipse-abrt - Eclipse ABRT Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321300
Alexander Kurtakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "EPL-1.0". Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/akurtakov/tmp/1321300-eclipse-abrt/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.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Cannot unpack rpms (using --prebuilt?)
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Large da
[Bug 1321300] Review Request: eclipse-abrt - Eclipse ABRT Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321300 --- Comment #3 from Sopot Cela --- Spec URL: https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-abrt/eclipse-abrt.spec SRPM URL: https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-abrt/eclipse-abrt-0.0.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Fixed source0 issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321300] Review Request: eclipse-abrt - Eclipse ABRT Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321300 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov --- Please use real Url for Source0. Currently it's just 404. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321300] Review Request: eclipse-abrt - Eclipse ABRT Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321300 Alexander Kurtakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|akurt...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov --- I would do this one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321300] New: Review Request: eclipse-abrt - Eclipse ABRT Plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321300 Bug ID: 1321300 Summary: Review Request: eclipse-abrt - Eclipse ABRT Plugin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sc...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-abrt/eclipse-abrt.spec SRPM URL: https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-abrt/eclipse-abrt-0.1.0-0.1.gite4610b6.fc23.src.rpm Description: This plugin provide support to add error reports from Eclipse to ABRT Fedora Account System Username:sopotc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1320583] Review Request: php-swiftmailer - Free Feature-rich PHP Mailer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320583 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- php-swiftmailer-5.4.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-35b317eeb6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1320583] Review Request: php-swiftmailer - Free Feature-rich PHP Mailer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320583 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- php-swiftmailer-5.4.1-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3fd018d4b5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1320583] Review Request: php-swiftmailer - Free Feature-rich PHP Mailer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320583 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- php-swiftmailer-5.4.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e25a353474 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1320583] Review Request: php-swiftmailer - Free Feature-rich PHP Mailer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320583 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 1320583] Review Request: php-swiftmailer - Free Feature-rich PHP Mailer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320583 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- php-swiftmailer-5.4.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f3d4bb9e55 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1321208] Review Request: julietaula-montserrat-fonts - Sans-serif typeface created by Julieta Ulanovsky
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321208 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko --- One small note - move appstream-util call to check section. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
