[Bug 1327078] Review Request: python-pyrtlsdr - Python binding for librtlsdr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327078



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pyrtlsdr-0.2.2-3.fc23.1 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 1327078] Review Request: python-pyrtlsdr - Python binding for librtlsdr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327078

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2016-04-25 05:26:09 |2016-05-04 01:23:21



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #40 from Tomas Popela  ---
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #36)
> *sigh*. Patches or liquor accepted.
> 
> Lemme get a working build first, then I'll see about gn.

I will do the work as I should have a branch somewhere with the work around GN
that I've done around Christmas time..

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1307149] Review Request: mkdocs-material - A material design theme for MkDocs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307149

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1307132] Review Request: mkdocs-cinder - A clean responsive theme for the MkDocs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307132

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1307149] Review Request: mkdocs-material - A material design theme for MkDocs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307149



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
mkdocs-material-0.2.2-1.fc24 mkdocs-cinder-0.9.3-1.fc24
mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-3.fc24 mkdocs-alabaster-0.7.1-1.fc24 has been
submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-988ac47c35

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1307132] Review Request: mkdocs-cinder - A clean responsive theme for the MkDocs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307132



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
mkdocs-material-0.2.2-1.fc24 mkdocs-cinder-0.9.3-1.fc24
mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-3.fc24 mkdocs-alabaster-0.7.1-1.fc24 has been
submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-988ac47c35

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1307134] Review Request: mkdocs-alabaster - Alabaster port for MkDocs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307134

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1307134] Review Request: mkdocs-alabaster - Alabaster port for MkDocs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307134



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
mkdocs-material-0.2.2-1.fc24 mkdocs-cinder-0.9.3-1.fc24
mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-3.fc24 mkdocs-alabaster-0.7.1-1.fc24 has been
submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-988ac47c35

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332764] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-factint - Advanced methods for factoring integers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332764

Bug ID: 1332764
   Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-factint - Advanced methods for
factoring integers
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-factint/gap-pkg-factint.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-factint/gap-pkg-factint-1.5.3-1.fc25.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: FactInt provides implementations of the following methods for
factoring integers:
- Pollard's p-1
- Williams' p+1
- Elliptic Curves Method (ECM)
- Continued Fraction Algorithm (CFRAC)
- Multiple Polynomial Quadratic Sieve (MPQS)
FactInt also makes use of Richard P. Brent's tables of known factors of
integers of the form bk+/-1 for "small" b.

The ECM method is suited best for finding factors which are neither too small
(i.e. have less than about 12 decimal digits) nor too close to the square root
of the number to be factored. The MPQS method is designed for factoring
products of two primes of comparable orders of magnitude. CFRAC is the
historical predecessor of the MPQS method. Pollard's p-1 and Williams' p+1 are
useful for finding factors p such that all prime factors of p-1 (respectively
p+1) are "small", e.g. smaller than 100. All factoring methods implemented
in this package are probabilistic. In particular the time needed by the ECM
method depends largely on luck.

FactInt provides a general-purpose factorization routine which uses an
appropriate combination of the methods mentioned above, the Pollard Rho routine
which is implemented in the GAP Library and a variety of tricks for special
cases to obtain a good average performance for "arbitrary" integers. At the
user's option, FactInt provides detailed information about the progress of the
factorization process.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332307] Review Request: libcxx - C++ standard library targeting C++11

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332307



--- Comment #4 from Robin Lee  ---
The package builds on Fedora 24, but not any earlier versions.
On Fedora 22/23, if _FORTIFY_SOURCE is used (the default), it fails to
build[1]. So if this package is getting to Fedora 22/23, you may have to remove
_FORTIFY_SOURCE or build it with GCC.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188075

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332720] Review Request: kdepim-addons - Additional plugins for KDE PIM applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332720

Daniel Vrátil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1332721 (kf5-libkleo)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332721
[Bug 1332721] Review Request: kf5-libkleo - KDE PIM cryptographic library
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332721] Review Request: kf5-libkleo - KDE PIM cryptographic library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332721

Daniel Vrátil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1332720 (kdepim-addons)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332720
[Bug 1332720] Review Request: kdepim-addons - Additional plugins for KDE
PIM applications
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332721] Review Request: kf5-libkleo - KDE PIM cryptographic library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332721

Daniel Vrátil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1332722 (kleopatra)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332722
[Bug 1332722] Review Request: kleopatra - KDE certificate manager and
unified crypto GUI
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332722] Review Request: kleopatra - KDE certificate manager and unified crypto GUI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332722

Daniel Vrátil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews)
 Depends On||1332721 (kf5-libkleo)
  Alias||kleopatra




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997
[Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332721
[Bug 1332721] Review Request: kf5-libkleo - KDE PIM cryptographic library
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332722] New: Review Request: kleopatra - KDE certificate manager and unified crypto GUI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332722

Bug ID: 1332722
   Summary: Review Request: kleopatra - KDE certificate manager
and unified crypto GUI
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@dvratil.cz
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kdepim/review/kleopatra.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kdepim/review/kleopatra-16.04.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: KDE certificate manager and unified crypto GUI
Fedora Account System Username: dvratil

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332721] Review Request: kf5-libkleo - KDE PIM cryptographic library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332721

Daniel Vrátil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews)
  Alias||kf5-libkleo




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997
[Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332721] New: Review Request: kf5-libkleo - KDE PIM cryptographic library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332721

Bug ID: 1332721
   Summary: Review Request: kf5-libkleo - KDE PIM cryptographic
library
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@dvratil.cz
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kdepim/review/kf5-libkleo.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kdepim/review/kf5-libkleo-16.04.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: KDE PIM cryptographic library
Fedora Account System Username: dvratil

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332255] Review Request: kf5-eventviews - KDE PIM library for displaying events and calendars

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332255

Daniel Vrátil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1332720 (kdepim-addons)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332720
[Bug 1332720] Review Request: kdepim-addons - Additional plugins for KDE
PIM applications
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332717] Review Request: kf5-incidenceeditor - KDE PIM library for creating and editing calendar incidences

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332717

Daniel Vrátil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1332720 (kdepim-addons)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332720
[Bug 1332720] Review Request: kdepim-addons - Additional plugins for KDE
PIM applications
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332720] Review Request: kdepim-addons - Additional plugins for KDE PIM applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332720

Daniel Vrátil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews)
 Depends On||1332255 (kf5-eventviews),
   ||1332254
   ||(kf5-calendarsupport),
   ||1332256
   ||(kf5-grantleetheme),
   ||1332717
   ||(kf5-incidenceeditor)
  Alias||kdepim-addons




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997
[Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332254
[Bug 1332254] Review Request: kf5-calendarsupport - KDE PIM library for
calendar and even handling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332255
[Bug 1332255] Review Request: kf5-eventviews - KDE PIM library for
displaying events and calendars
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332256
[Bug 1332256] Review Request: kf5-grantleetheme - KDE PIM library for
Grantlee template system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332717
[Bug 1332717] Review Request: kf5-incidenceeditor - KDE PIM library for
creating and editing calendar incidences
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332254] Review Request: kf5-calendarsupport - KDE PIM library for calendar and even handling

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332254

Daniel Vrátil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1332720 (kdepim-addons)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332720
[Bug 1332720] Review Request: kdepim-addons - Additional plugins for KDE
PIM applications
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332256] Review Request: kf5-grantleetheme - KDE PIM library for Grantlee template system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332256

Daniel Vrátil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1332720 (kdepim-addons)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332720
[Bug 1332720] Review Request: kdepim-addons - Additional plugins for KDE
PIM applications
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332720] New: Review Request: kdepim-addons - Additional plugins for KDE PIM applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332720

Bug ID: 1332720
   Summary: Review Request: kdepim-addons - Additional plugins for
KDE PIM applications
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@dvratil.cz
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kdepim/review/kdepim-addons.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kdepim/review/kdepim-addons-16.04.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: Additional plugins for KDE PIM applications
Fedora Account System Username: dvratil

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332719] Review Request: kdepim-apps-lib - KDE PIM common libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332719

Daniel Vrátil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews)
  Alias||kdepim-apps-lib




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997
[Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332719] New: Review Request: kdepim-apps-lib - KDE PIM common libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332719

Bug ID: 1332719
   Summary: Review Request: kdepim-apps-lib - KDE PIM common
libraries
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@dvratil.cz
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kdepim/review/kdepim-apps-libs.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kdepim/review/kdepim-apps-libs-16.04.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: KDE PIM common libraries 
Fedora Account System Username: dvratil

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332717] Review Request: kf5-incidenceeditor - KDE PIM library for creating and editing calendar incidences

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332717

Daniel Vrátil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews)
  Alias||kf5-incidenceeditor




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997
[Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332717] New: Review Request: kf5-incidenceeditor - KDE PIM library for creating and editing calendar incidences

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332717

Bug ID: 1332717
   Summary: Review Request: kf5-incidenceeditor - KDE PIM library
for creating and editing calendar incidences
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@dvratil.cz
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kdepim/review/kf5-incidenceeditor.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kdepim/review/kf5-incidenceeditor-16.04.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: KDE PIM library for creating and editing calendar incidences
Fedora Account System Username: dvratil

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332715] New: Review Request: kf5-kdgantt2 - KDE PIM library for rendering Gantt graphs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332715

Bug ID: 1332715
   Summary: Review Request: kf5-kdgantt2 - KDE PIM library for
rendering Gantt graphs
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@dvratil.cz
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kdepim/review/kf5-kdgantt2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/kdepim/review/kf5-kdgantt2-16.04.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: KDE PIM library for rendering Gantt graphs
Fedora Account System Username: dvratil

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332715] Review Request: kf5-kdgantt2 - KDE PIM library for rendering Gantt graphs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332715

Daniel Vrátil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews)
  Alias||kf5-kdgantt2




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997
[Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1297491] Review Request: python2-multilib - A module for determining if a package is multilib or not

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297491



--- Comment #13 from Dennis Gilmore  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-multilib

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #39 from Adam Goode  ---
Ok, let me know if you need help with patches for Chromium stuff. I've done a
few recently for fixes with use_sysroot=false:

https://codereview.chromium.org/1699713002/
https://codereview.chromium.org/1671203002/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #8 from Jerry James  ---
Issues
==
1. In multiple licensing scenarios, the package must contain a comment
   explaining the breakdown: see
  
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios

   This can be accomplished in several ways; see the link for some ideas.

2. Upstream has not fixed the incorrect FSF address issue.  This is not a
   blocker for the review.

3. The license file is not installed if only the -doc subpackage is installed.

4. If you are concerned about the quality of the documentation, there are a few
   steps you could take to improve it:
   a. Replace "BuildRequires: doxygen" with "BuildRequires: doxygen-latex"
   b. Add "BuildRequires: ghostscript-core"
   c. Change the definition of INCLUDE_PATH in Doxyfile from the empty string
  to /usr/include/boost.  Unfortunately, then doxygen can't find the
  standard header files, so you have to add the default g++ include paths
  to INCLUDE_PATH as well.  You can get these by running

  cpp -x c++ -v < /dev/null

  and looking at the lines of output between "#include <...> search starts
  here:" and "End of search list."  For example, you could do this just
  before running doxygen:

  includedirs=$(cpp -x c++ -v < /dev/null 2>&1 | sed -e '1,/#include
<\.\.\.> search/d' -e '/End of search list/,$d' | tr '\n' ' ')
  sed -i "s|INCLUDE_PATH[[:blank:]]*= |&/usr/include/boost $includedirs|"
Doxyfile

5. I wonder why one test failure on i386 warrants not running the tests for
   that platform, but one test failure on ARM warrants not building the package
   at all for that platform.  Can you explain?  (The explanation should
   probably go into a comment in the spec file.)


Package Review
==

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



= 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: "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2)
 (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright*
 GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with
 incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 31 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/1233240
 -orocos-bfl/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 

[Bug 1329668] Review Request: nodejs-rhea -reactive AMQP 1.0 library.

[bugzilla]

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

Alan Conway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||acon...@redhat.com



--- Comment #2 from Alan Conway  ---
(In reply to Irina Boverman from comment #1)
> nodejs-rhea.noarch: E: devel-dependency nodejs-debug
> Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
> itself.

Possibly we need a separate devel and runtime package. Examples, developer doc,
debugging tools and tests should not be part of a runtime package. However
nodejs conventions may override here - Gordon's call.

> nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
> 
> nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate
> /usr/share/doc/nodejs-rhea/examples/tls/ca-cert.pem
> Shipping a PEM certificate is likely wrong. If used for the default
> configuration, this is insecure ( since the certificate is public ). If this
> is used for validation, ie a CA certificate store, then this must be kept up
> to date due to CA compromise. The only valid reason is for testing purpose,
> so
> ignore this warning if this is the case.

example/doc/tests are not normally allowed in runtime packages, so again maybe
a seprate -devel package?

> /usr/lib/node_modules/rhea/test/server-cert.pem
> Shipping a PEM certificate is likely wrong. If used for the default
> configuration, this is insecure ( since the certificate is public ). If this
> is used for validation, ie a CA certificate store, then this must be kept up
> to date due to CA compromise. The only valid reason is for testing purpose,
> so
> ignore this warning if this is the case.

Again tests in a runtime package is very strange, but maybe normal in the
nodejs world. Suggest digging around a few popular nodejs RPMs to see what is
normal.

> nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
> /usr/lib/node_modules/rhea/node_modules/debug /usr/lib/node_modules/debug

Delete the symlink, that is just an error.

> Alan, Gordon, what do you think?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #38 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
(In reply to Adam Goode from comment #37)
> Are you subscribed to chromium-packagers? It's a few messages per month and
> is the primary announce/discussion list for downstream distributions.
> 
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!forum/chromium-packagers
> 
> Strongly recommend subscription if you haven't already.

I am.

I just had put off "port to YET ANOTHER BUILD TOOL" for a later date. Looking
at the Gentoo ebuild, it looks like they've figured out most/all of the
changes, so I think it shouldn't be too ugly (famous last words).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #37 from Adam Goode  ---
Are you subscribed to chromium-packagers? It's a few messages per month and is
the primary announce/discussion list for downstream distributions.

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!forum/chromium-packagers

Strongly recommend subscription if you haven't already.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1327762] Review Request: golang-github-Shopify-sarama - Sarama is a Go library for Apache Kafka 0.8 and 0.9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327762

Lokesh Mandvekar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||l...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
- spec file conforms to current golang packaging draft
- license correct and valid
- only sources installed

package approved

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

[Bug 1327781] Review Request: golang-github-olivere-elastic - Elasticsearch client for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327781

Lokesh Mandvekar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||l...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
- spec file conforms to current golang packaging draft
- license correct and valid
- only sources installed

package approved

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

[Bug 1327753] Review Request: golang-github-Shopify-toxiproxy - A proxy to simulate network and system conditions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327753

Lokesh Mandvekar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||l...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
- spec file conforms to current golang packaging draft
- license correct and valid
- only sources installed

package approved

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

[Bug 1327291] Review Request: golang-github-mistifyio-go-zfs - Go wrappers for ZFS commands

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327291

Lokesh Mandvekar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||l...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
- spec file conforms to current golang packaging draft
- license correct and valid
- only sources installed

package approved

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

[Bug 1327254] Review Request: golang-github-eapache-queue - Fast golang queue using ring-buffer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327254

Lokesh Mandvekar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||l...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
- spec file conforms to current golang packaging draft
- license correct and valid
- only sources installed

package approved

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

[Bug 1327307] Review Request: golang-github-eapache-go-resiliency - Resiliency patterns for golang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327307

Lokesh Mandvekar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||l...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
- spec file conforms to current golang packaging draft
- license correct and valid
- only sources installed

package approved

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #36 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
(In reply to Gary Gatling from comment #35)

*sigh*. Patches or liquor accepted.

Lemme get a working build first, then I'll see about gn.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332605] Review Request: gap-pkg-openmath - Import and export of OpenMath objects for GAP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332605

Till Hofmann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hofm...@kbsg.rwth-aachen.de
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hofm...@kbsg.rwth-aachen.de
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #35 from Gary Gatling  ---
Any interest in moving to using "gn" for builds? I notice this rpm package
still uses "gyp."

I ask because of these posts to the packaging mailing list: "We're going to
start shutting off GYP soon"

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-packagers/YK-Qm3wRcio

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-packagers/hGUmlE1yAoo

Cheers.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1329845] Review Request: erlang-eflame - Flame Graph profiler for Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329845

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Randy Barlow  ---
There is an issue with the Perl Requires and BuildRequires, see the ! item
below.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "ISC", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rbarlow/review/1329845
 -erlang-eflame/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: 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

Perl:
[!]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
 Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`";
 echo $version)) missing?

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, 

[Bug 1329668] Review Request: nodejs-rhea -reactive AMQP 1.0 library.

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #1 from Irina Boverman  ---
Rebased to 0.1.2.
Added %check section and tests.
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/irina/nodejs-rhea/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00183010-nodejs-rhea/

Output of rpmlint:

$ rpmlint -i nodejs-rhea-0.1.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm

nodejs-rhea.noarch: E: devel-dependency nodejs-debug
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.

nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.

nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/share/doc/nodejs-rhea/examples/tls/ca-cert.pem
Shipping a PEM certificate is likely wrong. If used for the default
configuration, this is insecure ( since the certificate is public ). If this
is used for validation, ie a CA certificate store, then this must be kept up
to date due to CA compromise. The only valid reason is for testing purpose, so
ignore this warning if this is the case.

nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/share/doc/nodejs-rhea/examples/tls/server-cert.pem
Shipping a PEM certificate is likely wrong. If used for the default
configuration, this is insecure ( since the certificate is public ). If this
is used for validation, ie a CA certificate store, then this must be kept up
to date due to CA compromise. The only valid reason is for testing purpose, so
ignore this warning if this is the case.

nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/lib/node_modules/rhea/test/server-cert.pem
Shipping a PEM certificate is likely wrong. If used for the default
configuration, this is insecure ( since the certificate is public ). If this
is used for validation, ie a CA certificate store, then this must be kept up
to date due to CA compromise. The only valid reason is for testing purpose, so
ignore this warning if this is the case.

nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/share/doc/nodejs-rhea/examples/tls/client-cert.pem
Shipping a PEM certificate is likely wrong. If used for the default
configuration, this is insecure ( since the certificate is public ). If this
is used for validation, ie a CA certificate store, then this must be kept up
to date due to CA compromise. The only valid reason is for testing purpose, so
ignore this warning if this is the case.

nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/lib/node_modules/rhea/test/ca-cert.pem
Shipping a PEM certificate is likely wrong. If used for the default
configuration, this is insecure ( since the certificate is public ). If this
is used for validation, ie a CA certificate store, then this must be kept up
to date due to CA compromise. The only valid reason is for testing purpose, so
ignore this warning if this is the case.

nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/lib/node_modules/rhea/test/client-cert.pem
Shipping a PEM certificate is likely wrong. If used for the default
configuration, this is insecure ( since the certificate is public ). If this
is used for validation, ie a CA certificate store, then this must be kept up
to date due to CA compromise. The only valid reason is for testing purpose, so
ignore this warning if this is the case.

nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/rhea/node_modules/debug /usr/lib/node_modules/debug
The target of the symbolic link does not exist within this package or its file
based dependencies.  Verify spelling of the link target and that the target is
included in a package in this package's dependency chain.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings.

Not sure if I need to do anything about them...

Alan, Gordon, what do you think?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1314865] Review Request: booth - Ticket Manager for Multi-site Clusters

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1314865



--- Comment #7 from Petr Pisar  ---
Source URL is usable. Ok.

Source archive is orignal (SHA-256:
66420985bee695d9b9e77d8f6d26f6400c29f492f3df5270aadf6452f918bf09). Ok.

License verified from COPYING and various source files. Ok.

TODO: Source files docs/geostore.8.txt and docs/boothd.8.txt and thus manual
pages geostore(8) and boothd(8) still declare GPL+. It would be great to notify
the upstream.

All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint booth.spec ../SRPMS/booth-1.0-1.eb4256a.git.fc25.src.rpm
../RPMS/{noarch,x86_64}/booth-*
booth.spec:241: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/pacemaker/booth-site
booth.spec:242: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf/lib/booth
booth.spec:243: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf/lib/booth/geo_attr.sh
booth.spec:248: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/booth
booth.spec:249: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/booth/geostore
booth.spec:259: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/booth/sharedrsc
booth.src:241: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/pacemaker/booth-site
booth.src:242: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf/lib/booth
booth.src:243: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf/lib/booth/geo_attr.sh
booth.src:248: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/booth
booth.src:249: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/booth/geostore
booth.src:259: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/booth/sharedrsc
booth-arbitrator.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi ->
mulch, mufti
booth-arbitrator.noarch: W: no-documentation
booth-site.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch,
mufti
booth-site.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
booth-site.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/sbin/geostore /usr/sbin/boothd
booth-test.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch,
mufti
booth-test.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
booth-test.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/booth/tests/src/boothd
/usr/sbin/boothd
booth.x86_64: E: no-binary
booth.x86_64: W: no-documentation
booth-core.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) executables -> executable,
executable s, executrices
booth-core.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables ->
executable, executable s, executrices
booth-core.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch,
mufti
7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 12 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q -l -p
../RPMS/noarch/booth-arbitrator-1.0-1.eb4256a.git.fc25.noarch.rpm 
/usr/lib/systemd/system/booth-arbitrator.service
/usr/lib/systemd/system/booth@.service
$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/booth-arbitrator-1.0-1.eb4256a.git.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort -f |
uniq -c
  1 booth-core = 1.0-1.eb4256a.git.fc25
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1

FIX: booth-arbitrator should package transaction scripts and require systemd
.

# rpm -i --excludedocs 
~test/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/booth-core-1.0-1.eb4256a.git.fc25.x86_64.rpm 
# rpm -ql booth-core
/etc/booth
/usr/sbin/booth
/usr/sbin/booth-keygen
/usr/sbin/boothd
/usr/share/doc/booth/AUTHORS
/usr/share/doc/booth/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/booth/ChangeLog
/usr/share/doc/booth/README
/usr/share/doc/booth/booth.conf.example
/usr/share/man/man8/booth-keygen.8.gz
/usr/share/man/man8/booth.8.gz
/usr/share/man/man8/boothd.8.gz
# LC_ALL=en_US.UTF-8 stat  /usr/share/doc/booth/COPYING
stat: cannot stat '/usr/share/doc/booth/COPYING': No such file or directory

FIX: Packaging COPYING by "%license %{_pkgdocdir}/COPYING" does not work. It
still marks COPYING as a documentation and removes the license file if
documentation is excluded. Try package it by relative path or report a bug
against rpm.

Otherwise file layout, permissions, and dependencies are Ok.

Package builds in F25
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13903771). Ok.

Please correct the `FIX' issues and provide a new spec file.
Resolution: Package NOT approved.

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

[Bug 1310886] Review Request: notary - A server and client for running and interacting with trusted collections

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310886

Miloslav Trmač  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(m...@redhat.com)  |



--- Comment #14 from Miloslav Trmač  ---
(In reply to Jan Chaloupka from comment #13)
> Any update here?

https://github.com/gofed/reviews/pull/4#issuecomment-216554487

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1332605] Review Request: gap-pkg-openmath - Import and export of OpenMath objects for GAP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332605

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1332607




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332607
[Bug 1332607] Review Request: gap-pkg-scscp - Symbolic Computation Software
Composability Protocol in GAP
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332607] Review Request: gap-pkg-scscp - Symbolic Computation Software Composability Protocol in GAP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332607

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1332605




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332605
[Bug 1332605] Review Request: gap-pkg-openmath - Import and export of
OpenMath objects for GAP
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332607] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-scscp - Symbolic Computation Software Composability Protocol in GAP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332607

Bug ID: 1332607
   Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-scscp - Symbolic Computation
Software Composability Protocol in GAP
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-scscp/gap-pkg-scscp.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-scscp/gap-pkg-scscp-2.1.4-1.fc25.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: This package implements the Symbolic Computation Software
Composability Protocol (SCSCP) for the GAP system in accordance with the SCSCP
specification, described at http://www.symbolic-computing.org/scscp, and
OpenMath dictionaries scscp1 and scscp2.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332605] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-openmath - Import and export of OpenMath objects for GAP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332605

Bug ID: 1332605
   Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-openmath - Import and export
of OpenMath objects for GAP
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-openmath/gap-pkg-openmath.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-openmath/gap-pkg-openmath-11.3.1-1.fc25.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: This package provides an OpenMath phrasebook for GAP.  It allows
GAP users to import and export mathematical objects encoded in OpenMath, for
the purpose of exchanging them with other OpenMath-enabled applications.  For
details about the OpenMath encoding, see http://www.openmath.org/.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1329845] Review Request: erlang-eflame - Flame Graph profiler for Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329845

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rbar...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1332206] Review Request: python-pysocks - A Python SOCKS client module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332206



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pysocks-1.5.6-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5fd6be4390

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332206] Review Request: python-pysocks - A Python SOCKS client module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332206



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pysocks-1.5.6-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b9b61b26d3

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332206] Review Request: python-pysocks - A Python SOCKS client module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332206



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pysocks-1.5.6-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a5e7a7d75b

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332206] Review Request: python-pysocks - A Python SOCKS client module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332206

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1332306] Review Request: libcxxabi - Low level support for a standard C++ library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332306



--- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
New Spec: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libcxxabi.spec
New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libcxxabi-3.8.0-1.fc24.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1332307] Review Request: libcxx - C++ standard library targeting C++11

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332307



--- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
New Spec: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libcxx.spec
New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libcxx-3.8.0-2.fc24.src.rpm

Technically, I should have put an epoch here, but since it is SUPER unlikely
anyone besides me and maybe Robin used the previous svn-based package, I left
it out.

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

[Bug 1332307] Review Request: libcxx - C++ standard library targeting C++11

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332307



--- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
(In reply to Robin Lee from comment #1)
> libcxx was released together with LLVM. The versioned tarball can be found
> here:
> http://llvm.org/releases/3.8.0/libcxx-3.8.0.src.tar.xz

Thanks! I'll fix that immediately.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #7 from Till Hofmann  ---
Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/orocos-bfl.spec
SRPM URL:
https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/orocos-bfl-0.8.99-4.20160503gitc1b18e3.fc23.src.rpm

koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13903004

After talking to upstream, I changed the license to 'LGPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ with
exceptions and GPLv2+' according to the license policy [1] and the results of
licensecheck.

I also updated to the latest commit.

[1] http://www.orocos.org/orocos/license

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1328041] Review Request: musicqueue - Music orgainizer and player based on a fork of Guayadeque

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328041



--- Comment #6 from MartinKG  ---
@Antonio Thanks for the review.

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

[Bug 1328041] Review Request: musicqueue - Music orgainizer and player based on a fork of Guayadeque

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328041

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande  ---
Package approved.

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

[Bug 1321455] Review Request: knot-resolver - Caching full DNS Resolver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321455



--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/knot-resolver

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332206] Review Request: python-pysocks - A Python SOCKS client module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332206



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1328041] Review Request: musicqueue - Music orgainizer and player based on a fork of Guayadeque

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328041



--- Comment #4 from MartinKG  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #3)
> 
> = Issues =
> 
> - appdata file is still not ready: note , 
> tags.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData
> 
done
> - Obsoletes: guayadeque <= 0.3.7-14
> Provides: guayadeque = %{version}-%{release}
> 
> This package does not provide 'guayadeque'.
done

Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/musicqueue.spec
SRPM URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/musicqueue-0.4.6-2.gitd2d8824.fc24.src.rpm

%changelog
* Tue May 03 2016 Martin Gansser  -
0.4.6-2.gitd2d8824
- corrected license tag in %%{name}.appdata.xml file
- dropped Provides tag

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1328063] Review Request: wildfly-common - A WildFly common utilities project

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328063

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
wildfly-common-1.1.0-2.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-2016-2915716619

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1319839] Review Request: rocket-depot - GTK+ 3 rdesktop/xfreerdp front-end

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319839

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
rocket-depot-1.0.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-da9caa3d37

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1321902] Review Request: qt5ct - Qt5 Configuration Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321902

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
qt5ct-0.23-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-19c9d2ffbf

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1328041] Review Request: musicqueue - Music orgainizer and player based on a fork of Guayadeque

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328041



--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande  ---
Package Review
==

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

= Issues =

- appdata file is still not ready: note ,  tags.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData

- Obsoletes: guayadeque <= 0.3.7-14
Provides: guayadeque = %{version}-%{release}

This package does not provide 'guayadeque'.

= 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3 or
 later)", "Unknown or generated". 219 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/sagitter/FedoraReview/1328041-musicqueue/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
 contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
 Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in musicqueue
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
 desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane 

[Bug 1331818] Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331818



--- Comment #2 from Dave Love  ---
Oh; I thought blank lines after section headers were elided.  I better modify
rpm-spec-mode to DTRT with paragraphs instead.

You need the license conditional with SCLs.  That's quite relevant in this case
(e.g. bundling a python33 application for el6).

I noticed an obsolete comment about selinux, which I'll remove.

By the way, is there a recommended way to conditionalize use of a github
snapshot v. a proper release?

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
can-utils-20160229git-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 1321902] Review Request: qt5ct - Qt5 Configuration Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321902



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
qt5ct-0.23-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-64b17587f7

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1321902] Review Request: qt5ct - Qt5 Configuration Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321902



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
qt5ct-0.23-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-93684d7e11

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1321902] Review Request: qt5ct - Qt5 Configuration Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321902



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
qt5ct-0.23-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-002673fb41

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1321902] Review Request: qt5ct - Qt5 Configuration Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321902



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
qt5ct-0.23-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-19c9d2ffbf

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1321902] Review Request: qt5ct - Qt5 Configuration Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321902

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1328041] Review Request: musicqueue - Music orgainizer and player based on a fork of Guayadeque

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328041



--- Comment #2 from MartinKG  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> 
> = Issues =
> 
> - Compile involves code released under BSD license (src/hmac) and
>   LGPLv2+ (src/ApeTag.cpp src/ApeTag.h src/TagInfo.cpp src/TagInfo.h).

done
> - Default compiler flags are not honored with 'c++', only with 'cc'.
>   See build log.
> 
done
> - appdata file is not edited according to the Fedora guidelines and points to
>   screenshot from different operating systems.
>   See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData
> 
added patch, if this is ok, i will forward the patch to upstream.
> - Your package does not install icons into one of the subdirectories in
> %{_datadir}/icons/; scriptlets are useless.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?rd=Packaging:
> ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
> 
done

Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/musicqueue.spec
SRPM URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/musicqueue-0.4.6-1.gitd2d8824.fc24.src.rpm

%changelog
* Tue May 03 2016 Martin Gansser  -
0.4.6-1.gitd2d8824
- updat to 0.4.6
- added license BSD and LGPLv2+ to license tag
- added -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS="%%{optflags}"
- added %%{name}-appdata.patch
- dropped scriptlets for installing %%{_datadir}/icons/
- spec file cleanup


rpmlint:
Checking: musicqueue-0.4.6-1.gitd2d8824.fc25.x86_64.rpm
  musicqueue-debuginfo-0.4.6-1.gitd2d8824.fc25.x86_64.rpm
  musicqueue-0.4.6-1.gitd2d8824.fc25.src.rpm
musicqueue.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) orgainizer -> organizer,
organize
musicqueue.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US orgainizer ->
organizer, organize
musicqueue.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US revison -> revision
musicqueue.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US podcasts -> podcast,
pod casts, pod-casts
musicqueue.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary musicqueue
musicqueue.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) orgainizer -> organizer,
organize
musicqueue.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US orgainizer ->
organizer, organize
musicqueue.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US revison -> revision
musicqueue.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US podcasts -> podcast,
pod casts, pod-casts
musicqueue.src:29: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(md5-polstra)
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 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 1318814] Review Request: burp2 - Network backup / restore program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318814



--- Comment #3 from yopito  ---
updated to burp 2.0.38

Spec URL:
https://github.com/yopito/fedora-epel-pkg/blob/master/burp2/SPECS/burp2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/yopito/burp2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00182782-burp2/burp2-2.0.38-1.fc25.src.rpm

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