[Bug 1268380] Review Request: python-sphinx-theme-bootstrap - A sphinx theme that integrates the Bootstrap framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268380



--- Comment #24 from Stuart Campbell  ---
Could you please point me at an example that links to jquery so I can see what
the correct thing to do is ?  I can find lots of examples that just bundle it,
but none that do the correct thing - it would be much appreciated.

Thank you

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1313828] Review Request: open-nat - Library to allow port forwarding in NAT devices that support UPNP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313828

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST



--- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner  ---
Thanks for the review!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
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 #42 from russell.w.mcgu...@intel.com ---
Question: Does the tarball we generate need to contain any spec file. After all
these comments above, and viewing a lot of the SRPMs from Fedora21-23 download
sites, I see that most all tar.balls inside the SRPMs do not contain specs.

It seems to simplify life if we don't need to include the Fedora specific SPEC
file in our tarball. Is this the correct direction.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1304467] Review Request: python-aodhclient - Python client for Aodh

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304467



--- Comment #4 from Pradeep Kilambi  ---
Thanks Haikel. I updated the spec and srpm with your above suggestions. Please
review

Spec URL:
https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/python-aodhclient/python-aodhclient.spec

SRPM URL:
https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/python-aodhclient/python-aodhclient-0.4.0-1.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 1326169] 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



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-league-climate-3.2.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0887b8cdff

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1324367] Review Request: libkml - Reference implementation of OGC KML 2.2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324367



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
libkml-1.3.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c6a047959a

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1264654] Review Request: php-aws-sdk3 - Amazon Web Services framework for PHP (3.x)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264654



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-aws-sdk3-3.18.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-cd1cc9a342

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1277504] Review Request: apigen - PHP source code API generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277504



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
apigen-4.1.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-be375b8ab6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1326521] Review Request: php-akamai-open-edgegrid-client - Implements the Akamai {OPEN} EdgeGrid Authentication

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326521

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-akamai-open-edgegrid-client-0.4.4-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4c43492ba8

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1329424] Review Request: gimp-save-for-web - Save for web plug-in for GIMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329424

Luya Tshimbalanga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1000885 (DESIGN-SW)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000885
[Bug 1000885] Tracker: Review Requests for Design related 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 1320725] Review Request: phonon-qt5 - Multimedia framework api (Qt 5 version)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320725

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2016-04-01 12:27:25 |2016-04-22 15:57:55



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1323871] Review Request: phonon-qt5-backend-gstreamer - Gstreamer phonon-qt5 backend

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323871



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
phonon-qt5-4.8.3-2.el7, phonon-qt5-backend-gstreamer-4.8.2-2.el7 has been
pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist,
please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1323871] Review Request: phonon-qt5-backend-gstreamer - Gstreamer phonon-qt5 backend

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323871

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2016-04-07 10:49:49 |2016-04-22 15:58:04



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1320725] Review Request: phonon-qt5 - Multimedia framework api (Qt 5 version)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320725



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
phonon-qt5-4.8.3-2.el7, phonon-qt5-backend-gstreamer-4.8.2-2.el7 has been
pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist,
please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1323871] Review Request: phonon-qt5-backend-gstreamer - Gstreamer phonon-qt5 backend

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323871
Bug 1323871 depends on bug 1320725, which changed state.

Bug 1320725 Summary: Review Request: phonon-qt5 - Multimedia framework api (Qt 
5 version)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320725

   What|Removed |Added

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



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
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 #41 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
Given that this review was going so slowly, we had two meetings this morning
with:

Intel: Ira Weiny, John Fleck, Russ McGuire, and me.
Redhat: Michal Schmidt

In the meeting we clarified what we were doing, and we decided a different
approach.

Goal: obtain approval of the spec file and other packaging issues for the
unreleased 10.1 PSM code, that is a work in progress.  The 10.1 release will
probably happen in 8 weeks time frame.  This review will be done in parallel
with other activities to get 10.1 released such as validation efforts, and any
last minute changes that ripple due to the hfi1 driver being reviewed at
kernel.org.

How this work will be done:

1. I have put all of our master branch code work into the 10.1 branch at
github:

https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/tree/10.1

This code is complete as far as I can tell.  Sorry in advance for any problems
that I left.

2. Redhat should review what I have there, and indicate comments here.  Please
pull that branch, and 'make dist', and that should create a specfile and
tarball for you to review.  The tarball is suitable for use with 'rpmbuild -ta
'.

3. Note: I have already placed a copy of the current tarball at:
https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/releases/download/10_1/libpsm2-10.1.1.tar.gz
which should enable testing by redhat.

4. I will fix problems found by redhat, and push changes to the 10.1 branch on
github.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1313828] Review Request: open-nat - Library to allow port forwarding in NAT devices that support UPNP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313828

Antti Järvinen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Antti Järvinen  ---
All right then, all the "must" items are fulfilled. 

What we would need is some additional support for rpmlint about mono packages,
obviously it does not serve us well. 

--
Antti Järvinen

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1329188] Review Request: nvml - Non-Volatile Memory Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329188

Dan Williams  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dan.j.willi...@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 1264700] Review Request: ricochet - Anonymous peer-to-peer instant messaging

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264700



--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Thanks, good catch.  I updated to 1.1.2 and fixed the requires.  Christopher
seems to have left Fedora work entirely, so if you'd like to take the review
that would be great, and I'd be willing to take one of yours if you have one.

SRPM:
https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/ricochet/ricochet-1.1.2-1.fc23.src.rpm
SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/ricochet/ricochet.spec

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
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 #13 from Neil Horman  ---
What you need to do is go through the code and determine which code is licensed
in which way.  Your spec file indicates its all BSD, but the docs in the source
tarball indicate their are multiple licenses.  You need to figure out how the
code is licensed and make the spec file agree with that, following the
conventions in the fedora packaging and licensing guidelines.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1329125] Review Request: python-oslo-privsep - OpenStack library for privilege separation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329125

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Target Release|--- |trunk
  Component|Package Review  |Package Review
Version|rawhide |trunk
Product|Fedora  |RDO
   Target Milestone|--- |Milestone1



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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #40 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #35)
> (In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #32)
> > Created attachment 1149512 [details]
> > Spec file for 10.1.0.
> 
> in the spec:
> > # The source to make this rpm was created at Intel from a private git repo.
> > # The source code is available at: https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/
> 
> Since your Source0 is now a full URL of a tarball published by the upstream
> project, you do not strictly need to comment on its creation.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL requires comments in
> other cases, but not in this one.

I will toss the comments in my next push of changes to the spec file.

> > Source0: 
> > https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/releases/download/10_1/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> 
> Unfortunately the URL is not quite right:
> 
> $ spectool -g -S hfi1-psm.spec
> Getting
> https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/releases/download/10_1/hfi1-psm-10.1.0.tar.
> gz to ./hfi1-psm-10.1.0.tar.gz
> curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found

You are correct that it is not quite correct yet.  I did not realize that you
were going to try to build it.  I thought we were only reviewing the spec file
itself.  Next time I push changes to the spec file to this review, I will also
push a new tarball to git hub.

> > # ERRATA: need to add %{optflags} to the build.
> > %build
> > %{__make}
> 
> Would this work?:
> %build
> export CFLAGS="%{optflags}"
> make %{?_smp_mflags}

I will try that.  And if that works, I will push this change too, and I will
remove the ERRATA comment.  For what it is worth, I tried just using:

%{__make} CFLAGS="%{optflags}"

And our code did not build.  I had not fully diagnosed the problem with the
failure, but, I assume it is some bug in the Makefile.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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

paul.j.re...@intel.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment|0   |1
#1149513 is||
   obsolete||
 Attachment|Tar ball of source for psm  |OBSOLETE: Tar ball of
   #1149513|library.|source for psm library.
description||



--- Comment #39 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
Comment on attachment 1149513
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1149513
OBSOLETE: Tar ball of source for psm library.

I have marked this as obsolete in order to complete the review of the spec file
alone.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #38 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #34)
> (In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #31)
> > As such, I have changed that version to 10.1.0. But, that version is subject
> > to change 
> 
> I'm confused. Do you mean that this is just a pre-release of 10.1.0 and a
> final 10.1.0 is yet to be released?
> Or you're not yet sure what version number the real release will have?

The 10.1 code that I pushed to github, was not released.  It represents
essentially the tip of our master branch.  The 10.1 branch has NOT been made
yet.

The purpose of putting the bits on git hub was purely to support this review to
get PSM accepted into Fedora.

The 10.1 release is still probably 8 weeks away from being released.

> > as the code is not quite ready to be released.
> 
> I think we have different ideas what it means to release something.
> It is tagged in the public git repo, a tarball was made from it and
> published for anyone to download => it is released.

I understand what you are saying.  FWIW, we have a different definition of
released.  I hope you understand?

> Do you mean this release does not have production-level quality? Consider
> using common terms like "alpha", "beta", "rc" in the version string of such
> releases, or have a well-defined numeric versioning scheme (for example:
> X.Y.Z where Y is an odd number are pre-releases).
> Consider writing release announcements to a mailing list (I see
> intel-...@lists.01.org is mentioned on
> https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/wiki,
> but so far there were only test messages) and/or post them on a webpage.
> Whatever versioning scheme you adopt, make it understandable for your
> downstream consumers and distributors.

The quality of code is not the issue here.  We _believe_ it is production level
quality.  The issue here is that the code has not been formally tested by our
internal validation department, and as such it can not be released yet. 

> > I will push the new version of the spec file for your review.
> > 
> > Can you please re-review my spec file, and make further comments?
> 
> I will.
> 
> > Or, if you want, we can abandon this review, as Doug suggests,
> 
> I did not read that as a suggestion to abandon this review.
> We all still would like to get hfi1-psm accepted into Fedora, so the package
> needs to pass through the review.
> 
> > and just review a tar ball.
> 
> Did you create this tarball specially for the purpose of this review? That's
> not what Doug was asking for. Neither was to upload tarballs to Bugzilla.
> Just make sure the tarballs you publish on github use a sane naming and
> versioning scheme.
> 
> This tarball can be acceptable as a base for a Fedora package:
> https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/releases/download/10_1/hfi1-psm-10.1-0.tar.
> gz
> If I were the packager, I'd infer from the file name the version of the
> software is "10.1" and "-0" is some superfluous string to ignore.

Please disregard the tarball that I posted, as it appears we can move forward
on the spec file.  I will take down the tarball to prevent confusion.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1307228] Review Request: dynafed- The Dynamic Federations system allows to expose via HTTP and WebDAV a very fast dynamic name space

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #7 from Fabrizio Furano  ---
Hi Adrien,

 python is used for the authorization. Good point about py26 and epel5. I
remove the requirement...

f

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1307228] Review Request: dynafed- The Dynamic Federations system allows to expose via HTTP and WebDAV a very fast dynamic name space

[bugzilla]

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

Adrien Devresse  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #6 from Adrien Devresse  ---
Hi Fab,

You have to see, it's not clear to me why python is put as a required
dependency. I don't remember any particular need of python in the UGR build
system.

>  Support for EL5 is not bad if it comes for free, so I would do nothing there.

I don't think it even build for EL5. EPEL-5 do not have python 2.6 by default
and is with GCC 4.1. It is better to drop the support if not strictly needed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1264700] Review Request: ricochet - Anonymous peer-to-peer instant messaging

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264700



--- Comment #6 from Nikos Roussos  ---
I built and installed it but it fails to run. Message I'm getting when I run it
from terminal:
QQmlApplicationEngine failed to load component
qrc:/ui/main.qml:2 module "QtQuick.Controls" is not installed
qrc:/ui/main.qml:3 module "QtQuick.Layouts" is not installed
qrc:/ui/main.qml:2 module "QtQuick.Controls" is not installed
qrc:/ui/main.qml:3 module "QtQuick.Layouts" is not installed

and I get an GUI error:
"An error occurred while loading the Ricochet UI. You might be missing plugins
or dependency packages."

I installed qt5-qtquickcontrols and it seems to work fine.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
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 #37 from Doug Ledford  ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #34)
> (In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #31)
> > As such, I have changed that version to 10.1.0. But, that version is subject
> > to change 
> 
> I'm confused. Do you mean that this is just a pre-release of 10.1.0 and a
> final 10.1.0 is yet to be released?
> Or you're not yet sure what version number the real release will have?
> 
> > as the code is not quite ready to be released.
> 
> I think we have different ideas what it means to release something.
> It is tagged in the public git repo, a tarball was made from it and
> published for anyone to download => it is released.
> Do you mean this release does not have production-level quality? Consider
> using common terms like "alpha", "beta", "rc" in the version string of such
> releases, or have a well-defined numeric versioning scheme (for example:
> X.Y.Z where Y is an odd number are pre-releases).
> Consider writing release announcements to a mailing list (I see
> intel-...@lists.01.org is mentioned on
> https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/wiki,
> but so far there were only test messages) and/or post them on a webpage.
> Whatever versioning scheme you adopt, make it understandable for your
> downstream consumers and distributors.

I'd like to second this.  Once a tarball is live on a download site, that's a
release.  And releases are permanent.  If you need a structure or organization
that allows you to have production code and test code, you could do something
like openmpi.  For them, their version breaks down like so:

1.8.0
| | |
| | Version that's incremeneted on each subsequent release
| Minor point, where all odd minor point versions are non-production
| code bases for people to test with, and all even minor point releases
| are production branches
Major release version

So, they will release any number of point releases starting at, say, 1.3.0. 
They may make it all the way up to 1.3.35 if need be.  When they decide that
this development branch is ready for a production release, it basically becomes
1.4.0.  They then open 1.5.0 as the new development branch.  They can then do
parallel work on 1.4.0 and 1.5.0, where any fixes needed for production
environments go on the 1.4.0 (and 1.5.0) branches, and when they have enough
fixes to warrant it, they release 1.4.1.  Likewise, they keep working on 1.5.0,
taking in not just fixes that were needed for production but their ongoing new
development, and they make releases here as needed.  Something like that might
work for you guys.

> > Or, if you want, we can abandon this review, as Doug suggests,
> 
> I did not read that as a suggestion to abandon this review.
> We all still would like to get hfi1-psm accepted into Fedora, so the package
> needs to pass through the review.

Indeed.  What I was meaning with my statement is that you are trying to fulfill
the requirement of this review while wearing your Intel PSM developer hat and
spit out all of the things this review needs from your upstream source repo. 
My suggestion was to instead split your work into two halves.  One being the
upstream PSM developer, and that role should spit out a tarball and nothing but
a tarball.  Then, with your Fedora packager hat on, you should take that
tarball and write a Fedora specific spec file that will pass review.  Once this
review completes and we take the package into Fedora, the spec file will never
be imported from the tarball again, so there's not really much sense in trying
to get the tarball release to provide an ongoing spec file for use in Fedora. 
The Fedora spec file will be a part of the Fedora package repo, separate from
the tarball.  So, my "We only want and can only accept a tarball" is what I
expect you to do with your PSM developer hat on.  I expect you to switch to a
Fedora package hat when working on the spec file and src rpm.  The two efforts
should be separate and distinct.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1329668] New: Review Request: nodejs-rhea -reactive AMQP 1.0 library.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329668

Bug ID: 1329668
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-rhea -reactive AMQP 1.0
library.
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ibove...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/irina/nodejs-rhea/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00179937-nodejs-rhea/
Description: A reactive library for the AMQP protocol, for easy development of
both clients and servers.
Fedora Account System Username: Irina

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1307228] Review Request: dynafed- The Dynamic Federations system allows to expose via HTTP and WebDAV a very fast dynamic name space

[bugzilla]

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

Fabrizio Furano  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fur...@cern.ch
  Flags||needinfo?(ade...@gmail.com)



--- Comment #5 from Fabrizio Furano  ---
Hi Adrien,

 thank you very much for the review :-) I am applying the fixes.

 About python, is it safe to remove the minimum needed version ? Isn't this a
small protection against mad package alchemists ?

 Support for EL5 is not bad if it comes for free, so I would do nothing there.

f

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1329125] Review Request: python-oslo-privsep - OpenStack library for privilege separation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329125

John Trowbridge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from John Trowbridge  ---
This is not needed for clients. It is a common library for rootwrap stuff.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #36 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---

Michal, can we please talk on the phone so that we can discuss your needs for
versioning and I can supply you with our plans for the 10.1 release?  There
seems to be a communication breakdown on this point, and I think if we talked
on the phone we could sort it out much more quickly.

Please send me a phone number that I can call and some times that will work for
you?  We are in the Pacific Timezone (in Hillsboro, Oregon, USA).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1327050] Review Request: can-utils - SocketCAN userspace utilities and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327050

Panu Matilainen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-04-22 09:09:18



--- Comment #8 from Panu Matilainen  ---
John, thanks for the review, and you're obviously welcome as a co-maintainer if
you want.

Packages built + updates submitted for all active Fedora versions, considering
this case closed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #24 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Please see my comment #21, I believe it addresses your concerns. If I'm wrong,
please point me at the place in the guidelines that requires a license header
in every file.

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

[Bug 1329441] Review Request: erlang-esip - ProcessOne SIP server component in Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329441

Jeremy Cline  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Jeremy Cline  ---
Note that although fedora-review failed in install the packages, manually
installing the packages works just fine.

Package Review
==

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


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


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 16 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vagrant/fedora-
 reviews/1329441-erlang-esip/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in 

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

[bugzilla]

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

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i |
   |t)  |



--- Comment #23 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #22)
> Any progress here? I'm waiting for your response.

I'm waiting for stating the problem to upstream and add the references of the
"upstream bugs" to fix this issues

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1327050] Review Request: can-utils - SocketCAN userspace utilities and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327050

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 1327050] Review Request: can-utils - SocketCAN userspace utilities and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327050



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
can-utils-20160229git-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-721f1da0ae

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1327050] Review Request: can-utils - SocketCAN userspace utilities and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327050



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
can-utils-20160229git-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-2c9f971c67

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1327050] Review Request: can-utils - SocketCAN userspace utilities and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327050



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
can-utils-20160229git-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8c1e55e18e

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #35 from Michal Schmidt  ---
(In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #32)
> Created attachment 1149512 [details]
> Spec file for 10.1.0.

in the spec:
> # The source to make this rpm was created at Intel from a private git repo.
> # The source code is available at: https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/

Since your Source0 is now a full URL of a tarball published by the upstream
project, you do not strictly need to comment on its creation.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL requires comments in other
cases, but not in this one.

> Source0: 
> https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/releases/download/10_1/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

Unfortunately the URL is not quite right:

$ spectool -g -S hfi1-psm.spec
Getting
https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/releases/download/10_1/hfi1-psm-10.1.0.tar.gz
to ./hfi1-psm-10.1.0.tar.gz
curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found

> # ERRATA: need to add %{optflags} to the build.
> %build
> %{__make}

Would this work?:
%build
export CFLAGS="%{optflags}"
make %{?_smp_mflags}

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #12 from robert.am...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Neil Horman from comment #6)
>  
> 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 

[Bug 1327784] Review Request: nauty - Graph canonical labeling and automorphism group computation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327784



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
nauty-2.6.5-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1c5728a7a8

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1327784] Review Request: nauty - Graph canonical labeling and automorphism group computation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327784

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 1329441] Review Request: erlang-esip - ProcessOne SIP server component in Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329441

Jeremy Cline  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jer...@jcline.org
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jer...@jcline.org
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
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 #34 from Michal Schmidt  ---
(In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #31)
> As such, I have changed that version to 10.1.0. But, that version is subject
> to change 

I'm confused. Do you mean that this is just a pre-release of 10.1.0 and a final
10.1.0 is yet to be released?
Or you're not yet sure what version number the real release will have?

> as the code is not quite ready to be released.

I think we have different ideas what it means to release something.
It is tagged in the public git repo, a tarball was made from it and published
for anyone to download => it is released.
Do you mean this release does not have production-level quality? Consider using
common terms like "alpha", "beta", "rc" in the version string of such releases,
or have a well-defined numeric versioning scheme (for example: X.Y.Z where Y is
an odd number are pre-releases).
Consider writing release announcements to a mailing list (I see
intel-...@lists.01.org is mentioned on https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/wiki,
but so far there were only test messages) and/or post them on a webpage.
Whatever versioning scheme you adopt, make it understandable for your
downstream consumers and distributors.

> I will push the new version of the spec file for your review.
> 
> Can you please re-review my spec file, and make further comments?

I will.

> Or, if you want, we can abandon this review, as Doug suggests,

I did not read that as a suggestion to abandon this review.
We all still would like to get hfi1-psm accepted into Fedora, so the package
needs to pass through the review.

> and just review a tar ball.

Did you create this tarball specially for the purpose of this review? That's
not what Doug was asking for. Neither was to upload tarballs to Bugzilla.
Just make sure the tarballs you publish on github use a sane naming and
versioning scheme.

This tarball can be acceptable as a base for a Fedora package:
https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/releases/download/10_1/hfi1-psm-10.1-0.tar.gz
If I were the packager, I'd infer from the file name the version of the
software is "10.1" and "-0" is some superfluous string to ignore.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i
   ||t)



--- Comment #22 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Any progress here? I'm waiting for your response.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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

Alexander Kurtakov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1306945] Review Request: ohc - Java large off heap cache

[bugzilla]

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

Alexander Kurtakov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1305496] Review Request: HdrHistogram - A High Dynamic Range Histogram

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305496

Alexander Kurtakov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1291558] Review Request: mariadb-java-client - MariaDB connector for java

[bugzilla]

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

Alexander Kurtakov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1329201] Review Request: primitive - Utility methods for Java's primitive types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329201

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1329201] Review Request: primitive - Utility methods for Java's primitive types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329201

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
 Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL". Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/gil/1329201-primitive/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
 when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
 utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package 

[Bug 1327994] Review Request: python-jupyter-core - Jupyter core package. A base package on which Jupyter projects rely

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327994

Jonathan Underwood  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org
  Flags||needinfo?(tomspur@fedorapro
   ||ject.org)



--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Underwood  ---
Hi Thomas - any progress here?

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

[Bug 1329577] Review Request: python-microversion-parse - OpenStack microversion header parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329577

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1329341 (RDO-NEWTON)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329341
[Bug 1329341] Tracker: Blockers and Review requests for new RDO Newton
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 1329577] New: Review Request: python-microversion-parse - OpenStack microversion header parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329577

Bug ID: 1329577
   Summary: Review Request: python-microversion-parse - OpenStack
microversion header parser
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jp...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-microversion-parse/python-microversion-parse.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-microversion-parse/python-microversion-parse-0.1.3-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: A simple parser for OpenStack microversion headers
Fedora Account System Username: jpena

Koji scratch build available at 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13760055

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1316186] Review Request: python-librosa - a python package for music and audio analysis

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-librosa-0.4.2-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-edea31c6fc

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1316186] Review Request: python-librosa - a python package for music and audio analysis

[bugzilla]

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-librosa-0.4.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-13db7afc5d

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1326217] Review Request: google-noto-emoji-fonts - Google Noto Emoji Fonts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326217



--- Comment #4 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/google-noto-emoji-fonts

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1327526] Review Request: golang-github-klauspost-crc32 - CRC32 hash with x64 optimizations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327526

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/mrunge/review/1327526-golang-github-klauspost-
 crc32/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src,
 /usr/share/gocode, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com
[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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang-
 github-klauspost-crc32-devel , golang-github-klauspost-crc32-unit-
 test-devel
[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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve