[Bug 1291391] Review Request: nodejs-has-ansi - Check if a string has ANSI escape codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291391 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(jsmith.fedora@gma ||il.com) --- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Is there any reason for not to push this package to any stable repository yet? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1274738] Review Request: nodejs-nth-check - A performant nth-check parser & compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274738 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(jsmith.fedora@gma ||il.com) --- Comment #16 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Is there any reason for not to push updates to stable repository? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1291364] Review Request: nodejs-escape-string-regexp - Escape RegExp special characters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291364 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(jsmith.fedora@gma ||il.com) --- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Is there any reason for not to push this package to any stable repository yet? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1291390] Review Request: nodejs-graceful-readlink - The graceful fs.readlink functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(jsmith.fedora@gma ||il.com) --- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Is there any reason for not to push this package to any stable repository yet? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1291392] Review Request: nodejs-is-builtin-module - Check if a string matches the name of a Node.js builtin module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291392 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(jsmith.fedora@gma ||il.com) --- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Is there any reason for not to push this package to any stable repository yet? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1294078] Review Request: nodejs-json-diff - JSON diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294078 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(jsmith.fedora@gma ||il.com) --- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) --- When can this review be 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 1223461] Review Request: python-glusterfs-api - python bindings of libgfapi library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223461 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hchir...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(hchiramm@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #14 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Any updates 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 1327929] Review Request: gimpfx-foundry - Additional plugins for GIMP
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 1326169] Review Request: php-league-climate - Allows you to easily output colored text, special formats, and more
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
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
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
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 1277504] Review Request: apigen - PHP source code API generator
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
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)
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 1324367] Review Request: libkml - Reference implementation of OGC KML 2.2
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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)
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
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 successfully compiles and
[Bug 1270322] Review Request: chromium - A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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&action=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
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
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 is not relocatable. [x]
[Bug 744416] Review Request: libisofs1 - Library to create ISO 9660 disk images
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 by another package via an egg interface should
[Bug 1331958] New: Review Request: golang-github-dustinkirkland-golang-petname - Generate pronouncable, perhaps even memorable, pet names
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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