[Bug 1329424] Review Request: gimp-save-for-web - Save for web plug-in for GIMP

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimp-save-for-web-0.29.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL
6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-c6796ac81b

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

[Bug 1329424] Review Request: gimp-save-for-web - Save for web plug-in for GIMP

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimp-save-for-web-0.29.3-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-21962bfad2

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

[Bug 1329424] Review Request: gimp-save-for-web - Save for web plug-in for GIMP

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1329424] Review Request: gimp-save-for-web - Save for web plug-in for GIMP

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimp-save-for-web-0.29.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL
7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-5dba261371

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

[Bug 1329424] Review Request: gimp-save-for-web - Save for web plug-in for GIMP

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimp-save-for-web-0.29.3-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-fdcdd36113

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

[Bug 1329424] Review Request: gimp-save-for-web - Save for web plug-in for GIMP

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimp-save-for-web-0.29.3-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d4149b3671

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

[Bug 1315816] Review Request: python-pecan-notario - JSON validation for Pecan with Notario

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315816

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-05-11 21:32:23



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

[Bug 1315816] Review Request: python-pecan-notario - JSON validation for Pecan with Notario

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315816



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pecan-notario-0.0.3-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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 1327939] Review Request: python-k8sclient - Python API for Kubernetes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327939

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-05-11 21:32:17



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

[Bug 1327939] Review Request: python-k8sclient - Python API for Kubernetes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327939



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-k8sclient-0.1.0-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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 1329844] Review Request: erlang-clique - CLI Framework for Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329844

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-05-11 21:30:57



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-05-11 21:30:35



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
gap-pkg-openmath-11.3.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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 1329844] Review Request: erlang-clique - CLI Framework for Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329844



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
erlang-clique-0.3.5-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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 1332607] Review Request: gap-pkg-scscp - Symbolic Computation Software Composability Protocol in GAP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332607
Bug 1332607 depends on bug 1332605, which changed state.

Bug 1332605 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-openmath - Import and export of 
OpenMath objects for GAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332605

   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 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-05-11 21:29:55



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

[Bug 1333741] Review Request: php-nikic-fast-route - Fast implementation of a regular expression based router

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333741

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-05-11 21:29:19



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
orocos-bfl-0.8.99-5.20160503gitc1b18e3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24
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 1333741] Review Request: php-nikic-fast-route - Fast implementation of a regular expression based router

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333741



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-nikic-fast-route-1.0.0-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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 1300219] Review Request: python-ripe-atlas-cousteau - Python wrapper for RIPE Atlas API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300219



--- Comment #6 from Paul Wouters  ---
NOTE: the site-packages/ripe package directory is also owned by other ripe
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 1300217] Review Request: python-ripe-atlas-sagan - A parsing library for RIPE Atlas measurement results

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300217

Paul Wouters  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jv+fed...@fcelda.cz
  Flags||fedora-review-
   ||needinfo?(jv+fedora@fcelda.
   ||cz)



--- Comment #4 from Paul Wouters  ---
NEEDS FIXING

 PAUL: There is an issue with various python-*-ripe* packages all
 owning the site-packages/ripe directory.

 PAUL: There seems to be generated python pyc version mismatching
 between python2/python3 ?


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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1300217
 -python-ripe-atlas-sagan/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages,
 /usr/lib/python3.5
 PAUL: There is an issue with various python-*-ripe* packages all
 owning the site-packages/ripe
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
 packages, /usr/lib/python3.5
 PAUL: There is an issue with various python-*-ripe* packages all
 owning the site-packages/ripe
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ripe(python2-ripe-atlas-cousteau), /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/ripe/atlas(python2-ripe-atlas-cousteau)
[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.
[!]: Package does not generate any conflict.
  PAUL: conflict in owning site-packages/ripe directory
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 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]: 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 

[Bug 1332764] Review Request: gap-pkg-factint - Advanced methods for factoring integers

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #2 from Jerry James  ---
Thank you for the review.

(In reply to James Hogarth from comment #1)
>   * License not included in tarball
> - Checking the tarball reveals licensing details in factint.tex
> - Please request upstream issue an update with a specific license file
> in the tarball

Okay, will do.

>   * The PackageInfo specifies GAPDoc as required
> - GAPDoc-latex a BR but no GAPDoc as a require

Same as the gap-pkg-scscp review: GAPDoc is so fundamental that gap-core pulls
it in, else GAP refuses to start.  The GAPDoc-latex BR pulls in all of the
LaTeX packages needed to actually build the documentation.

>   * Some non utf-8 files found, please include these in your iconv in %prep
>   * Since you do use iconv please include it in your BR to prevent issues
> should it be dropped
> from the generic build environment in future.

Actually, I believe this is not the right thing to do.  The first line of
doc/factint.xml is:



So the encoding is specified.  If you look at the build log for this package,
you will see a line that looks like this:

#I  #I recoding input from ISO-8859-1 to UTF-8 . . .

That line comes from GAPDoc (/usr/lib/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/lib/XMLParser.gi).  GAPDoc
has its own builtin encoding converter, so no need for iconv.  The end result
is HTML pages that are UTF-8 encoded, but we keep the source xml files around
because GAPDoc wants them for some functions it provides.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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

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



--- Comment #2 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to James Hogarth from comment #1)
>   * License field in spec
> - The GPL file included only seems to specify GPL2 not GPL2+
> - Please fix this in the spec or clarify where the + comes from

In doc/manual.xml, the  section includes the "any later version"
language.

> - Incorrect fsf address found in license - please report upstream

Will do.  I notice that doc/manual.xml uses a modern style web address instead
of a street address, so the old address in GPL is probably an oversight.

>   * Documentation in %{_gap_dir} which is /usr/lib/gap
> - As per comments on bz1332605#c2 docs are here for runtime
> documentation browser
> - Accepted as per previous packages, perhaps draft gap guildelines to
> FPC useful?

Yes, I should definitely take that step.  I have not done so yet because I've
been kind of feeling my way into a set of best practices for GAP packages.  I'm
still not sure I've arrived there, but I've certainly built up a set of common
practices that should be codified.  I will take a stab at this and submit to
FPC.

>   * The PackageInfo.g fiel (and upstream website) specifies GAPDoc as a
> requirement
> - GAPDoc-latex is a BR but no GAPDoc in requires?

GAP itself won't even start unless GAPDoc is installed, so it is required by
gap-core.  On the other hand, the big pile of LaTeX packages required by
GAPDoc-latex is not needed for normal day-to-day use of GAP, which is why they
have been split out into the GAPDoc-latex subpackage.

>   * There are %config files in %{_gap_dir}
> - Are these files marked as %config meant to be user editable?
> - If they are can GAP packages be built with them in /etc ?
> - If they need to be in /usr/lib/gap/%{pkgname} can that be a symlink to
> etc?
> - Seems to highlight the need for a GAP packaging draft guideline.

Yes, they are meant to be user editable.  They are read from init.g when the
package is loaded.  I'm not sure what the best option is here.  Putting them
into /etc implies that there is a single system-wide configuration that all
users will want, which is not necessarily the case.  Those files really ought
to live under $HOME somewhere.

So ... how about we put them in /etc, with either a patch to init.g to point to
their new home or a symlink from /usr/lib/gap/%{pkgname}, and then have init.g
also attempt to read files of the same names from, say, $HOME/.gap, with no
error if those files don't exist?  That will require a README to explain the
situation to Fedora users.  The idea is that users can override the system-wide
settings that way.

Honestly, I'm not sure that a system-wide setting even makes sense.  Maybe we
should dispense with the /etc versions, tell users that we're providing example
config files, and they need to create the $HOME versions before this package
will function at all.

You know what?  Debian has this packaged already.  Just for laughs, I'm going
to see what they did.

>   * Assuming functional based on %check passing
>   * Latest version is hard to check
> - The upstream URL shows 2.1.2, the download on that page it 2.1.0 and
> this is 2.1.4
> - How can we verify the latest version accurately?

It appears that this author considers the GAP package repository at
http://www.gap-system.org/Packages/packages.html to be the primary download
site, and only updates the supposed package home page once in awhile.  I will
monitor that site for updates to this package.  (This is the case with many of
the GAP packages, by the way.  The authors update their home pages only
sporadically, but always upload the latest tarball to gap-system.org, because
that is where GAP users look for new package versions.)

Thank you 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 1300219] Review Request: python-ripe-atlas-cousteau - Python wrapper for RIPE Atlas API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300219



--- Comment #5 from Paul Wouters  ---
One minor nit: Please do not use macros in the URL: entry. These entries should
be updated for each package anywya, and it prevents someone from looking in the
spec file and right-clicking to go to the site.

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

[Bug 1334451] Re-Review Request: certbot - A free, automated certificate authority client, renaming letsencrypt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334451



--- Comment #5 from Jerry James  ---
Okay.  Since I went through the review process already anyway, I'll post what
I've got, just in case it is helpful.

Issues
==
1. The patch has no explanatory comment (see
  
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment).
   This is a SHOULD, not a MUST.

2. The main package Obsoletes is correct ("Obsoletes: letsencrypt < 0.6.0"),
   but the subpackage uses "<=" instead of "<", which is not correct.  See the
   self-obsoletion rpmlint warning.

3. Does this package manage its own log files?  See the
   log-files-without-logrotate rpmlint warning.


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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 256 files have
 unknown license.
[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).
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-certbot
 That's okay; the dependency goes the other direction.
[?]: Package functions as described.

[Bug 1300219] Review Request: python-ripe-atlas-cousteau - Python wrapper for RIPE Atlas API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300219

Paul Wouters  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |VERIFIED
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Paul Wouters  ---

PASSED

I might have explicitely made the ripe sitearch directory owned by this
package, but the glob seems to drag it in fine.

I am wondering about these:

python3-ripe-atlas-cousteau.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/ripe/atlas/cousteau/__pycache__/source.cpython-35.opt-1.pyc

I assume it is some artifact that rpmlint isn't fully aware of yet?

Paul

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



= 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1300219
 -python-ripe-atlas-cousteau/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages,
 /usr/lib/python3.5, /usr/share/licenses
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
 packages, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib/python3.5
 PAUL: should it not own the site-packages/ripe directories?
 PAUL: at least one of the packages should own it
[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.
[-]: 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 40960 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 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 

[Bug 1334451] Re-Review Request: certbot - A free, automated certificate authority client, renaming letsencrypt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334451



--- Comment #4 from James Hogarth  ---
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #3)
> I will take this review.

Thanks Jerry

As an FYI following the conference call I had with the CertBot guys this
evening there's a couple of changes I need to make to the spec.

These will be made in the next 24 hours.

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

[Bug 1334451] Re-Review Request: certbot - A free, automated certificate authority client, renaming letsencrypt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334451

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from Jerry James  ---
I will take 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 1333962] Review Request: metamath - Construct mathematics from basic axioms

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333962



--- Comment #2 from Jerry James  ---
Thanks for informal review, Michael.  I have fixed the unowned directory
problem, and also added the manual.  Since the PDF is nearly 1 MB in size, I
have given it its own subpackage.

This also raises a bit of a license hassle.  There is no %license file in the
-doc subpackage, because the LICENSE.TXT file describes GPLv2, which applies to
the binary and one of the theories.  At the top of the LaTeX source for the
manual is a notice that the file is covered by CC0; i.e., public domain in
effect.  There is no file describing CC0, probably since it has a very short
description, and I see no point in including the GPLv2 LICENSE.TXT in this
subpackage.

New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/metamath/metamath.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/metamath/metamath-0.125-2.fc25.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1335288] New: Review Request: python3-pyudev - python binding for libudev (EPEL7/python3 only)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335288

Bug ID: 1335288
   Summary: Review Request: python3-pyudev - python binding for
libudev (EPEL7/python3 only)
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: amulh...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://mulhern.fedorapeople.org/python3-pyudev/python3-pyudev.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mulhern.fedorapeople.org/python3-pyudev/python3-pyudev-0.20.0-1.el7.src.rpm
Description: python binding for libudev (EPEL7/python3 only)
Fedora Account System Username: mulhern

Koji build complete:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14013101

This is a minimal build that builds only the core pyudev package only for
python 3. It is intended to be used only for branch EPEL 7. It should not
conflict with RHEL 7 python-pyudev package, which builds only for python2. The
already existing python-pyudev package is expected to continue to handle all
non-EPEL 7 pyudev packaging matters.

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

[Bug 1335278] New: Review Request: mame - Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335278

Bug ID: 1335278
   Summary: Review Request: mame - Multiple Arcade Machine
Emulator
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: beleg...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/mame/mame.spec
SRPM URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/mame/mame-0.173-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: with the latest changes to Fedora policy on emulators and to mame
licensing, I believe mame should now be acceptable in Fedora. Mame RPM has been
residing in RPM Fusion for the last few years, and in dribble.co.uk prior to
that.
Fedora Account System Username: belegdol

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

[Bug 1329850] Review Request: erlang-riak_ensemble - Multi-Paxos framework in Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329850

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 1329850] Review Request: erlang-riak_ensemble - Multi-Paxos framework in Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329850



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
erlang-riak_ensemble-2.1.2-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c86f9486e1

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

[Bug 1329850] Review Request: erlang-riak_ensemble - Multi-Paxos framework in Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329850



--- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/erlang-riak_ensemble

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #3 from Tomohiro Ichikawa  ---
This ticket is left untouched.
This package is unwanted?

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

[Bug 1323214] Review Request: git-evtag - Strong GPG verification of git tags

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323214



--- Comment #5 from Colin Walters  ---
For anyone who wants precompiled RPMs until this review completes, the COPR
link: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/walters/git-evtag/

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

[Bug 1329850] Review Request: erlang-riak_ensemble - Multi-Paxos framework in Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329850



--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
Thanks, Randy!

I'll address all your comments shortly, except one - %check section. I'm going
to fix tests soon (in a couple of weeks, maybe month), so I'd like to keep them
for a while. This is my TODO list item :)

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

[Bug 1329850] Review Request: erlang-riak_ensemble - Multi-Paxos framework in Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329850

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Randy Barlow  ---
Nice work! I put a few !'s below, but the only one that's in the MUST section
is that there should be a -debuginfo package.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/rbarlow/review/1329850-erlang-riak_ensemble/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.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
 rbarlow: Please remove the debug_package global at the top.
[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 409600 bytes in 12 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

= 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.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
 rbarlow: There's now a 2.1.3 version, so you might want to update to
 that.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link 

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #13 from Alan Conway  ---
Agreed, I can't see why it is considered a devel package except maybe
over-enthusiastic pattern matching on "debug".

(In reply to Irina Boverman from comment #6)
> If I use nodejs-rhea-devel package name instead of nodejs-rhea, these is no
> longer this error:
> nodejs-rhea.noarch: E: devel-dependency nodejs-debug
> 
> But I think nodejs-rhea is correct, as it provides run time dependencies for
> client applications.

Stick with nodejs-rhea and ignore the devel-dependency error.

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

[Bug 1264715] Review Request: flacon - Audio File Encoder

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264715



--- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/flacon

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

[Bug 1329850] Review Request: erlang-riak_ensemble - Multi-Paxos framework in Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329850

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Randy Barlow  ---
This sounds neat!

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

[Bug 1326875] Review Request: keepassx2 - Cross-platform password manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326875



--- Comment #6 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
(In reply to srakitnican from comment #5)
> If I understood correctly, fedora would get 2.0 by default from now on, and
> no 0.4 version. I am ok with that.

That's my understanding as well.


I will review this with epel-7 and post again. The minor issues that cropped up
should be the same in epel as well but I'll check anyway.

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

[Bug 1332344] Review Request: phototonic - Image viewer and organizer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332344



--- Comment #12 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
I have now sponsored you into the packagers group. You should be able to use
the fedorapeople space now
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org) if you so
desire.

If you do not mind, you can add me as a co-maintainer for this package. Please
feel free me to shoot me an email if you need some help.



Welcome to Fedora and to the packagers group!

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

[Bug 1332344] Review Request: phototonic - Image viewer and organizer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332344

Mukundan Ragavan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #11 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
(In reply to Michael Cullen from comment #10)
> I only see one issue - the desktop database one. The other thing on the
> issues list actually goes against the guidance in
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B
> 
> did I miss one?

That's right. There was only one (apparently, I cannot count! :)). 

gcc-c++ is not an issue as I have mentioned.

From my comment - 

"
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2


---> This is fine.
"


> 
> 
> Spec URL: https://cullen-online.com/rpm-review/phototonic.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://cullen-online.com/rpm-review/phototonic-1.7.20-2.fc24.src.rpm



I see that everything is fixed. 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 1331952] Review Request: openstack-mistral-ui - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard

[bugzilla]

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

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||mru...@redhat.com



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

[Bug 1264715] Review Request: flacon - Audio File Encoder

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264715



--- Comment #15 from Ilya Gradina  ---
(In reply to Jiri Eischmann from comment #14)
> I marked the fedora review as done, you should be in the group of packagers
> AFAIK, so I think you can go ahead and request a new package.

ok, thx! I made request a new package.

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

[Bug 1264715] Review Request: flacon - Audio File Encoder

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264715



--- Comment #14 from Jiri Eischmann  ---
I marked the fedora review as done, you should be in the group of packagers
AFAIK, so I think you can go ahead and request a new package.

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

[Bug 1264715] Review Request: flacon - Audio File Encoder

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264715



--- Comment #13 from Ilya Gradina  ---
(In reply to Jiri Eischmann from comment #12)
> I'm OK with the package now.

I can now add request new package on "https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/; ?

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

[Bug 1329849] Review Request: erlang-riak_dt - Convergent replicated data types in Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329849



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
erlang-riak_dt-2.1.2-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-db0cffddf3

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

[Bug 1329849] Review Request: erlang-riak_dt - Convergent replicated data types in Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329849

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 1335078] New: Review Request: perl-Template-Plugin-HTML-Strip - HTML::Strip filter for Template Toolkit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335078

Bug ID: 1335078
   Summary: Review Request: perl-Template-Plugin-HTML-Strip -
HTML::Strip filter for Template Toolkit
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: emman...@seyman.fr
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Template-Plugin-HTML-Strip/perl-Template-Plugin-HTML-Strip.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Template-Plugin-HTML-Strip/perl-Template-Plugin-HTML-Strip-0.01-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description:
This module is a Template Toolkit dynamic filter, which uses HTML::Strip to
remove markup (primarily HTML, but also SGML, XML, etc) from filtered
content during template processing.

Fedora Account System Username: eseyman
Rpmlint Output: 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

This is one of several new packages needed to bring Pearlbee to Fedora.

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

[Bug 1335076] New: Review Request: perl-String-Dirify - String::Dirify Perl module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335076

Bug ID: 1335076
   Summary: Review Request: perl-String-Dirify - String::Dirify
Perl module
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: emman...@seyman.fr
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-String-Dirify/perl-String-Dirify.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-String-Dirify/perl-String-Dirify-1.03-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description:
This module allows you to convert a string (possibly containing high ASCII
characters, and even HTML) into another, lower-cased, string which can be
used as a directory name.

Fedora Account System Username: eseyman
Rpmlint Output: 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

This is one of several new packages needed to bring Pearlbee to Fedora.

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

[Bug 1334059] Review Request: openclonk - Multiplayer action, tactics and skill game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334059

MartinKG  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #16 from MartinKG  ---
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 1334059] Review Request: openclonk - Multiplayer action, tactics and skill game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334059



--- Comment #15 from MartinKG  ---
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 4792320 bytes in 1260 files.
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation


= 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "zlib/libpng",
 "BSL", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "ISC". 1304
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS/openclonk/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: 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]: 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.
[-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 openclonk
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in openclonk
[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 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 (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: 

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #38 from Han Frederic  ---
Thank you! If it helps here is a current update.

http://webusers.imj-prg.fr/~frederic.han/fedora/SPECS/giac.spec

http://webusers.imj-prg.fr/~frederic.han/fedora/SRPMS/giac-1.2.2-1.fc22.src.rpm

The testsuite is very sentitive and needed a small patch. (I took the one I
have done for the sage spkg)

I have done something with the upstream naming scheme (1.2.2-43) but you may
find a better solution...

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

[Bug 1334611] Review request: python-cvss CVSS2/3 library with interactive calculator for Python v2 & v3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334611

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch



--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter  ---
Just a couple of comments:

- The Group: tag is unnecessary.
- Why not use releases (https://github.com/skontar/cvss/releases) instead of
commits?
- Please remove the travis section from the description.
- Consider to build a py2 and a py3 package.
- Please follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python

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

[Bug 1264715] Review Request: flacon - Audio File Encoder

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264715

Jiri Eischmann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #12 from Jiri Eischmann  ---
I'm OK with the package now.

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

[Bug 1327511] Review Request: php-justinrainbow-json-schema - A library to validate a json schema

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327511



--- Comment #4 from Remi Collet  ---
Updated to 2.0.3:
https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/b635fa51e160708ddda3406bfc73823b9e063934

Spec:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/b635fa51e160708ddda3406bfc73823b9e063934/php/php-justinrainbow-json-schema/php-justinrainbow-json-schema.spec
Srpm:
http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-justinrainbow-json-schema-2.0.3-1.remi.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 1281313] Review Request: podget - Podcast aggregator/downloader optimized for cron

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281313



--- Comment #6 from Filip Szymański  ---
Spec URL: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/podget/podget.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/podget/podget-0.7.14-1.fc23.src.rpm

Update to 0.7.14

-- 
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 1334451] Re-Review Request: certbot - A free, automated certificate authority client, renaming letsencrypt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334451



--- Comment #2 from James Hogarth  ---
The pyOpenSSL 0.16 that fixes the python-cryptography api change is in place in
f24/rawhide now.

Here's the rawhide build completing in koji:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14005701

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

[Bug 1327424] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-reflection - Reflection library to do Static Analysis for PHP Projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327424



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-phpdocumentor-reflection-1.0.7-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-809705d469

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

[Bug 1327424] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-reflection - Reflection library to do Static Analysis for PHP Projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327424



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-phpdocumentor-reflection-1.0.7-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-a6cb7e35c8

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

[Bug 1327424] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-reflection - Reflection library to do Static Analysis for PHP Projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327424

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 1327424] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-reflection - Reflection library to do Static Analysis for PHP Projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327424



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-phpdocumentor-reflection-1.0.7-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c95d3fb968

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