[Bug 1327929] Review Request: gimpfx-foundry - Additional plugins for GIMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327929



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimpfx-foundry-2.6.1-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-daa1d22236

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1327929] Review Request: gimpfx-foundry - Additional plugins for GIMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327929



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimpfx-foundry-2.6.1-5.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-2016-170517de6b

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1327929] Review Request: gimpfx-foundry - Additional plugins for GIMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327929



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimpfx-foundry-2.6.1-5.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-515d081638

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1327929] Review Request: gimpfx-foundry - Additional plugins for GIMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327929



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimpfx-foundry-2.6.1-5.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-6103c4ed2e

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-league-climate-3.2.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1270630] Review Request: valabind - Transform vala or vapi files into swig, C++, NodeJS-ffi, or GIR - Unretiring

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270630



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
valabind-0.9.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
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 #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
apigen-4.1.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
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 #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
libkml-1.3.0-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
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 #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
apigen-4.1.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2016-04-19 16:31:08 |2016-04-30 19:53:43



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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
Bug 1264654 depends on bug 1326170, which changed state.

Bug 1326170 Summary: Review Request: php-aws-php-sns-message-validator - Amazon 
SNS message validation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326170

   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 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 #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-league-climate-3.2.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2016-04-20 11:25:16 |2016-04-30 19:53:30



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2016-04-20 11:25:10 |2016-04-30 19:53:26



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
libkml-1.3.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2016-04-19 16:30:52 |2016-04-30 19:53:39



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1326170] Review Request: php-aws-php-sns-message-validator - Amazon SNS message validation

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-04-30 19:53:14



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1316982] Review Request: python-pytest-testmon - A py.test plug-in which executes only tests affected by recent changes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316982



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pytest-testmon-0.8.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-04-30 19:53:00



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



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-akamai-open-edgegrid-client-0.4.4-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-aws-php-sns-message-validator-1.1.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.

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

[Bug 1316982] Review Request: python-pytest-testmon - A py.test plug-in which executes only tests affected by recent changes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316982

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-04-30 19:53:04



-- 
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 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 #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-aws-sdk3-3.18.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1331923] Review Request: python-jinja2-27 - EPEL6 only jinja-2.7 package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331923



--- Comment #1 from Tomohiro ICHIKAWA  ---
I have fixed the spec file in accordance with the guidelines.

Spec URL:
https://github.com/toromoti/rpm-python-jinja2-27/raw/master/SPECS/python-jinja2-27.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/toromoti/rpm-python-jinja2-27/raw/master/SRPMS/python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm

### Here is the result of rpmlint:

$ rpmlint -i /vagrant/python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

### koji build is ok:

$ koji build --scratch el6-candidate
/vagrant/python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm 
Uploading srpm: /vagrant/python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm
[] 100% 00:00:00 254.16 KiB 308.07 KiB/sec
Created task: 13872027
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13872027
Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)...
13872027 build (el6-candidate, python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm): free
13872027 build (el6-candidate, python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm): free ->
open (arm01-builder12.arm.fedoraproject.org)
  13872029 buildArch (python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm, noarch): open
(buildvm-25.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
  13872029 buildArch (python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm, noarch): open
(buildvm-25.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
  0 free  1 open  1 done  0 failed
13872027 build (el6-candidate, python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm): open
(arm01-builder12.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
  0 free  0 open  2 done  0 failed

13872027 build (el6-candidate, python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm) completed
successfully

### result of fedora-review:

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:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 1075200 bytes in 78 files.
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation


= MUST items =

Generic:
[ ]: 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 (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated".
 69 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/vagrant/python-jinja2-27/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages,
 /usr/lib/python2.6
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.6,
 /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package 

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #31 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
*sigh* Okay. I'm doing a debugging build locally now to try to figure out
what's breaking this. I'll try to look at it some more this weekend, but I make
no promises. :/

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



--- Comment #30 from Jorge Martínez López  ---
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #29)
> (In reply to Jorge Martínez López from comment #28)
> > (In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #27)
> > > You can either rollback re2 to the previous release or wait for this build
> > > to finish in the copr:
> > > 
> > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/spot/chromium/build/182130/
> > 
> > Thanks Tom. I tried build 182133 and it gave me another crash, different
> > from the previous one though.
> 
> Is it stack-smashing around libcontent?
> 
[...]
> If so, that's concerning. I thought that might just be GCC 6 on F24. :/

Yes, that's the one:

$ chromium-browser --disable-extensions --disable-plugins
[19580:19580:0430/215149:VERBOSE1:breakpad_linux.cc(1838)] Breakpad disabled
[1:1:0430/215150:VERBOSE1:zygote_main_linux.cc(565)] ZygoteMain: initializing 2
fork delegates
[1:1:0430/215150:VERBOSE1:nacl_fork_delegate_linux.cc(145)]
NaClForkDelegate::Init()
[1:1:0430/215150:VERBOSE1:nacl_fork_delegate_linux.cc(145)]
NaClForkDelegate::Init()
[1:1:0430/215150:INFO:systeminfo.cc(82)] Available number of cores: 6
*** stack smashing detected ***: /usr/lib64/chromium-browser/chromium-browser
--enable-plugins --enable-extensions --enable-user-scripts --enable-printing
--enable-sync --auto-ssl-client-auth --enable-logging=stderr --v=2
--disable-extensions --disable-plugins terminated
=== Backtrace: =
/lib64/libc.so.6(+0x77da5)[0x7ff9823cfda5]
/lib64/libc.so.6(__fortify_fail+0x37)[0x7ff98246c5b7]
/lib64/libc.so.6(__fortify_fail+0x0)[0x7ff98246c580]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libgpu.so(+0xe9a1b)[0x7ff98f487a1b]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libgpu.so(+0xed693)[0x7ff98f48b693]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libgpu.so(_ZN3gpu14GpuControlList12MakeDecisionENS0_6OsTypeENSt7__cxx1112basic_stringIcSt11char_traitsIcESaIcEEERKNS_7GPUInfoE+0x21c)[0x7ff98f48b9cc]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content25GpuDataManagerImplPrivate19UpdateGpuInfoHelperEv+0x105)[0x7ff992866195]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content25GpuDataManagerImplPrivate12SetGLStringsERKNSt7__cxx1112basic_stringIcSt11char_traitsIcESaIcEEES8_S8_+0x8b7)[0x7ff992867647]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content25GpuDataManagerImplPrivate14InitializeImplERKNSt7__cxx1112basic_stringIcSt11char_traitsIcESaIcEEES8_RKN3gpu7GPUInfoE+0x2f6)[0x7ff992867976]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content25GpuDataManagerImplPrivate10InitializeEv+0x221)[0x7ff992867db1]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content18GpuDataManagerImpl10InitializeEv+0x1e)[0x7ff99285f79e]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content15BrowserMainLoop16PreCreateThreadsEv+0xcd)[0x7ff99275f8ad]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content17StartupTaskRunner14RunAllTasksNowEv+0x2f)[0x7ff992a300bf]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content15BrowserMainLoop18CreateStartupTasksEv+0x8a)[0x7ff9927644ca]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(+0x66a4f9)[0x7ff9927664f9]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content11BrowserMainERKNS_18MainFunctionParamsE+0xb3)[0x7ff99275e1a3]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(+0x5db0f4)[0x7ff9926d70f4]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content11ContentMainERKNS_17ContentMainParamsE+0x41)[0x7ff9926d6521]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/chromium-browser --enable-plugins
--enable-extensions --enable-user-scripts --enable-printing --enable-sync
--auto-ssl-client-auth --enable-logging=stderr --v=2 --disable-extensions
--disable-plugins(+0x4af4ea)[0x55db170364ea]
/lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf0)[0x7ff982378580]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/chromium-browser --enable-plugins
--enable-extensions --enable-user-scripts --enable-printing --enable-sync
--auto-ssl-client-auth --enable-logging=stderr --v=2 --disable-extensions
--disable-plugins(+0x4af3a9)[0x55db170363a9]

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



--- Comment #29 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
(In reply to Jorge Martínez López from comment #28)
> (In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #27)
> > You can either rollback re2 to the previous release or wait for this build
> > to finish in the copr:
> > 
> > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/spot/chromium/build/182130/
> 
> Thanks Tom. I tried build 182133 and it gave me another crash, different
> from the previous one though.

Is it stack-smashing around libcontent?

=== Backtrace: =
/lib64/libc.so.6(+0x7ac27)[0x7f8f33c9cc27]
/lib64/libc.so.6(__fortify_fail+0x37)[0x7f8f33d3f317]
/lib64/libc.so.6(__fortify_fail+0x0)[0x7f8f33d3f2e0]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libgpu.so(+0xe878b)[0x7f8f40ccc78b]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libgpu.so(+0xec3e4)[0x7f8f40cd03e4]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libgpu.so(_ZN3gpu14GpuControlList12MakeDecisionENS0_6OsTypeENSt7__cxx1112basic_stringIcSt11char_traitsIcESaIcEEERKNS_7GPUInfoE+0x218)[0x7f8f40cd0778]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content25GpuDataManagerImplPrivate19UpdateGpuInfoHelperEv+0x18d)[0x7f8f43fdd55d]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content25GpuDataManagerImplPrivate12SetGLStringsERKNSt7__cxx1112basic_stringIcSt11char_traitsIcESaIcEEES8_S8_+0x8b7)[0x7f8f43fdea27]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content25GpuDataManagerImplPrivate14InitializeImplERKNSt7__cxx1112basic_stringIcSt11char_traitsIcESaIcEEES8_RKN3gpu7GPUInfoE+0x2f6)[0x7f8f43fded56]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content25GpuDataManagerImplPrivate10InitializeEv+0x221)[0x7f8f43fdf191]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content18GpuDataManagerImpl10InitializeEv+0x1e)[0x7f8f43fd69ce]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content15BrowserMainLoop16PreCreateThreadsEv+0xcd)[0x7f8f43ed2f4d]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content17StartupTaskRunner14RunAllTasksNowEv+0x2f)[0x7f8f441a968f]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content15BrowserMainLoop18CreateStartupTasksEv+0x8a)[0x7f8f43ed7b4a]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(+0x59ea79)[0x7f8f43ed9a79]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content11BrowserMainERKNS_18MainFunctionParamsE+0xb3)[0x7f8f43ed1c13]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(+0x50fb74)[0x7f8f43e4ab74]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/lib/libcontent.so(_ZN7content11ContentMainERKNS_17ContentMainParamsE+0x41)[0x7f8f43e49f41]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/chromium-browser(+0x49338a)[0x5610cd31f38a]
/lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf1)[0x7f8f33c42721]
/usr/lib64/chromium-browser/chromium-browser(+0x49324a)[0x5610cd31f24a]

If so, that's concerning. I thought that might just be GCC 6 on F24. :/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 744416] Review Request: libisofs1 - Library to create ISO 9660 disk images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744416

Mukundan Ragavan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #18 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
$ diff -Nu srpm-unpacked/libisofs1.spec libisofs1.spec 
--- srpm-unpacked/libisofs1.spec2015-12-26 10:36:39.0 -0500
+++ libisofs1.spec2016-04-30 17:13:37.0 -0400
@@ -3,14 +3,14 @@
 Summary:Library to create ISO 9660 disk images
 Name:libisofs1
 Version:1.4.2
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Release:3%{?dist}
 # make_isohybrid_mbr.c is under LGPLv2+, the rest under GPLv2+
 License:GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
 Group:System Environment/Libraries
 URL:http://libburnia-project.org/
 Source:   
http://files.libburnia-project.org/releases/%{pkgname}-%{version}.tar.gz
 Patch0:libisofs-0.6.16-multilib.patch
-BuildRequires:libacl-devel, zlib-devel, doxygen, graphviz
+BuildRequires:libacl-devel, zlib-devel
 %if 0%{?rhel} >= 6
 BuildRequires:autoconf, automake, libtool
 %endif
@@ -34,6 +34,19 @@
 The %{name}-devel package contains libraries and header files for
 developing applications that use %{name}.

+%package doc
+Summary:Documentation files for %{name}
+Group:Documentation
+%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} >= 6
+BuildArch:noarch
+%endif
+BuildRequires:doxygen, graphviz
+
+%description doc
+Libisofs is a library to create an ISO-9660 filesystem and supports
+extensions like RockRidge or Joliet. This package contains the API
+documentation for developing applications that use %{name}.
+
 %prep
 %setup -q -n %{pkgname}-%{version}
 %patch0 -p1 -b .multilib
@@ -82,12 +95,18 @@

 %files devel
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
-%doc doc/html
-%{_includedir}/%{name}
+%{_includedir}/%{name}/
 %{_libdir}/%{name}.so
 %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/%{name}*.pc

+%files doc
+%defattr(-,root,root,-)
+%doc doc/html/
+
 %changelog
+* Sat Apr 30 2016 Robert Scheck  1.4.2-3
+- Move large documentation into -doc subpackage (#744416)
+
 * Sat Dec 26 2015 Robert Scheck  1.4.2-2
 - Reworked spec file to build libisofs1 for RHEL >= 6 (#744416)



---> spec file changes look fine.


Package builds on all arches.

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13871208


-doc subpackage generated.


I have nothing else to complain about. Package APPROVED.

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

[Bug 744416] Review Request: libisofs1 - Library to create ISO 9660 disk images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744416



--- Comment #17 from Robert Scheck  ---
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #16)
> So, -doc subpackage is the only "issue" remaining.

Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libisofs1.spec
SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libisofs1-1.4.2-3.src.rpm

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



--- Comment #28 from Jorge Martínez López  ---
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #27)
> You can either rollback re2 to the previous release or wait for this build
> to finish in the copr:
> 
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/spot/chromium/build/182130/

Thanks Tom. I tried build 182133 and it gave me another crash, different from
the previous one though.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 744416] Review Request: libisofs1 - Library to create ISO 9660 disk images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744416

Mukundan Ragavan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 744416] Review Request: libisofs1 - Library to create ISO 9660 disk images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744416

Mukundan Ragavan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |



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

[Bug 744416] Review Request: libisofs1 - Library to create ISO 9660 disk images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744416



--- Comment #16 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
(In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #14)
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field
> says: "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the
> binary
> rpm." - as the "install-sh" file is not part of the binary RPM, I would not
> add MIT to the spec file (at least that's my understanding).


Yes indeed. I had written the same thing .. :)

So, -doc subpackage is the only "issue" remaining.

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

[Bug 744416] Review Request: libisofs1 - Library to create ISO 9660 disk images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744416



--- Comment #15 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Actually, you don't need to add MIT. install-sh is not part of the binary rpm.
So, my comment about the license field is incorrect.

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

[Bug 744416] Review Request: libisofs1 - Library to create ISO 9660 disk images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744416



--- Comment #14 from Robert Scheck  ---
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field
says: "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary
rpm." - as the "install-sh" file is not part of the binary RPM, I would not
add MIT to the spec file (at least that's my understanding).

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

[Bug 744416] Review Request: libisofs1 - Library to create ISO 9660 disk images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744416



--- Comment #13 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Created attachment 1152638
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1152638=edit
licensecheck

Sorry! meant to attach the file.

just the install-sh.

Please take a look. Now, i'm not so sure about adding MIT.

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

[Bug 744416] Review Request: libisofs1 - Library to create ISO 9660 disk images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744416



--- Comment #12 from Robert Scheck  ---
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #11)
> Just two questions. See below.

Aweseome, thank you very much for the time and efforts to do the review!

> - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>   (~1MB) or number of files.
>   Note: Documentation size is 3409920 bytes in 72 files.
>   See:
>   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
> 
> 
> ---> Any reason not to create a -doc package?

Good point, didn't look to the size for a long time; investigating now.

> [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
>  must be documented in the spec.
> 
> ---> Please fix this. Should also include MIT.
> 
> License:  GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+

Maybe I'm overlooking something...but which files are MIT?

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

[Bug 744416] Review Request: libisofs1 - Library to create ISO 9660 disk images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744416



--- Comment #11 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Just two questions. See below.


Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 3409920 bytes in 72 files.
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation


---> Any reason not to create a -doc package?

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "GPL (with incorrect FSF
 address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 22 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in

/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/744416-libisofs1/licensecheck.txt


---> Nothing seems problematic.

libisofs-1.4.2/libisofs/aaip-os-dummy.c
libisofs-1.4.2/libisofs/aaip-os-freebsd.c
libisofs-1.4.2/libisofs/aaip-os-linux.c
libisofs-1.4.2/libisofs/aaip_0_2.c
libisofs-1.4.2/libisofs/aaip_0_2.h
libisofs-1.4.2/libisofs/hfsplus_case.c
libisofs-1.4.2/libisofs/libiso_msgs.c
libisofs-1.4.2/libisofs/libiso_msgs.h


---> All these are listed under "unknown" by licensecheck. Looking at the
source files, all are GPLv2.

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.


---> /usr/share/licenses/libisofs1-1.4.2/COPYING


[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.

---> Please fix this. Should also include MIT.

License:GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F


[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.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package 

[Bug 744416] Review Request: libisofs1 - Library to create ISO 9660 disk images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744416



--- Comment #10 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
(In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #9)
> The build failure is because you built against Fedora rather EPEL, while
> this package is intended for EPEL only.
> 
> Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13869361

Oh yes indeed! :(

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

[Bug 1260845] Review Request: sshguard - Protect hosts from brute-force attacks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1260845

Daniel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||c...@daniel.priv.no



--- Comment #16 from Daniel  ---
I’d really like to see this included in Fedora as currently Fail2Ban lacks IPv6
support, and sshguard has excellent IPv6 support and a smaller memory
footprint.

Some comments on the spec file:

* Should require `iptables` rather than `firewalld`
* Should not require rsyslog; pipe output from journalctl into sshguard in the
service file instead (reference [how arch does
it](https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/sshguard-journalctl?h=packages/sshguard))

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 744416] Review Request: libisofs1 - Library to create ISO 9660 disk images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744416



--- Comment #9 from Robert Scheck  ---
The build failure is because you built against Fedora rather EPEL, while
this package is intended for EPEL only.

Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13869361

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

[Bug 1327929] Review Request: gimpfx-foundry - Additional plugins for GIMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327929

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimpfx-foundry-2.6.1-5.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-2016-7d82f63f92

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 744416] Review Request: libisofs1 - Library to create ISO 9660 disk images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744416



--- Comment #8 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Hmmm ... build fails.

+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd libisofs-1.4.2
+
LICENSEDIR=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libisofs1-1.4.2-2.fc25.x86_64/usr/share/licenses/libisofs1
+ export LICENSEDIR
+ /usr/bin/mkdir -p
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libisofs1-1.4.2-2.fc25.x86_64/usr/share/licenses/libisofs1
+ cp -pr COPYING
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libisofs1-1.4.2-2.fc25.x86_64/usr/share/licenses/libisofs1
+ exit 0
RPM build errors:
File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libisofs1-1.4.2-2.fc25.x86_64/usr/lib64/libisofs1*.so.*


This is because the library generated is /usr/lib64/libisofs.so.6.78.0 I think.



In reponse to our email conversation, I think it might be best to use
libisofs1*so* to build this library. This might simplify building dependent
packages (kust passing -libisofs1 at compile time) without having to address
the different path in relation to libisofs.

Can you please take a look at this? Please also a do a koji scratch build.

Thanks.

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

[Bug 1083941] Review Request: giac - Computer Algebra System

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1083941

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(han@math.jussieu.
   ||fr)



--- Comment #33 from Antonio Trande  ---
Is this package still under 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 1331972] Review Request: qblade - Wind Turbine Rotor Design and Simulation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331972

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||505154 (FE-SCITECH)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154
[Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology 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 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1331972




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331972
[Bug 1331972] Review Request: qblade - Wind Turbine Rotor Design and
Simulation
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1331972] New: Review Request: qblade - Wind Turbine Rotor Design and Simulation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331972

Bug ID: 1331972
   Summary: Review Request: qblade - Wind Turbine Rotor Design and
Simulation
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: anto.tra...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/sagitter/Ipopt-EPEL/qblade.git/plain/qblade.spec

SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/Ipopt-EPEL/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00182173-qblade/qblade-0.9.1-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description:
QBlade is a Blade Element Momentum Method (BEM),
Double Multiple Streamtube (DMS) and nonlinear
Lifting Line Theory (LLT) Design and Simulation Software
for Vertical and Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines.
It also includes tools to setup and simulate the internal
blade structure and perform an aeroelastic analysis of a
wind turbine rotor in turbulent inflow conditions through
a coupling with FAST from NREL.

Fedora Account System Username: sagitter

This package is for Fedora only.

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

[Bug 1331952] Review Request: mistral-dashboard - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard for Horizo

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952

Marcos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hgue...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(hgue...@redhat.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #1 from Marcos  ---
Waiting for python-django-compresso-2.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331959

Anyhow, we can start with 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 1328350] Review Request: python-osrf_pycommon - Commonly needed Python modules used by software developed at OSRF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328350

Rich Mattes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Rich Mattes  ---
Package Review
==

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

= 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Apache (v2.0) BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or
 generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 18 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rich/temp/1328350
 -python-osrf_pycommon/licensecheck.txt

 It appears that some of the code in
osrf_pycommon-0.1.2/osrf_pycommon/terminal_color/windows.py
 is based off of a BSD-licensed project.  We might want License: to be
ASL2.0 AND BSD,
 with a comment saying that this file is modified from a BSD project. It
might be worth
 shooting a quick email to le...@lists.fedoraproject.org to see how to
handle this case.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 The https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators
guidelines
 forbid underscores, except "packages where the upstream name naturally
contains
 an underscore are excluded from this."  I'm not sure that this qualifies
based on
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/Y2O5NWCN77S3E4ENYYOU7FU3JPVCP7OE/#2BHNJFYJGWBHE55HLUSG3NZVPFL6MCLX,
and the osrf debs do sub _ with - in the package names.
[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.
[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 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used 

[Bug 1331958] New: Review Request: golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname - Generate pronouncable, perhaps even memorable, pet names

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331958

Bug ID: 1331958
   Summary: Review Request:
golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname - Generate
pronouncable, perhaps even memorable, pet names
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: thomas.mosc...@gmx.de
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://thm.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname/golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname.spec

SRPM URL:
https://thm.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname/golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname-0-0.1.git2182cec.fc23.src.rpm

Description: Generate pronouncable, perhaps even memorable, pet names

Fedora Account System Username: thm

Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13866956

$ rpmlint
golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname-0-0.1.git2182cec.fc23.src.rpm
golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname-0-0.1.git2182cec.fc23.x86_64.rpm
golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname-devel-0-0.1.git2182cec.fc23.noarch.rpm
golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname-unit-test-devel-0-0.1.git2182cec.fc23.x86_64.rpm
golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname-debuginfo-0-0.1.git2182cec.fc23.x86_64.rpm
golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/bin/golang-petname
golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname-debuginfo.x86_64: E:
description-line-too-long C This package provides debug information for package
golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname.
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.

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

[Bug 1324960] Review Request: python-deap - Distributed Evolutionary Algorithms in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324960



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1331952] Review Request: mistral-dashboard - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard for Horizo

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952

Marcos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hgue...@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 1331952] New: Review Request: mistral-dashboard - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard for Horizo

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952

Bug ID: 1331952
   Summary: Review Request: mistral-dashboard - OpenStack Mistral
Dashboard for Horizo
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: marcos.fermin.l...@cern.ch
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://mferminl.web.cern.ch/mferminl/fedorapkg/mistral-dashboard/2.0.0/python-mistral-dashboard.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mferminl.web.cern.ch/mferminl/fedorapkg/mistral-dashboard/2.0.0/python-mistral-dashboard-2.0.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: Mistral Dashboard is an extension for OpenStack Dashboard that
provides a UI for Mistral.
Fedora Account System Username: mflobo

Successful scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13865322

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



--- Comment #27 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
You can either rollback re2 to the previous release or wait for this build to
finish in the copr:

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/spot/chromium/build/182130/

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



--- Comment #26 from Jorge Martínez López  ---
Sorry to be slightly off-topic: the last upgrade of re2 from
20131024-5.fc23.x86_64 to 20160401-2.fc23.x86_64 in the COPR repository makes
Chromim crash. Where can I report 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 1331923] Review Request: python-jinja2-27 - EPEL6 only jinja-2.7 package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331923

Tomohiro ICHIKAWA  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Component|Package Review  |Package Review
   Hardware|All |noarch
Version|rawhide |el6
Product|Fedora  |Fedora EPEL



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1331937] Review Request: php-composer-ca-bundle - Lets you find a path to the system CA

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331937

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias||composer/ca-bundle



--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet  ---
New dependency of composer 1.1.0

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1331937] New: Review Request: php-composer-ca-bundle - Lets you find a path to the system CA

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331937

Bug ID: 1331937
   Summary: Review Request: php-composer-ca-bundle - Lets you find
a path to the system CA
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/4422d3048cc81d17812a61d5103e9b7a0c8b0b36/php/php-composer-ca-bundle/php-composer-ca-bundle.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-composer-ca-bundle-1.0.2-1.remi.src.rpm
Description: 
Small utility library that lets you find a path to the system CA bundle.

Fedora Account System Username: remi

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