[Bug 1325023] edk2: distribute ovmf/aavmf roms (now that licensing issues are resolved)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325023



--- Comment #15 from Paolo Bonzini  ---
The separate -tools-doc subpackage was requested during the package review, the
Fedora package guidelines suggest doing this if the documentation is large.

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

[Bug 1326170] New: Review Request: php-aws-php-sns-message-validator - Amazon SNS message validation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326170

Bug ID: 1326170
   Summary: Review Request: php-aws-php-sns-message-validator -
Amazon SNS message validation
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: sh...@iwin.ski
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/siwinski/rpms/794698933e2332fa475ff98523fe3ec72aafee79/php-aws-php-sns-message-validator/php-aws-php-sns-message-validator.spec

SRPM URL:
https://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/php-aws-php-sns-message-validator-1.1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm

Description:
The Amazon SNS Message Validator for PHP library allows you to validate that
incoming HTTP(S) POST messages are valid Amazon SNS notifications. This library
is standalone and does not depend on the AWS SDK for PHP or Guzzle.


Fedora Account System Username: siwinski

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

[Bug 1326169] New: Review Request: php-league-climate - Allows you to easily output colored text, special formats, and more

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326169

Bug ID: 1326169
   Summary: Review Request: php-league-climate - Allows you to
easily output colored text, special formats, and more
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: sh...@iwin.ski
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/siwinski/rpms/5edb5756e17c803186e2717bdc93d0ef99485ede/php-league-climate/php-league-climate.spec

SRPM URL:
https://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/php-league-climate-3.2.1-1.fc23.src.rpm

Description:
If you’re running PHP from the command line, CLImate is your new best bud.

CLImate allows you to easily output colored text, special formatting, and more.
It makes output to the terminal clearer and debugging a lot simpler.


Fedora Account System Username: siwinski

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

[Bug 1319289] Review Request: rubygem-review - Flexible document format/conversion system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319289



--- Comment #2 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Will post review tomorrow. Sorry for the delay.

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

[Bug 1326151] Review Request: xfce4-calculator-plugin - A calculator plugin for the Xfce4 panel

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326151



--- Comment #3 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Thanks Rex,

Taken #1325469

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

[Bug 1325469] Review Request: plasma-discover - KDE and Plasma resources management GUI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325469

Mukundan Ragavan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
taken for 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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1326151] Review Request: xfce4-calculator-plugin - A calculator plugin for the Xfce4 panel

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326151

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter  ---
I can review (probably tomorrow).

If you're able/willing to swap, would be swell to get bug #1325469 done

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

[Bug 1326151] Review Request: xfce4-calculator-plugin - A calculator plugin for the Xfce4 panel

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326151



--- Comment #1 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---

Some points about review - 

1/
When running fedora-review, this will give an error about .desktop file which
is bogus.

.desktop file is installed under %{_datadir}/xfce4/panel-plugins


2/
fedora-review will also complain about FSF address on the license file. I have
already reported it upstream.

https://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12543


3/ 
The package also uses old autotools macros. I am yet to contact upstream about
it. The package works without issues though. It also uses old xfce
"conventions".

4/
koji scratch build - 

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13628690

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

[Bug 1326151] New: Review Request: xfce4-calculator-plugin - A calculator plugin for the Xfce4 panel

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326151

Bug ID: 1326151
   Summary: Review Request: xfce4-calculator-plugin - A calculator
plugin for the Xfce4 panel
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: nonamed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/xfce4-calculator-plugin/xfce4-calculator-plugin.spec
SRPM URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/xfce4-calculator-plugin/xfce4-calculator-plugin-0.5.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

Description:

xfce4-calculator-plugin is a calculator plugin for the Xfce4 panel.

Place the plugin in your panel, enter your calculation into the text field 
and press Enter to calculate the result.

The plugin supports common mathematical operators (+, -, *, /, ^) with usual 
precedence rules and some basic functions (e.g., trigonometric functions) 
and constants.


Fedora Account System Username: nonamedotc

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

[Bug 1270322] Review Request: chromium - A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270322

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl



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

[Bug 1270405] Review Request: native_client - Google Native Client Toolchain

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270405

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl



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

[Bug 1221781] Review Request: zipios - C++ library for reading and writing Zip files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221781

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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1221781] Review Request: zipios - C++ library for reading and writing Zip files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221781



--- Comment #51 from Fedora Update System  ---
zipios-2.1.1-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0f49e29071

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

[Bug 1221781] Review Request: zipios - C++ library for reading and writing Zip files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221781



--- Comment #50 from Fedora Update System  ---
zipios-2.1.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3b2140233d

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

[Bug 1270358] Review Request: nacl-newlib - C library intended for use on embedded systems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270358

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1270358] Review Request: nacl-newlib - C library intended for use on embedded systems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270358



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
nacl-newlib-2.1.0-9.20150528git8c4da47.fc22
nacl-gcc-4.4.3-18.20150504gitf80d6b9.fc22 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-26a2a4f89f

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

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

[bugzilla]

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

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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
nacl-newlib-2.1.0-9.20150528git8c4da47.fc23
nacl-gcc-4.4.3-18.20150504gitf80d6b9.fc23 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b28ac9a3e6

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
nacl-newlib-2.1.0-9.20150528git8c4da47.fc24
nacl-gcc-4.4.3-18.20150504gitf80d6b9.fc24 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3d8df355cf

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

[Bug 1270358] Review Request: nacl-newlib - C library intended for use on embedded systems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270358



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
nacl-newlib-2.1.0-9.20150528git8c4da47.fc23
nacl-gcc-4.4.3-18.20150504gitf80d6b9.fc23 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b28ac9a3e6

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

[Bug 1270358] Review Request: nacl-newlib - C library intended for use on embedded systems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270358



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
nacl-newlib-2.1.0-9.20150528git8c4da47.fc24
nacl-gcc-4.4.3-18.20150504gitf80d6b9.fc24 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3d8df355cf

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
nacl-newlib-2.1.0-9.20150528git8c4da47.fc22
nacl-gcc-4.4.3-18.20150504gitf80d6b9.fc22 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-26a2a4f89f

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

[Bug 1322846] Review Request: SuperLUMT - Single precision real SuperLU routines for shared memory parallel machines

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322846

Mukundan Ragavan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Well, looking at the package again, I did misunderstand the package structure
... :(


So, yes, you are correct. The packages are not dependent on each other.

The other issues are not show stoppers. Please fix the rpmlint messages.

Also, do you need those unapplied patches in the source tarball?



A general comment - if you are using COPR links (comment #3), please use the
links to the plain files.



Package APPROVED. Fix the minor rpmlint message and un-needed patches before
importing.

If you don't mind, please add me as co-maintainer.

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

[Bug 1310092] Review Request: cryptobone - Secure Communication Under Your Control

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310092



--- Comment #44 from Ralf Senderek  ---
(In reply to Ralf Senderek from comment #42)
> (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #37)
> > I have concerns about the bundled cryptlib:

In a private conversation with Peter Gutmann I have confirmed that

a) there is no legal problem with using the Sleepycat license for cryptlib
   as a library at all.

b) with reference to the authors of the brainpool curves, Peter Gutmann does
   not expect any restrictions of the use of brainpool curves.

Even though upstream sees no conflict with (alleged) unapproved brainpool curve
parameters with the Fedora legal team, I will make sure that brainpool curve
source code will not be included in the SRPMs used by Fedora. (see Comment #42) 

Ralf Senderek

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

[Bug 1324590] Review Request: hfi1-psm - Intel PSM Libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590



--- Comment #6 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
PSM is an acronym for "Performance Scaled Messaging"

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

[Bug 1318873] Review Request: neurord - Stochastic reaction-diffusion simulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318873



--- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
No reason except my ignorance :)

Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/neurord.spec
SRPM URL:
http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/neurord-3.0.0-5.20160317gitb17d063.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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
Randy, thanks for the review!
I'll send some patches upstream asap and ask for licensing doc.

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

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

[bugzilla]

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

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Randy Barlow  ---
Looks good! I put a few !'s in there, but they are all optional so it's your
choice.


Package Review
==

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



= rbarlow items =
These are all optional.

[!]: Consider using only spaces or tabs, but not both.


= 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: "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/rbarlow/review/1318278-erlang-
 cuttlefish/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
 Note: Please add some comments over each patch in the spec file
   describing why it is present. Consider adding patch 4 upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages 

[Bug 1317183] Review Request: erlang-stun - STUN and TURN library for Erlang / Elixir

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317183

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
REVIEW:

[+] rpmlint is silent (or produces only messages which can be safely ignored:

Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../SRPMS/erlang-stun-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/erlang-stun-1.0.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm 
erlang-stun.x86_64: E: no-binary
erlang-stun.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:

These two messages are expected for arch0independent Erlang packages.

[+] The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[+] The package meets the Erlang Packaging Guidelines.
[+] The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
[+] The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
(Apache 2.0).
[+] The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is
included in %doc and marked as %license.
[+] The spec file is written in American English.
[+] The spec file for the package is legible.
[+] The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.

Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum 1.0.1.tar.gz*
a48837cc0db5de108243466a5531c046ab86706b7779f9ebc0f381b06ebade58  1.0.1.tar.gz
a48837cc0db5de108243466a5531c046ab86706b7779f9ebc0f381b06ebade58 
1.0.1.tar.gz.1
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

[+] The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[+] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
[+] The spec file handles locales properly (using the %find_lang macro).
[0] No need to handle locales.
[0] The package does not contain any shared library files.
[+] Packages does not bundle copies of system libraries.
[+] The package isn't designed to be relocatable.
[+] The package owns all directories that it creates.
[+] The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
[+] Permissions on files are set properly.
[+] The package consistently uses macros.
[+] The package contains code, or permissible content.
[0] No large documentation files.
[+] Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
[0] No static libraries.
[0] No -devel sub-package.
[+] The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
[0] Not a GUI application.
[+] The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1318873] Review Request: neurord - Stochastic reaction-diffusion simulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318873



--- Comment #14 from gil cattaneo  ---
why do not use 
%jpackage_script neurord.StochDiff "" ""
jhdf5:jhdfobj:log4j/log4j-core:log4j/log4j-api:jblas:commons-cli:neurord
neurord true
?

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

[Bug 1316676] Review Request: tlog - terminal I/O logger

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316676



--- Comment #9 from Nikolai Kondrashov  ---
Thanks, Jakub!

Hmm, the .spec file actually specifies GPLv2+. I'm not sure what's happening
here. Could it actually be complaining about install-sh being MIT/X11 license,
which isn't mentioned in the .spec file?

Sure, I can put BuildRoot under condition, but I'm not sure which it should be,
could you suggest something? Should I also add its removal to the start of
%install 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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1318873] Review Request: neurord - Stochastic reaction-diffusion simulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318873



--- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Mistyped the URL, sorry.

Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/neurord.spec
SRPM URL:
http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/neurord-3.0.0-4.20160317gitb17d063.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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

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

[bugzilla]

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

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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1316772] Review Request: erlang-stringprep - A framework for preparing Unicode strings to help input and comparison

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316772

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||erlang-stringprep-1.0.3-3.f
   ||c25
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-04-11 14:46:41



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

[Bug 1317183] Review Request: erlang-stun - STUN and TURN library for Erlang / Elixir

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317183
Bug 1317183 depends on bug 1316767, which changed state.

Bug 1316767 Summary: Review Request: erlang-fast_tls - TLS / SSL native driver 
for Erlang / Elixir
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316767

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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

[Bug 1316767] Review Request: erlang-fast_tls - TLS / SSL native driver for Erlang / Elixir

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316767

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||erlang-fast_tls-1.0.1-2.fc2
   ||5
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-04-11 14:46:01



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

[Bug 1318873] Review Request: neurord - Stochastic reaction-diffusion simulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318873



--- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo  ---
ERROR: 'Error 404 downloading
http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/neurord-3.0.0-4.20160317gitb17d063.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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1316676] Review Request: tlog - terminal I/O logger

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316676



--- Comment #7 from Jakub Hrozek  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.

[!]: 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)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/remote/jhrozek/1316676-tlog/licensecheck.txt
 -- the specfile says GPLv2, but the sources look like GPLv2+, can you clarify?

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[-]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
 Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
 -- maybe you can conditionalize Buildroot?

[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.

[Bug 1316676] Review Request: tlog - terminal I/O logger

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316676



--- Comment #8 from Jakub Hrozek  ---
tl;dr - We should double-check the license and optionally check if we can
conditionalize buildroot, but that's really not a big deal. Otherwise looks
good!

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

[Bug 1318873] Review Request: neurord - Stochastic reaction-diffusion simulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318873



--- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #10)
> Patched jdfh5 has been built in rawhide a few days ago, can you continue the
> review?
> 
> (The update of jhdf5 for F24 could also be pushed to stable, but I'd prefer
> to wait and see if any issues are found during this review.)

sure

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

[Bug 1318873] Review Request: neurord - Stochastic reaction-diffusion simulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318873



--- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Patched jdfh5 has been built in rawhide a few days ago, can you continue the
review?

(The update of jhdf5 for F24 could also be pushed to stable, but I'd prefer to
wait and see if any issues are found during this 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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1322846] Review Request: SuperLUMT - Single precision real SuperLU routines for shared memory parallel machines

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322846



--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #6)
> My complaints - 
> 
> 1/
> 
> [?]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>  (~1MB) or number of files.
>  Note: Documentation size is 706560 bytes in 2 files.
> 
> ---> Might I suggest a change here? Please consider moving the license file
> to the main package and change the -common subpackage to -doc. I think that
> makes the arrangement better.
> 
> If you change it to a -doc subpackage, you will need
> Requires:%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} on the sub-packages.
> Looking at the spec, I think this is missing already.
> 
> 
> 2/
> 
> [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>  Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
>  SuperLUMT-double , SuperLUMT-complex , SuperLUMT-complex16 ,
>  SuperLUMT64 , SuperLUMT64-double , SuperLUMT64-complex ,
>  SuperLUMT64-complex16 , SuperLUMT64-devel , SuperLUMT-common ,
>  SuperLUMT-debuginfo
> 
> 
> ---> Please see earlier comment. 
> 
> As it stands now, all the sub packages depend on -common and not on the base
> pacakge. I think this needs to be changed. If you decide to incorporate the
> change I have suggested above, this will also be addressed.

I don't agree here. Since every sub-package should work autonomously, I don't
think every one needs to depend by a main package; the only common files are
License, Readme and PDF file of about 600 Kb in fact.

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

[Bug 1324988] Review Request: python-lasagne - Lightweight library to build and train neural networks in Theano

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324988



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-lasagne-0.1-3.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-89f7a18dbe

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

[Bug 1324988] Review Request: python-lasagne - Lightweight library to build and train neural networks in Theano

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324988

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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1324988] Review Request: python-lasagne - Lightweight library to build and train neural networks in Theano

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324988



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-lasagne-0.1-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9b776b219d

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

[Bug 1324477] Review Request: rubygem-cucumber-wire - Wire protocol for Cucumber

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324477



--- Comment #5 from Vít Ondruch  ---
Thx for the review. I requested the license file here:

https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber-ruby-wire/issues/4

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

[Bug 1317182] Review Request: erlang-fast_xml - Fast Expat based Erlang XML parsing and manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317182

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint isn't silent but all these messages may be safely omitted:

Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../SRPMS/erlang-fast_xml-1.1.11-2.fc24.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/erlang-fast_xml-*
erlang-fast_xml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xmerl -> Merle
erlang-fast_xml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML, ml, x
ml
erlang-fast_xml.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xmerl -> Merle
erlang-fast_xml.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML, ml,
x ml

^^^ false positive.

erlang-fast_xml.x86_64: W: no-soname
/usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_xml-1.1.11/priv/lib/fxml.so
erlang-fast_xml.x86_64: W: no-soname
/usr/lib64/erlang/lib/fast_xml-1.1.11/priv/lib/fxml_stream.so

^^^ these libraries will be dlopened so not having so-name is fine.

erlang-fast_xml-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xml -> XML,
ml, x ml
erlang-fast_xml-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml
-> XML, ml, x ml

^^^ false positive as well.

3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the (yet to be finalized) Erlang Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (Apache
2.0).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum 1.1.11.tar.gz*
61bd5b9d6ff454865d864106ab02b769bb4313461dcd011a4c4803886d4814ba  1.1.11.tar.gz
61bd5b9d6ff454865d864106ab02b769bb4313461dcd011a4c4803886d4814ba 
1.1.11.tar.gz.1
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 


+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No C/C++ header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1317183] Review Request: erlang-stun - STUN and TURN library for Erlang / Elixir

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317183

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||lemen...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
I'll review it.

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

[Bug 1317182] Review Request: erlang-fast_xml - Fast Expat based Erlang XML parsing and manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317182

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
I'll review it.

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

[Bug 1316767] Review Request: erlang-fast_tls - TLS / SSL native driver for Erlang / Elixir

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316767

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|jer...@jcline.org   |rbar...@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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1323181] Review Request: python-docker-squash - Docker layer squashing tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323181



--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
> Nope, the functionality is the same. For sure I want to maintain the same 
> spec file across all Fedora's and EPEL 7, so I'll see what can I do.

You should provide /usr/bin/docker-squash which uses /usr/bin/python3 or
/usr/bin/python2 conditionally on the Fedora/EPEL 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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1316772] Review Request: erlang-stringprep - A framework for preparing Unicode strings to help input and comparison

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316772

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|jer...@jcline.org   |rbar...@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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1317183] Review Request: erlang-stun - STUN and TURN library for Erlang / Elixir

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317183

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1325763] Review Request: perl-Test-Requires-Git - Check your test requirements against the available version of Git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325763



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
URL and Source0 addresses are usable. Ok.
Source archive is original (SHA-256:
f0d8e0f77d12122cf884bf48f0a65883eb208f8222a58b52d2e720d379f675ed). Ok.
Summary verified from lib/Test/Requires/Git.pm. Ok.
Description verified from lib/Test/Requires/Git.pm. Ok.
License verified from README, lib/Test/Requires/Git.pm, LICENSE. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.

FIX: Build-require perl (perl-Test-Requires-Git.spec:35).

TODO: Build-require perl-generators. (This package delivers scripts that
generate dependencies for a built package. The perl-generators will be removed
from minimal build root in the near future.)

FIX: Build-require perl(base) (lib/Test/Requires/Git.pm:9).

Test::Pod::Coverage not used. Ok.
Pod::Coverage::TrustPod not used Ok.
Test::CPAN::Meta not used. Ok.
Test::Pod not used. Ok.

CPAN::Meta not useful Ok.
CPAN::Meta::Prereqs not useful Ok.

I believe this package does not have to run-require git. Ok.

All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Test-Requires-Git.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Test-Requires-Git-1.005-1.fc25.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-Requires-Git-1.005-1.fc25.noarch.rpm 
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-Requires-Git-1.005-1.fc25.noarch.rpm 
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Apr 11 17:24
/usr/share/doc/perl-Test-Requires-Git
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1077 Apr  2 01:09
/usr/share/doc/perl-Test-Requires-Git/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  763 Apr  2 01:09
/usr/share/doc/perl-Test-Requires-Git/README
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Apr 11 17:24
/usr/share/licenses/perl-Test-Requires-Git
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot18379 Apr  2 01:09
/usr/share/licenses/perl-Test-Requires-Git/LICENSE
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2661 Apr 11 17:24
/usr/share/man/man3/Test::Requires::Git.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Apr 11 17:24
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Test
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Apr 11 17:24
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Test/Requires
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 7943 Apr  2 01:09
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Test/Requires/Git.pm
File layout and permissions are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-Requires-Git-1.005-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq
-c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.22.1)
  1 perl(base)
  1 perl(Carp)
  1 perl(Git::Version::Compare)
  1 perl(Git::Version::Compare) >= 1.001
  1 perl(strict)
  2 perl(Test::Builder::Module)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
TODO: Do not require perl(Test::Builder::Module) explicitly.
TODO: Filter unversioned perl(Git::Version::Compare) from requires.

$ rpm -q --provides -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-Requires-Git-1.005-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq
-c
  1 perl(Test::Requires::Git) = 1.005
  1 perl-Test-Requires-Git = 1.005-1.fc25
Binary provides are Ok.

$ resolvedeps rawhide
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-Requires-Git-1.005-1.fc25.noarch.rpm 
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.

Package builds in F25
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13626172). Ok.

Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.

Please correct all `FIX' items, consider fixing `TODO' items and provide a new
package.
Resolution: Package NOT 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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1324988] Review Request: python-lasagne - Lightweight library to build and train neural networks in Theano

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324988



--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-lasagne

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

[Bug 1324988] Review Request: python-lasagne - Lightweight library to build and train neural networks in Theano

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324988

Jon Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |python-lasagna -|python-lasagne -
   |Lightweight library to  |Lightweight library to
   |build and train neural  |build and train neural
   |networks in Theano  |networks in Theano



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

[Bug 1325414] Review Request: pag - Commandline interaction with pagure.io

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325414

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
To answer the question about naming: it seems that pag is just a CLI, at least
for now, and other project will not be using the python module. If that ever
changes, it is always possible to split out python3-pag and even possibly
python2-pag submodules. So the name 'pag' is appropriate.

I don't think you need this part:
sed -i 's|/usr/bin/python$|/usr/bin/python3|' %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/pag
setuptools seems to set the header properly on its own.

+ latest version
+ package name is OK
+ license is acceptable (GPLv3+)
+ license file is present, %license is used
+ python packaging macros are used
+ no scriptlets present or necessary

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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1321438] Review Request: python-breathe - Doxygen xml output to reStructuredText

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321438



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-breathe-4.2.0-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-c7b2eae53b

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

[Bug 1321438] Review Request: python-breathe - Doxygen xml output to reStructuredText

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321438



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-breathe-4.2.0-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-39739947bd

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

[Bug 1321438] Review Request: python-breathe - Doxygen xml output to reStructuredText

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321438



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-breathe-4.2.0-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-45ebefd7af

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

[Bug 1321438] Review Request: python-breathe - Doxygen xml output to reStructuredText

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321438

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1324988] Review Request: python-lasagna - Lightweight library to build and train neural networks in Theano

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324988



--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-lasagna

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

[Bug 1324988] Review Request: python-lasagna - Lightweight library to build and train neural networks in Theano

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324988



--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla  ---
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1325763] Review Request: perl-Test-Requires-Git - Check your test requirements against the available version of Git

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325763

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ppi...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1324233] Review Request: python-toolz - A functional standard library for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324233

Orion Poplawski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-04-11 10:59:29



--- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski  ---
Checked in and built.

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

[Bug 1323186] Review Request: opa-fmgui - Intel OPA Fabric GUI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323186



--- Comment #7 from Honggang LI  ---
(In reply to Neil Horman from comment #6)
> [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
>  names).
> [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> 
> Package should likely be named fmgui to correspond to fmgui.jar file
> 

I could suggest to keep the name "opa-fmgui", as other Intel OPA stack
packages' name start with "opa-". Those include opa-ff, opa-fm.

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

[Bug 1315870] Review Request: libhfi1verbs - verbs userspace driver for Intel HFIs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315870

Neil Horman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(dennis.dalessandr
   ||o...@intel.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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1297821] Review Request: qlcplus - DMX light controller software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297821



--- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Yes, I can do the review.

https://github.com/nikhilm/qhttpserver/commit/a051b3773b2c2dc123da79568c7c1e35cd511dc1
suggests that qhttpserver is not worth packaging on its own. It's really up to
you, whether you think that the unbundled project would be useful elsewhere and
is worth your time to do it. According to the new rules
[https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1483#comment:17] you don't have to
unbundle it.

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

[Bug 1323186] Review Request: opa-fmgui - Intel OPA Fabric GUI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323186



--- Comment #6 from Neil Horman  ---

This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java
  to get additional checks


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
 address)", "Unknown or generated". 50 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/nhorman/1323186-opa-
 fmgui/licensecheck.txt

Package includes License files Third_Party_Copyright_Notices_and_Licenses.docx
and THIRD-PARTY-README which seem to relate to code which is not packaged in
this srpm.  If that is the case, then these files should not be packaged.  If
it
is the case, then the license needs to change in the spec file, the docx files
needs to be converted to text and the binaries need to have thier licensing
ennumerated.

[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java,
 /etc/xdg/menus, /etc/profile.d, /etc/xdg/menus/applications-merged
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/icons/hicolor
 (hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
 Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/xdg/menus/applications-
 merged/Fabric.menu %config /etc/profile.d/fmguivars.sh

See rpmlint below
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
You put documents in the App folder, but they are not marked as such, if they
need to be included at all (THIRD PARTY docs mentioned above)

[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.

Package should likely be named fmgui to correspond to fmgui.jar file

[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[s]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in opa-fmgui
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
 desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain 

[Bug 1323186] Review Request: opa-fmgui - Intel OPA Fabric GUI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323186

Neil Horman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(robert.amato@inte
   ||l.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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1324988] Review Request: python-lasagna - Lightweight library to build and train neural networks in Theano

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324988

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
(In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #4)
> Ok, I'll use yours as-is then.

I approve ;)

P.S. for bureaucrats - I'm not attaching full review, because it's just
useless. I checked everything and from my point of view everything looks good.

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

[Bug 1324988] Review Request: python-lasagna - Lightweight library to build and train neural networks in Theano

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324988



--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Ok, I'll use yours as-is then.

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

[Bug 1323181] Review Request: python-docker-squash - Docker layer squashing tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323181



--- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1)
> See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services
> for a nicer way to specify Source URL that gives an archive with a better
> name.

That's cool, although I'll stay with what I have currently :)

> Why do you provide both /usr/bin/docker-squash3 and /usr/bin/docker-squash?
> Do they provide different functionality? If not, only one should be
> provided. If both implementations are equivalent, implementation in python3
> is preferred
> [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.
> 2Fbin].

Nope, the functionality is the same. For sure I want to maintain the same spec
file across all Fedora's and EPEL 7, so I'll see what can I do.

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

[Bug 1324988] Review Request: python-lasagna - Lightweight library to build and train neural networks in Theano

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324988



--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
[ignatenko@ignatenko createrepo_c]$ sudo dnf install python2-theano
Last metadata expiration check: 0:26:37 ago on Mon Apr 11 15:57:19 2016.
Dependencies resolved.

 Package   Arch  Version   Repository  Size

Installing:
 pyparsing noarch2.1.0-2.fc24  fedora  10 k
 python-nose   noarch1.3.7-7.fc24  fedora 281 k
 python2-numpy x86_641:1.11.0-4.fc24   fedora 3.2 M
 python2-numpy-f2pyx86_641:1.11.0-4.fc24   fedora 253 k
 python2-pydot noarch1.0.28-10.fc24updates-testing 47 k
 python2-pyparsing noarch2.1.0-2.fc24  fedora 110 k
 python2-scipy x86_640.16.1-6.fc24 fedora  11 M
 python2-theanonoarch0.8.1-1.fc24  fedora 4.0 M

Transaction Summary

Install  8 Packages

Total download size: 19 M
Installed size: 82 M
Is this ok [y/N]:

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

[Bug 1324988] Review Request: python-lasagna - Lightweight library to build and train neural networks in Theano

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324988



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
I looks mostly OK except that there's only python-theano and python3-theano. 
It doesn't provide a python2-theano.

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

[Bug 1297821] Review Request: qlcplus - DMX light controller software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297821

Dave Olsthoorn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ASSIGNED
 Resolution|WONTFIX |---
  Flags|needinfo?(dave.olsthoorn@gm |
   |ail.com)|
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #14 from Dave Olsthoorn  ---
sure, are you willing to do the review? They sill use a library though, this
time it's qhttpserver[1], which seems to be licensed under the MIT license.
Should I unbundle that?

1. https://github.com/nikhilm/qhttpserver

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

[Bug 1325414] Review Request: pag - Commandline interaction with pagure.io

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325414



--- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean  ---
Here's quick release that fixes just the license and description issues:

Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SPECS/pag.spec
SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SRPMS/pag-0.4-1.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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1315870] Review Request: libhfi1verbs - verbs userspace driver for Intel HFIs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315870

Honggang LI  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



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

[Bug 1323186] Review Request: opa-fmgui - Intel OPA Fabric GUI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323186

Honggang LI  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



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

[Bug 1322168] Review Request: ibacm - InfiniBand Communication Manager Assistant

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322168

Honggang LI  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On|1322166 |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322166
[Bug 1322166] failed to install RPMs because of duplicated debuginfo
packages
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1325414] Review Request: pag - Commandline interaction with pagure.io

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325414



--- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean  ---
Ah, I didn't know about `subprocess.run`.  Seems nice! 
https://pagure.io/pag/issue/1

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

[Bug 773485] Review Request: ibutils - InfiniBand fabric management utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773485

Honggang LI  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Blocks|1315609 |
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-04-11 09:18:06



--- Comment #28 from Honggang LI  ---
As it is a stale bug and ibutils had been updated to latest ibutils-1.5.7-21,
I'm closing it.

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

[Bug 1315870] Review Request: libhfi1verbs - verbs userspace driver for Intel HFIs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315870

dennis.dalessan...@intel.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(dennis.dalessandr |
   |o...@intel.com)|
   |needinfo?(dennis.dalessandr |
   |o...@intel.com)|



--- Comment #15 from dennis.dalessan...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Honggang LI from comment #14)
> Hello, Dennis
>  Ping? Any update?
> 
> Thanks

I was out of the office last week on travel. Will get to this as soon as I dig
out.

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

[Bug 1324477] Review Request: rubygem-cucumber-wire - Wire protocol for Cucumber

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324477

Pavel Valena  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Pavel Valena  ---
Package Review
==

The package is fine, apart from missing LICENSE file, therefore

I APPROVE this package.


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


Notes:
==
 - The packager should ask upstream to include LICENSE file. But
   this is not a blocker.


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Ruby:
[-]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
 independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
 

[Bug 1298963] Review Request: murano-dashboard - Murano Dashboard extension for OpenStack Dashboard

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298963

Marcos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(karlthered@gmail.
   ||com)



--- Comment #1 from Marcos  ---
New SPEC file for version 2.0.0

SPEC URL:
http://mferminl.web.cern.ch/mferminl/fedorapkg/murano-dashboard/2.0.0/python-murano-dashboard.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mferminl.web.cern.ch/mferminl/fedorapkg/murano-dashboard/2.0.0/murano-dashboard-2.0.0-1.fc23.src.rpm

Same problem in this failed scratch
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13625153

Log file here:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5153/13625153/build.log Any
thoughts?

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

[Bug 1324233] Review Request: python-toolz - A functional standard library for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324233



--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-toolz

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

[Bug 1311045] Review Request: Avago ECD RoCE User space library (libocrdma)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1311045



--- Comment #14 from Honggang LI  ---
(In reply to Neil Horman from comment #8)

>  The spec file indicates this is GPL or BSD licensed, but the COPYING
> file
> in the source indicates GPLv2

fixed.

> 
> [x]: 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.
>  see above

Fixed too. 


> [!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
>  Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/libibverbs.d/ocrdma.driver
> 

It is unnecessary as it should be replaced.

> [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
>  Seems like -devel is missing header files

The devel package had been renamed as static. So, it is no longer an issue. 


> [! : Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
>  work.
>  Note: %makeinstall used in %install section
>  DESTDIR works fine, you should use that
> 

Replace it with %{make_install}.

>  version 1.0.7 appears to have been released
> 

Updated to latest 1.0.8.


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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1311045] Review Request: Avago ECD RoCE User space library (libocrdma)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1311045

Honggang LI  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(ocrdma-dev.pdl@br
   ||oadcom.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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1323186] Review Request: opa-fmgui - Intel OPA Fabric GUI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323186



--- Comment #5 from Neil Horman  ---
perfect, thank you! I'll run the review 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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1311045] Review Request: Avago ECD RoCE User space library (libocrdma)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1311045



--- Comment #13 from Honggang LI  ---
Created attachment 1145930
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1145930=edit
fedora review comment

I created a patch to fix those issues addressed by Neil in comment #8. So,
please apply it and re-create spec and src package. Please submit a koji job.
And provide the URLs to spec, srpm and koji task.

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

[Bug 1325023] edk2: distribute ovmf/aavmf roms (now that licensing issues are resolved)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325023



--- Comment #14 from Cole Robinson  ---
(In reply to Gerd Hoffmann from comment #11)
> > + make -C BaseTools
> > Stop using make, use the m alias! Sleeping 1...
> 
> What's this?
> 
> Also the log looks like a parallel build basetools is attempted.
> That doesn't work.

Heh, just a shell wrapper for 'make' I have to try and train myself to use an
'm' alias instead, please ignore. It may be responsible for the test errors
too, I'll confirm

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

[Bug 1323186] Review Request: opa-fmgui - Intel OPA Fabric GUI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323186

robert.am...@intel.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(robert.amato@inte |
   |l.com)  |



--- Comment #4 from robert.am...@intel.com ---
Spec URL:
https://github.com/01org/opa-fmgui/releases/download/v1.1/opa-fmgui.spec

SRPM URL:
https://github.com/01org/opa-fmgui/releases/download/v1.1/opa-fmgui-10.0.0.0.3-1.fc25.src.rpm>
 

Description: The opa-fmgui is a Java-based graphical user interface for the
Intel Omni-Path Architecture computing fabric.

Fedora Account System Username: robertja

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

[Bug 1324590] Review Request: hfi1-psm - Intel PSM Libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590



--- Comment #5 from Michal Schmidt  ---
Created attachment 1145900
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1145900=edit
SRPM from RHEL 7.2

For reference, here's the libpsm2 SRPM from RHEL 7.2.

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

[Bug 1324590] Review Request: hfi1-psm - Intel PSM Libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590



--- Comment #4 from Michal Schmidt  ---
(In reply to Honggang LI from comment #3)
>  Please replace the package name hfi-psm1 with libpsm2, as we had imported
> it into RHEL-7.2 with name 'libpsm2'. 

True, this would make our life easier. Though we should be able to deal with it
either way.

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

[Bug 1318969] Review Request: perl-B-Hooks-OP-Check-EntersubForCV - Invoke callbacks on construction of entersub OPs for certain CVs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318969

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-B-Hooks-OP-Check-EntersubForCV-0.09-13.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-2016-82654c073a

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

[Bug 1324590] Review Request: hfi1-psm - Intel PSM Libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590



--- Comment #3 from Honggang LI  ---
Paul,
 Please replace the package name hfi-psm1 with libpsm2, as we had imported it
into RHEL-7.2 with name 'libpsm2'. 

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173296

It is will be an issue if fedora and rhel has a identical package with
different names. And add 'BuildRequires: systemd' into the spec file, otherwise
it will be failed to build in koji (mock) system.

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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1306629] Review Request: metrics-reporter-config - Manages config for Coda Hale’s Metrics-reporter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306629

Tomas Repik  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|1324020 |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324020
[Bug 1324020] Review Request: cassandra - OpenSource database Apache
Cassandra
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1324020] Review Request: cassandra - OpenSource database Apache Cassandra

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324020

Tomas Repik  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On|1306629 |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306629
[Bug 1306629] Review Request: metrics-reporter-config - Manages config for
Coda Hale’s Metrics-reporter
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1324590] Review Request: hfi1-psm - Intel PSM Libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590

Michal Schmidt  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Michal Schmidt  ---
(In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #0)
> Spec URL: https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/releases/tag/10_1
> SRPM URL: https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/releases/tag/10_1

To facilitate the review process (notably the 'fedora-review' helper tool), the
two URLs should point directly to the spec file and SRPM, not to a download
page.

> Description: The PSM Messaging API, or PSM API, is the low-level
> user-level communications interface for the Intel(R) OPA
> family of products. PSM users are enabled with mechanisms
> necessary to implement higher level communications
> interfaces in parallel environments.

Just curious: Is "PSM" an acronym? "Parallel ...something.. Messaging"?

> Fedora Account System Username: pjreger

Are you already a member of the 'packager' group in Fedora?

Looking at the spec file:

> #
> #  This file is provided under a dual BSD/GPLv2 license.  When using or
> #  redistributing this file, you may do so under either license.
> #
> #  GPL LICENSE SUMMARY
> [...]
> #  BSD LICENSE
> [...]
> # Copyright (c) 2014-2015 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
> #

It's OK to have a copyright and license header in a spec file in Fedora,
though it is uncommon. Most packagers rely on the default (MIT) license
specified by the Fedora Project Contributor Agreement (FPCA):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#License_of_Fedora_SPEC_Files

> Summary: Intel PSM Libraries
> Name: hfi1-psm
> Version: 0.7
> Release: 13
> License: GPLv2

Seems it should say more precisely: BSD or GPLv2
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Dual_Licensing_Scenarios

> Group: System Environment/Libraries

The Group tag is unnecessary.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

> URL: http://www.intel.com/

Please use a URL that's more specific to hfi1-psm. Maybe
URL: https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/

> Source0: %{name}-%{version}-%{release}.tar.gz

Could you please use a full URL in the Source tag?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL

> Prefix: /usr

Please drop this tag.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Relocatable_packages

> BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root

Don't specify BuildRoot.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

> Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig
> Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig

It should not be necessary to specify those since you are using the
"%post -p /sbin/ldconfig" form to call ldconfig. In this case rpmbuild is
supposed to detect the dependency automatically.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Shared_libraries

> ExclusiveArch: x86_64

A short comment explaining the reason for ExclusiveArch would be nice.

> %if 0%{?rhel}%{?rhl}%{?fedora}
> Requires: libuuid
> %else
> Requires: libuuid1
> %endif

The binary package will automatically get a dependency on
"libuuid.so.1()(64bit)", so there is no need for an explicit Requires.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires

> BuildRequires: libuuid-devel
> Conflicts: opa-libs

What is the purpose of this Conflicts tag? What is "opa-libs"?
It's not a package in Fedora.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Conflicts

> Obsoletes: hfi-psm
> Obsoletes: hfi-psm-debuginfo

Unversioned Obsoletes are dangerous. What is the purpose of these Obsoletes?
There never was a "hfi-psm" package in Fedora, was it?

> %package devel
> Summary: Development files for Intel PSM
> Group: System Environment/Development

See a previous comment for Group tag.

> Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

Better add %{?_isa} too, even though the package is exclusive to one arch.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package

> Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig
> Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig

I think only the main package needs to run ldconfig.

> Requires: libuuid-devel

> Conflicts: opa-devel
> Obsoletes: hfi-psm-devel

See previous comments about Conflicts and Obsoletes.

> %package compat
> Summary: Development files for Intel PSM

Better adjust the Summary for -compat to make it different from -devel.

> Group: System Environment/Development
> Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
> Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig
> Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig
> Obsoletes: hfi-psm-compat

See previous comments.

> %description
> The PSM Messaging API, or PSM API, is the low-level
> user-level communications interface for the Intel(R) OPA
> family of products. PSM users 

[Bug 1311045] Review Request: Avago ECD RoCE User space library (libocrdma)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1311045

ocrdma-dev@broadcom.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(ocrdma-dev.pdl@br |
   |oadcom.com) |
   |needinfo?(ocrdma-dev.pdl@br |
   |oadcom.com) |



--- Comment #12 from ocrdma-dev@broadcom.com ---
Sorry for the late response. I was on vacation last week.

We changed the version to 1.0.8 since the files AUTHORS and COPYING is changed
after fixing the review suggestions.

Please find the latest SRPM and spec file uploaded in the following locations.

SRPM:
http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/SRPMS/fedora/1.0.8/libocrdma-1.0.8-1.fc23.src.rpm

Spec file:
http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/SRPMS/fedora/1.0.8/libocrdma.spec


Can you please run the build and let us know whether it is passing your build?

Thanks for the help.

Selvin Xavier

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