[Bug 1333916] Review Request: gap-pkg-polenta - Polycyclic presentations for matrix groups

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333916

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |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 1333916] Review Request: gap-pkg-polenta - Polycyclic presentations for matrix groups

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333916



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
gap-pkg-polenta-1.3.6-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a51c5e78f9

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #14 from Alan Conway  ---
Package review below. There is one minor issue: the LICENSE file should be
marked %license in the spec file, not %doc.

One other minor thing: I think the requirement for npm 2.0.0 might be
needlessly high. I'm on fedora 23 with npm-1.3.6-8.fc23.noarch, things seemed
to work. Unless there's a definite reason for putting the dependency so high,
it might be worth lowering.

Otherwise I consider this a PASS.

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
 (v2.0)". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
 in /home/aconway/fedora/review/nodejs-rhea/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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 133120 bytes in 38 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]: 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.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, 

[Bug 1333235] Review Request: gap-pkg-crisp - Computing subgroups of finite soluble groups

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333235



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
gap-pkg-crisp-1.4.4-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f0a6d8542e

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

[Bug 1333235] Review Request: gap-pkg-crisp - Computing subgroups of finite soluble groups

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333235

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |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 1335965] Review Request: py3c - Guide and compatibility macros for porting extensions to Python 3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335965

Miro Hrončok  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok  ---
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 1307228] Review Request: dynafed- The Dynamic Federations system allows to expose via HTTP and WebDAV a very fast dynamic name space

[bugzilla]

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

Adrien Devresse  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+
   |needinfo?(ade...@gmail.com) |



--- Comment #12 from Adrien Devresse  ---
Hi,


Looks good to me.

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 1336837] Review Request: starksoft-aspen - Security and cryptography library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336837

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard|NotReady|



--- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner  ---
Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/starksoft-aspen.spec
SRPM URL:
https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/starksoft-aspen-0-0.1.20150814git773cb70.fc24.1.src.rpm
Description: Security and cryptography library
Fedora Account System Username: raphgro

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14176309

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

[Bug 1337434] Review Request: flatpak - Application deployment framework for desktop apps

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ngomp...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
You're missing an extra Provides, as you need to provide both one with %_isa
and one without.

Provides:   xdg-app-devel = %{version}-%{release}

Provides:   xdg-app = %{version}-%{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 1333525] Review Request: python-xunitparse - Read JUnit/ XUnit XML files and map them to Python objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333525

John Dulaney  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #6 from John Dulaney  ---
I'll grab this for a formal 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 1333916] Review Request: gap-pkg-polenta - Polycyclic presentations for matrix groups

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333916



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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
Bug 1332722 depends on bug 1332721, which changed state.

Bug 1332721 Summary: Review Request: kf5-libkleo - KDE PIM cryptographic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332721

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-05-19 15:27:52



--- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter  ---
imported, waiting to do builds until rest of stack is reviewed/ready

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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
Bug 1332720 depends on bug 1332721, which changed state.

Bug 1332721 Summary: Review Request: kf5-libkleo - KDE PIM cryptographic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332721

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-05-19 15:24:54



--- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter  ---
imported, waiting to do builds until the rest of the stack (or at least those
that Obsoletes: kdepim-libs are ready)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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
Bug 1332720 depends on bug 1332256, which changed state.

Bug 1332256 Summary: Review Request: kf5-grantleetheme - KDE PIM library for 
Grantlee template system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332256

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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



--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/kf5-grantleetheme

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



--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/kf5-libkleo

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

[Bug 1333235] Review Request: gap-pkg-crisp - Computing subgroups of finite soluble groups

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333235



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

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

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #11 from Nikos Roussos  ---
New spec update to latest upstream
SPEC: https://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/specs/seafile.spec
SRPM: https://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/srpms/seafile-5.1.2-1.fc23.src.rpm

Most issues are resolved. I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things
regarding the shared libraries.

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

[Bug 1336141] Review Request: lxqt-config-randr - GUI interface to RandR extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336141



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
lxqt-config-randr-0.1.2-2.20140202git6ada849.el7 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-9cc35acfd8

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 #6 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
A few scratch builds later, this is the build matrix:
clang gcc
EL6  Yes   No
EL7  NoYes
F22  NoYes
F23  NoYes
F24  Yes   Yes
F25  Yes   Yes

Since we really do want to use clang here when we can, I've conditionalized
accordingly. I also do not care about EL5 at this point. :)

New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libcxx-3.8.0-3.fc24.src.rpm
New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libcxx.spec

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #5 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
It is uglier than that. Removing _FORTIFY_SOURCE makes it build a bit farther,
but clang 3.7.0 (f23) just crashes all over itself.

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



--- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter  ---
pkgdb request submitted

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

[Bug 1329188] Review Request: nvml - Non-Volatile Memory Library

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #13 from Eric Sandeen  ---
Thanks, done.

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

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1332254
   ||(kf5-calendarsupport)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332254
[Bug 1332254] Review Request: kf5-calendarsupport - KDE PIM library for
calendar and even handling
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1332719 (kdepim-apps-lib)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332719
[Bug 1332719] Review Request: kdepim-apps-lib - KDE PIM common libraries
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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



--- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter  ---
pkgdb request submitted

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

[Bug 1329188] Review Request: nvml - Non-Volatile Memory Library

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #12 from Dan Williams  ---
(In reply to Eric Sandeen from comment #11)
> I can help with sponsorship - krzysztof what is your username in FAS?

I'll answer since he's in the Central European time zone: krzycz

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

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter  ---
naming: ok

sources: ok
910bc749dd4684b5935ecabf2f53fb54  libkleo-16.04.0.tar.xz

URL: Not valid
1.  Should fix URL to (something like):
URL: https://quickgit.kde.org/?p=%{framework}.git

2.  Should tighten cmake(KF5...) related BuildRequires

macros: ok

scriptlets: ok


looks good APPROVED, can address non-blocking SHOULD items after import

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

[Bug 1312963] Review Request: glibc-arm-linux-gnu - Cross Compiled GNU C Library targeted at arm-linux-gnu

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312963



--- Comment #7 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
Thanks for the patch!

Rawhide Scratch Build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14173755
New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/glibc-arm-linux-gnu-2.23-3.fc24.src.rpm
New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/glibc-arm-linux-gnu.spec

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

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

[bugzilla]

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

John Florian  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jflor...@doubledog.org



--- Comment #46 from John Florian  ---
FYI, the link to the Copr repo is broken on this page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Chromium

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

[Bug 1336141] Review Request: lxqt-config-randr - GUI interface to RandR extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336141

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 1336141] Review Request: lxqt-config-randr - GUI interface to RandR extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336141



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
lxqt-config-randr-0.1.2-2.20140202git6ada849.fc23 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-2076d36cf0

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

[Bug 1336141] Review Request: lxqt-config-randr - GUI interface to RandR extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336141



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
lxqt-config-randr-0.1.2-2.20140202git6ada849.fc24 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-98a237cad5

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

[Bug 1335965] Review Request: py3c - Guide and compatibility macros for porting extensions to Python 3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335965



--- Comment #5 from Petr Viktorin  ---
I've linked fonts from the docs to the theme. Thanks for catching that!
Whoever has disk space to read HTML docs isn't likely to complain about python3
being dragged in.

I disagree with the %{name}-static%{_isa} Provides. The package doesn't install
anything architecture-specific. I see is nothing in the Packaging Guidelines
(Packaging Static Libraries section) that suggests the arch tag is useful here
and nothing that hints it should be added. I don't see a different reason to
add the tag.
If the arch tag would be useful, I think you should open a FPC ticket – this
would affect all header-only packages and so it really should be clarified.



Spec:
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/encukou/c42efc9ec2acabe113fd55d8eba8fbe7/raw/70958e74d3b714c71681f104f8d2a596629dafd2/py3c.spec
SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pviktori/py3c/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00288596-py3c/py3c-0.6-2.fc25.src.rpm
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14173086

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

[Bug 1329188] Review Request: nvml - Non-Volatile Memory Library

[bugzilla]

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

Eric Sandeen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||esand...@redhat.com



--- Comment #11 from Eric Sandeen  ---
I can help with sponsorship - krzysztof what is your username in FAS?

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

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu
  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 1332722] Review Request: kleopatra - KDE certificate manager and unified crypto GUI

[bugzilla]

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

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu
  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 1332717] Review Request: kf5-incidenceeditor - KDE PIM library for creating and editing calendar incidences

[bugzilla]

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

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu
  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 1332715] Review Request: kf5-kdgantt2 - KDE PIM library for rendering Gantt graphs

[bugzilla]

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

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu
  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 1332721] Review Request: kf5-libkleo - KDE PIM cryptographic library

[bugzilla]

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

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu
  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 1332719] Review Request: kdepim-apps-lib - KDE PIM common libraries

[bugzilla]

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

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu
  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 1327254] Review Request: golang-github-eapache-queue - Fast golang queue using ring-buffer

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-eapache-queue-1.0.2-0.1.gitded5959.el7 has been pushed to the
Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note
of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7a50412263

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

[Bug 1336217] Review Request: golang-github-dustin-go-humanize - Formatters for units to human friendly sizes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336217



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-dustin-go-humanize-0-0.1.git8929fe9.el7 has been pushed to the
Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note
of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7f45091aba

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

[Bug 1336218] Review Request: golang-github-cockroachdb-cmux - Connection mux for serving different services on the same port

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336218



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-cockroachdb-cmux-0-0.1.git112f050.el7 has been pushed to the
Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note
of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-6bc12eaed2

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

[Bug 1336217] Review Request: golang-github-dustin-go-humanize - Formatters for units to human friendly sizes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336217



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-dustin-go-humanize-0-0.1.git8929fe9.el6 has been pushed to the
Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note
of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-ee33f7bb68

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

[Bug 1336218] Review Request: golang-github-cockroachdb-cmux - Connection mux for serving different services on the same port

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336218



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-cockroachdb-cmux-0-0.1.git112f050.el6 has been pushed to the
Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note
of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-b31aaf3739

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



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-eapache-queue-1.0.2-0.1.gitded5959.el6 has been pushed to the
Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note
of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-349f6f5d16

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

[Bug 1312963] Review Request: glibc-arm-linux-gnu - Cross Compiled GNU C Library targeted at arm-linux-gnu

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312963



--- Comment #6 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
Created attachment 1159546
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1159546=edit
patch to fix compilation with gcc-6.1.1

It builds with this patch.

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

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #10 from Julien Enselme  ---
> these are already installed both on buildroot and on runtime since they are 
> pulled as dependencies of other dependencies (ccnet and libsearpc).

I think you should put them anyway: one of the dependency may change its
dependencies and one of these packages may then not be pulled. Furthermore, I
think it is better to make dependencies explicit in a package.

> Installing mysql-devel will bring mysql on runtime, which seems a bit 
> overkill for the purposes of running the desktop client.

Indeed, I think you can skip that one without any problem.

> This causes the build to fail, since some upstream tests fail. I'll open a 
> bug ipstream, but maybe we shouldn't block the review for this.

The %check section is a should item, it won't block the review. Opening a bug
upstream sounds like a good idea.

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
libisofs1-1.4.2-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

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

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-05-19 12:17:10



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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
libisofs1-1.4.2-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1335965] Review Request: py3c - Guide and compatibility macros for porting extensions to Python 3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335965



--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Package Review
==

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

Issues
==

Package contains fonts in /usr/share/doc/py3c/_static/fonts/
You have multiple options:
  * rm them and let the docs look a bit different
  * ln -s them from python3-sphinx_rtd_theme and require that package
* downside is that doc would than bring along python3
  * require font(fontawesome) and font(lato), ln -s the fonts if needed

I still think that the static virtual provide shown on wiki in guidelines is
just an example, because this is what is provided now on 64bit:

py3c-devel:
py3c-devel
py3c-devel(x86-64)
py3c-static

And I think py3c-static(x86-64) should be there as well.

Provides:   %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}
Provides:   %{name}-static%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}


I'm not sure if this would not generate two identical provides on 32bit, so
maybe do:

Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}
%{?_isa:Provides: %{name}-static%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}}

= 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.
[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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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:
[!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires 

[Bug 1333916] Review Request: gap-pkg-polenta - Polycyclic presentations for matrix groups

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333916

James Hogarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from James Hogarth  ---
Package Review
==

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

Issues
===
  * Documentation in /usr (%{_gap_dir})
  - This is standard for GAP packages as it's used for runtime online docs
  * Assuming functional based on %check passing

= 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: "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/james/workspace/fedora-scm/1333916
 -gap-pkg-polenta/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[!]: 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:
[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not 

[Bug 1333235] Review Request: gap-pkg-crisp - Computing subgroups of finite soluble groups

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333235

James Hogarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from James Hogarth  ---
LICENSE was the only blocker in the review

Thank you for fixing - review 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 1336141] Review Request: lxqt-config-randr - GUI interface to RandR extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336141

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugreports.qt.io/br
   ||owse/QTBUG-29333



--- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner  ---
Generated upstream bug URL is wrong, this works:
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-29333

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

[Bug 1337120] Review Request: Gyazo - Fast screen capture tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337120



--- Comment #19 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich from comment #18)
> > > Not issue but, what is the reason for debug_package variable in spec?
> > 
> > Without it, the rpm build fail trying to generate debuginfo.
> 
> Debuginfo? In noarch package? Both f23 and f25 packages build fine without
> it.
> 

Thats right. He was probably building as arch at first, then he swaped to
noarch, and left the debuginof.

Patric, may you fix also this?

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

[Bug 1337120] Review Request: Gyazo - Fast screen capture tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337120



--- Comment #18 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich  ---
> > Not issue but, what is the reason for debug_package variable in spec?
> 
> Without it, the rpm build fail trying to generate debuginfo.

Debuginfo? In noarch package? Both f23 and f25 packages build fine without it.

> Anyway - I would like to skip it from review - but may be good practice for
> fresh packager :)

Sure.

> Dimitrij, if you have nay mor eissues, please feel free to scream! Thank you
> all!

No more hits from me.

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

[Bug 1335965] Review Request: py3c - Guide and compatibility macros for porting extensions to Python 3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335965

Petr Viktorin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(pviktori@redhat.c |
   |om) |



--- Comment #3 from Petr Viktorin  ---
I turned on the parallel make. It doesn't make a difference, since there's
nothing for Make to parallelize (either in build or tests).

The Provides: line was taken directly from the guidelines for header-only
libraries [0]. These guidelines also explicitly say that header-only packages
must not be marked noarch. (The tests run in buildArch in Koji.)

As for the docs, I want them in %{_pkgdocdir} (/usr/share/doc/py3c) rather than
%{_docdir} (/usr/share/doc/py3c-doc). So I'll keep copying htem to %_pkgdocdir.
I do own the directory now, though.

The other issues should be fixed now, thanks for being thorough!
I've also updated to version 0.6, which fixes an issue with permissions on the
installed headers.

[0]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Header_Only_Libraries


Updated package:

Spec:
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/encukou/c42efc9ec2acabe113fd55d8eba8fbe7/raw/9eb90f3d90bee409218685281500c29b00e0b1ed/py3c.spec
SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pviktori/py3c/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00287694-py3c/py3c-0.6-1.fc25.src.rpm
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14169646

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

[Bug 1337120] Review Request: Gyazo - Fast screen capture tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337120



--- Comment #17 from jiri vanek  ---
You have left one nasty rpm build warning in:
 File listed twice: /usr/share/ruby/gyazo/gyazo.rb

Remove this file from %files, it is included automaticay, when you added the
/usr/share/ruby/gyazo/ directory.

After that I'm ok with the package. 

Dimitrij, if you have nay mor eissues, please feel free to scream! Thank you
all!

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

[Bug 1337120] Review Request: Gyazo - Fast screen capture tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337120



--- Comment #16 from jiri vanek  ---
Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/gyazo/v3/gyazo.spec
SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/gyazo/v3/gyazo-1.2-1.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 1337120] Review Request: Gyazo - Fast screen capture tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337120



--- Comment #15 from Patrik Opravil  ---
All fixed. New version on Drive.

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

[Bug 1337120] Review Request: Gyazo - Fast screen capture tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337120



--- Comment #14 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #13)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #10)
> > Please fix above 3 issues, oonce done, I will rerun the review with ruby
> > plugin on. Thanx!
> 
> Ruby:
> [x]: Test suite should not be run by rake.
> [x]: Test suite of the library should be run.
> 
> Ruby plugin did not added new issues.

and

Ruby:
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi)

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

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671



--- Comment #9 from Nikos Roussos  ---
Trying to address the issues pointed out in the review. Some
comments/questions.

> Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> According to http://manual.seafile.com/build_seafile/server.html, the 
> following libraries are required to build seafile:
> - libevent-devel
> - libarchive-devel
> - libmysqlclient-dev (not able to find in fedora though)
> - jansson-devel

With the exception of mysqlclient, these are already installed both on
buildroot and on runtime since they are pulled as dependencies of other
dependencies (ccnet and libsearpc). Installing mysql-devel will bring mysql on
runtime, which seems a bit overkill for the purposes of running the desktop
client.

> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

This causes the build to fail, since some upstream tests fail. I'll open a bug
ipstream, but maybe we shouldn't block the review for this.

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

[Bug 1337120] Review Request: Gyazo - Fast screen capture tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337120



--- Comment #13 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #10)
> Please fix above 3 issues, oonce done, I will rerun the review with ruby
> plugin on. Thanx!

Ruby:
[x]: Test suite should not be run by rake.
[x]: Test suite of the library should be run.

Ruby plugin did not added new issues.

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

[Bug 1337120] Review Request: Gyazo - Fast screen capture tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337120



--- Comment #12 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich from comment #11)
> There are two more issues.
> 
> 1. There is a %{_bindir} macro for /usr/bin. There are several entries in
> spec for it to be modified.

Thanx! Crap. How could I overlook it:(

> 2. %attr macro is not applicable to symlinks. First /usr/bin/gyazo in %files
> section should go without it.

I believe the attr macro on symlink is reaction to the rpm lint warning. Anyway
 - it od not harm.
> 
> Not issue but, what is the reason for debug_package variable in spec?

Without it, the rpm build fail trying to generate debuginfo.
> 
> And one little suggestion.
> Could you patch sript to move out all ~/.* stuff into may be
> ~/.config/gyazo/* ?

hm. On one side yes, on second... It *big* patch. As .config is not always the
location. XDG_CONFIG_DIR have to point to this, or if XDG_CONFIG_DIR variable
is empty, then ~/.config is used.

Considering that this config file is nearly undocumented, and it seems that if
usable - then only to avoid imagemagic... I think the patch is not worthy.

Anyway - I would like to skip it from review - but may be good practice for
fresh packager :)

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

[Bug 1337120] Review Request: Gyazo - Fast screen capture tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337120

Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||kryz...@ispms.ru



--- Comment #11 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich  ---
There are two more issues.

1. There is a %{_bindir} macro for /usr/bin. There are several entries in spec
for it to be modified.
2. %attr macro is not applicable to symlinks. First /usr/bin/gyazo in %files
section should go without it.

Not issue but, what is the reason for debug_package variable in spec?

And one little suggestion.
Could you patch sript to move out all ~/.* stuff into may be ~/.config/gyazo/*
?

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

[Bug 1337120] Review Request: Gyazo - Fast screen capture tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337120



--- Comment #10 from jiri vanek  ---
Please fix above 3 issues, oonce done, I will rerun the review with ruby plugin
on. Thanx!

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

[Bug 1337120] Review Request: Gyazo - Fast screen capture tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337120



--- Comment #9 from jiri vanek  ---

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
[0] Dist tag is missing . You need %{?dist} to add to release:
-Release: 1
+Release: 1%{?dist}
[1] spec is missing in files -  %{_datadir}/ruby/%{name}/
[2] there is bug in f24 and gnome shell on real HW -  I di d not reproduced in
on virtual machine or any older feodra or on any ther 
[4] rpmlint:
Checking: gyazo-1.2-1.noarch.rpm
  gyazo-1.2-1.src.rpm
gyazo.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary
/usr/share/applications/gyazo.desktop gyazo
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

I dont understand  why Maybe it dont like executable /usr/bin/link ->to->
shebanged executbale script with env?

= 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". 13 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/jvanek/1337120-gyazo/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/ruby/gyazo
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/ruby/gyazo
[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.
[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 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 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]: 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).
[!]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: 

[Bug 1335988] Review Request: giac - Computer Algebra System, Symbolic calculus, Geometry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335988



--- Comment #15 from Antonio Trande  ---
Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/giac/giac.spec
SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/giac/giac-1.2.2-3.45.fc23.src.rpm

- Source tarball repacked without non-free docs
- Licenses combined in GPLv3+ only

Koji build on rawhide: 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14166723

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

[Bug 1337120] Review Request: Gyazo - Fast screen capture tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337120



--- Comment #8 from jiri vanek  ---
Thanx! 
Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/gyazo/v2/gyazo.spec
SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/gyazo/v2/gyazo-1.2-1.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 1337120] Review Request: Gyazo - Fast screen capture tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337120



--- Comment #7 from Patrik Opravil  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #6)
> desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/usr/share/applications/gyazo.desktop
> 
> belongs to %check section (if it works for you)

Hi jiri!

All problems fixed and files reuploaded on google drive.

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

[Bug 1337120] Review Request: Gyazo - Fast screen capture tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337120

Patrik Opravil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1337434] Review Request: flatpak - Application deployment framework for desktop apps

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434



--- Comment #1 from David King  ---
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14165505

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

[Bug 1337434] New: Review Request: flatpak - Application deployment framework for desktop apps

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337434

Bug ID: 1337434
   Summary: Review Request: flatpak - Application deployment
framework for desktop apps
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: amigad...@amigadave.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/flatpak.spec
SRPM URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/flatpak-0.6.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: flatpak is a system for building, distributing and running
sandboxed desktop applications on Linux. See
https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps for more information.
Fedora Account System Username: amigadave

This is a rename (and re-review request as per the package rename policy) of
the xdg-app package (which I an the POC for).

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

[Bug 1301286] Review Request: firejail - A SUID sandbox program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301286

Dhiru Kholia  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dkho...@redhat.com



--- Comment #4 from Dhiru Kholia  ---
Firejail packages from
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/heikoada/firejail/ run fine on Fedora
24.

Also see https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/issues/399 page.

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

[Bug 1297550] Review Request: golang-github-jmespath-go-jmespath - Golang implementation of JMESPath

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297550



--- Comment #6 from Jan Chaloupka  ---
Here is the update spec file if needed:

Spec URL:
https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-jmespath-go-jmespath/golang-github-jmespath-go-jmespath.spec

SRPM URL:
https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-jmespath-go-jmespath/golang-github-jmespath-go-jmespath-0-0.1.git0b12d6b.fc20.src.rpm

Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14163948

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

[Bug 1297550] Review Request: golang-github-jmespath-go-jmespath - Golang implementation of JMESPath

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297550

Jan Chaloupka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||e...@logic.net
  Flags||needinfo?(e...@logic.net)



--- Comment #5 from Jan Chaloupka  ---
Hi Ed,

any progress on this? This package is requirement for new cadvisor. I can
regenerated the spec file if you don't have time for it.

Jan

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