[Bug 1338553] Review Request: nitroshare - Transfer files from one device to another made extremely simple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1338553 --- Comment #16 from Raphael Groner --- Okay, about qt5-qtsvg see https://github.com/nitroshare/nitroshare-desktop/commit/11c61c7aefea21b6578f67a9349efb3d47fd8bed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1338553] Review Request: nitroshare - Transfer files from one device to another made extremely simple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1338553 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1338553] Review Request: nitroshare - Transfer files from one device to another made extremely simple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1338553 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |ASSIGNED --- Comment #15 from Raphael Groner --- Hi Nathan, I'm happy to can help with development. Thanks for your feedback and the hint to qt5-qtsvg. You do not document it somewhere else, on GitHub, right? If so, please fix. I'll fix the additional dependency soonish, is that a hard requirement or just a recommendation? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1338553] Review Request: nitroshare - Transfer files from one device to another made extremely simple
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1338553 Nathan Osman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nathan.os...@gmail.com --- Comment #14 from Nathan Osman --- Wow - this is exciting! As the author of the program, I'd like to point something important out before it becomes an issue. A lot of the internal graphics that NitroShare uses are SVG files and therefore you will want to add a Requires for "qt5-qtsvg" or some images won't display correctly. The reason it isn't automatically detected as a required package is because the application doesn't directly link against the library but rather loads it as a plugin (through Qt's image API). The next version of NitroShare hopefully won't have this problem since the build script forces the application to link against the library. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1264700] Review Request: ricochet - Anonymous peer-to-peer instant messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264700 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- ricochet-1.1.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6b8be49b4f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1340152] Review Request: python-certbot-apache - Apache plugin to automatically configure certificate via certbot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340152 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- python-certbot-apache-0.8.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b9c62ca7b9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1264700] Review Request: ricochet - Anonymous peer-to-peer instant messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264700 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- ricochet-1.1.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a431412697 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1340152] Review Request: python-certbot-apache - Apache plugin to automatically configure certificate via certbot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340152 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- python-certbot-apache-0.8.0-2.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-2016-21c50cf71b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1305996] Review Request: python-pyuv - A Python module which provides an interface to libuv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305996 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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1305996] Review Request: python-pyuv - A Python module which provides an interface to libuv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305996 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- python-pyuv-1.2.0-7.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-23e017fba4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1323186] Review Request: opa-fmgui - Intel OPA Fabric GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323186 Rick Tierney changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo? --- Comment #45 from Rick Tierney --- Got it, thank you! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1318358] Review Request: copr-dist-git - Copr services for Dist Git server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318358 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- copr-dist-git-0.15-1.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 on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1335278] Review Request: mame - Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335278
--- Comment #8 from Neal Gompa ---
For the source, why not use the tarball URL?
https://github.com/mamedev/%{name}/archive/%{name}0174.tar.gz
Your %setup invocation will look like this:
%setup -n %{name}-%{name}0174
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1281313] Review Request: podget - Podcast aggregator/ downloader optimized for cron
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281313 --- Comment #8 from Filip Szymański --- Spec URL: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/podget/podget.spec SRPM URL: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/podget/podget-0.8.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Update to 0.8.1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1334894] Review Request: python-sync2jira - Sync pagure and github issues to jira, via fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334894 --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean --- Updates to get the el7 build working: Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SPECS/python-sync2jira.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SRPMS/python-sync2jira-0.1-2.fc23.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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1329886] Review Request: dnscrypt-proxy - DNSCrypt client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329886 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- dnscrypt-proxy-1.6.1-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ad1cee380b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1340152] Review Request: python-certbot-apache - Apache plugin to automatically configure certificate via certbot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340152 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- python-certbot-apache-0.8.0-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f8f2926fbd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1264700] Review Request: ricochet - Anonymous peer-to-peer instant messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264700 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- ricochet-1.1.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5d484b97be -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1302504] Review Request: elog - Weblog server and client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302504
--- Comment #3 from Ben Rosser ---
Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/elog/elog.spec
SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/elog/elog-3.1.1-5.fc23.src.rpm
All of the above should be fixed:
- Add license to the elog-client subpackage
- Remove manual cleanup of the buildroot
- Created -doc subpackage for the documentation
- Added systemd snippets for elogd.service
- Changed _usr to _prefix when running make install.
- Manually set LIBS=%{__global_ldflags} in order to pass LDFLAGS to the
makefile
- Changed license tag to GPLv2 and GPLv3+
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1342743] Review Request: crawl - Roguelike dungeon exploration game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342743 --- Comment #2 from Ben Rosser --- Sorry for the delay in getting to this one. Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - There are unit tests available, is it feasible to run them? See here: https://github.com/crawl/crawl/blob/master/crawl-ref/docs/develop/testing.txt It may not be, though, because it seems you need to compile with some debugging options set. - According to licensecheck, there are also sources under the MIT license... some of these aren't used (e.g. MSVC/include/dirent.h), but json.cc and worley.cc seem to get built. So you should add "and MIT" to the license field. crawl-0.18.1/crawl-ref/crawl-tiles/MSVC/include/dirent.h crawl-0.18.1/crawl-ref/crawl-tiles/json.cc crawl-0.18.1/crawl-ref/crawl-tiles/json.h crawl-0.18.1/crawl-ref/crawl-tiles/webserver/static/scripts/contrib/jquery.cookie.js crawl-0.18.1/crawl-ref/crawl-tiles/webserver/static/scripts/contrib/jquery.tablesorter.js crawl-0.18.1/crawl-ref/crawl-tiles/worley.cc crawl-0.18.1/crawl-ref/crawl-tiles/worley.h crawl-0.18.1/crawl-ref/source/MSVC/include/dirent.h crawl-0.18.1/crawl-ref/source/json.cc crawl-0.18.1/crawl-ref/source/json.h crawl-0.18.1/crawl-ref/source/webserver/static/scripts/contrib/jquery.cookie.js crawl-0.18.1/crawl-ref/source/webserver/static/scripts/contrib/jquery.tablesorter.js crawl-0.18.1/crawl-ref/source/worley.cc crawl-0.18.1/crawl-ref/source/worley.h fedora-review automatically generated the following issues, but they appear to both be spurious, so I would ignore them: - 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 (my comment: this isn't actually an issue, the guidelines have been reworded relatively recently to *not* say that you should assume a compiler is installed. So this isn't something I'd worry about). - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in crawl-common-data See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache (my comment: they... are, I don't know what fedora-review is talking about here). = 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)". 1507 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/1342743-crawl/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x512/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x512 These directories *do* have owners, hicolor-icon-theme, so this is not a problem. [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. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Docum
[Bug 1341839] Review Request: python-flask-oidc - An openID Connect support for Flask.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341839 --- Comment #5 from skrze...@gmail.com --- Forgot to mention that i adjusted the name of the python_provides since i noticed it was coming out as "python3-flask_oidc" when i wanted "python3-flask-oidc" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1341839] Review Request: python-flask-oidc - An openID Connect support for Flask.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341839 --- Comment #4 from skrze...@gmail.com --- updated the sources for each should be the same but here it is again Spec URL: https://github.com/skrzepto/flask-oidc/raw/rpm-packaging/python-flask-oidc.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/skrzepto/flask-oidc/raw/rpm-packaging/python-flask-oidc-1.0.1-1.fc23.src.rpm new koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14452949 git diff: https://github.com/skrzepto/flask-oidc/commit/61e914488e93dbcd4d1020151890bdea98582c8e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1331818] Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331818
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Orion Poplawski ---
Looks really good. Minor nits:
I would do:
# For non-releases
%global commit 5440d34a550aa155dc9245a3f8f9d7f09948695d
and then comment out like:
#global commit 5440d34a550aa155dc9245a3f8f9d7f09948695d
when not using.
Git snapshots should have "git" in the release string:
Release: 4%{?shortcommit:.git%shortcommit}%{?dist}
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
personally, I would keep the version name of the downloaded git snapshots, but
that's preference.
Looks like upstream has fixed the rpmlint setgroups issue.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/export/home/orion/redhat/singularity-2.0/1331818-singularity/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 7 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]: Package uses hardened build flags if required to.
Note: suid files: sexec
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[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]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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
[Bug 1344410] Review Request: hoedown - Standards compliant, fast, secure markdown processing library in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344410 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||915043 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915043 [Bug 915043] Package rust (lang) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1344410] Review Request: hoedown - Standards compliant, fast, secure markdown processing library in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344410 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||hoedown -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1315852] Review Request: gstreamermm1 - C++ wrapper for GStreamer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315852 --- Comment #6 from Bruno Wolff III --- Thanks for help you can provide for lordsawar. I think it is too late to do this upgrade in f24 unless perhaps you add a compatibility package. (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Stable_Releases) It looks like what happened on the check is that on x86_64 the requirement is on the 64 bit version and doing a repoquery without that limitation does show a hit. If you check: repoquery --whatrequires 'libgstreamer-0.10.so.0()(64bit)' which I suspect will also get hit by this change, you get several other packages besides lordsawar that you'll probably want to check. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1298019] Review Request: nvme-cli - NVMe management command line interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298019 Hanns-Joachim Uhl changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1344730 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1343063] Review Request: artemis - Java high performance, clustered, asynchronous messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343063 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312963 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Great! Everything looks fine now, 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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1343063] Review Request: artemis - Java high performance, clustered, asynchronous messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343063 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2016-06-10 11:03:34 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1343063] Review Request: artemis - Java high performance, clustered, asynchronous messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343063 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #1) > 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 1024000 bytes in 89 files. > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation > - I don't like this XPath expression: > %pom_xpath_remove pom:configuration artemis-server-osgi > It's too general, it will remove any configuration of any plugin that > might appear there in the future. Please make it more specific. > - Can you put a comment about the patch above it? > - There's > artemis-commons/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/utils/Base64.java > file under public domain > - "Evil MIT" under > /artemis-core-client/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/utils/json > You'll need to remove this code and replace with an alternative. You should > also inform upstream that they bundle non-free code. Upstream is no interested to replace json.org with other alternative, already contacted for other projects e.g. tika and solr. For they the json.org license is not a problem > - You should use cmake macro. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Cmake > - artemis-native/README contains only build instructions, it shouldn't > be installed Too much work for replace json.org with an alternative. Closed this bug. Thanks for your help i am not aware of that of json bundle in the code -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1340269] Review Request: keepassx0 - Cross-platform password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340269 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla --- Thanks. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1338054#c13 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1310294] Review Request: sqlcipher - An SQLite extension that provides 256 bit AES encryption of database files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310294 --- Comment #13 from Raphael Groner --- Are you interested in a review swap? See comment #11. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1340417] Review Request: perl-RDF-TriN3 - Notation 3 extensions for RDF::Trine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340417 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-RDF-TriN3-0.206-1.fc25 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2016-06-10 10:16:16 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1340349] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-TrustMetaYml - Trusts META.yml list of dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340349 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Module-Install-TrustMe ||taYml-0.003-1.fc25 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2016-06-10 10:11:54 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1305996] Review Request: python-pyuv - A Python module which provides an interface to libuv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305996 --- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-pyuv -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1343518] Review Request: cassandra-cpp-driver - DataStax C/ C++ Driver for Apache Cassandra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343518 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rcol...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet --- Update to 2.4.1 Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/a5e31786aca89ffd01d86853fee5194e0545f575/cassandra-cpp-driver/cassandra-cpp-driver.spec Srpm: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/cassandra-cpp-driver-2.4.1-1.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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1127967] Review Request: python-releases - A Sphinx extension for changelog manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127967 Jeremy Cline changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jer...@jcline.org --- Comment #13 from Jeremy Cline --- Hi Eduardo, I'm interested in seeing twine in Fedora as well. Is it possible to move forward with this package review? If not, per the policy for stalled package reviews[0], I'd like to close this request so I can carry on the work. Thanks! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews#Submitter_not_responding -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1340417] Review Request: perl-RDF-TriN3 - Notation 3 extensions for RDF::Trine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340417 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-RDF-TriN3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1340349] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-TrustMetaYml - Trusts META.yml list of dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340349 --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Module-Install-TrustMetaYml -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1343734] Review Request: liboobs - Wrapping library to the System Tools Backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343734 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter --- If you want a distro *policy* decision, FESCo is probably the better body to query, FPC is more about technical-only packaging 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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1344249] Review Request: libtaskotron - Taskotron Support Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344249
--- Comment #2 from Martin Krizek ---
Thanks for the review, Adam!
Updated version:
Spec URL: https://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/specs/libtaskotron.spec
SRPM URL:
https://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/srpms/libtaskotron-0.4.13-3.fc23.src.rpm
One thing I didn't change though is that I didn't add noreplace for
%{_sysconfdir}/taskotron/yumrepoinfo.conf. We want this particular file to be
updated with the recent version. Let me know if that's ok, thanks!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1343734] Review Request: liboobs - Wrapping library to the System Tools Backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343734 --- Comment #5 from Raphael Groner --- Hi mulhern, thanks again for your interest. This lib depends on stb, could you do the review there, too and first? Otherwise, we need to keep with copr builds cause of the broken dependency till packages reach into testing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1343734] Review Request: liboobs - Wrapping library to the System Tools Backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343734 mulhern changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|amulh...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1315852] Review Request: gstreamermm1 - C++ wrapper for GStreamer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315852 --- Comment #5 from hgue...@redhat.com --- Only gstreamer-devel and subtitleeditor appeared when using dnf repoquery. Build was pushed only in rawhide but I'll provide you a patch for lordsawar quite soon. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=6269 As for F24, I'll send an heads-up on the devel list before we change anything. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1343063] Review Request: artemis - Java high performance, clustered, asynchronous messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343063
Michael Simacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||msima...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msima...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Michael Simacek ---
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 1024000 bytes in 89 files.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
- I don't like this XPath expression:
%pom_xpath_remove pom:configuration artemis-server-osgi
It's too general, it will remove any configuration of any plugin that
might appear there in the future. Please make it more specific.
- Can you put a comment about the patch above it?
- There's
artemis-commons/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/utils/Base64.java
file under public domain
- "Evil MIT" under
/artemis-core-client/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/utils/json
You'll need to remove this code and replace with an alternative. You should
also inform upstream that they bundle non-free code.
- You should use cmake macro.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Cmake
- artemis-native/README contains only build instructions, it shouldn't
be installed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
"Public domain Apache (v2.0) MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright*
Public domain", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 528 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/msimacek/reviews/1343063-artemis/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[!]: 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.
[
[Bug 1344673] Review Request: perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare - Syntax keywords for Test2::Tools::Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344673 --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar --- This package is needed for perl-Trace-Mask built-time tests that use Test2::Bundle::Spec module that was removed from perl-Test2-Workflow. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1340417] Review Request: perl-RDF-TriN3 - Notation 3 extensions for RDF::Trine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340417 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar --- That's not a typo. Both formulae and formulas are correct plural forms. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1344673] New: Review Request: perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare - Syntax keywords for Test2::Tools::Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344673 Bug ID: 1344673 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare - Syntax keywords for Test2::Tools::Spec Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare/perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare/perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare-0.03-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: This adds keywords for all the exports provided by Test2::Tools::Spec Perl module. These keywords add sugar-coating to the Spec tools. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1340417] Review Request: perl-RDF-TriN3 - Notation 3 extensions for RDF::Trine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340417 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Source file is ok Summary is ok License is ok Description is ok URL and Source0 are ok All tests passed BuildRequires are ok $ rpm -qp --requires perl-RDF-TriN3-0.206-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0) 1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.10.0 1 perl(Data::UUID) 1 perl(Encode) 1 perl(Log::Log4perl) 1 perl(Module::Runtime) 1 perl(RDF::NS::Trine) 1 perl(RDF::Trine) >= 0.135 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Error) 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Namespace) 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Node) 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Node::Formula) 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Node::Literal) 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Parser) 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Parser::Notation3) 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Parser::ShorthandRDF) 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Pattern) 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Serializer::NTriples) 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Serializer::Notation3) 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Statement) 1 perl(Scalar::Util) 1 perl(URI) 1 perl(URI::Escape) 1 perl(base) 1 perl(namespace::clean) 1 perl(parent) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(utf8) 1 perl(warnings) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -qp --provides perl-RDF-TriN3-0.206-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(RDF::TriN3) = 0.206 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Node::Formula) = 0.206 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Parser::Notation3) = 0.206 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Parser::ShorthandRDF) = 0.206 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Serializer::Notation3) = 0.206 1 perl(RDF::TrineX::Parser::Pretdsl) = 0.206 1 perl-RDF-TriN3 = 0.206-1.fc25 Binary provides are Ok. $ rpmlint ./perl-RDF-TriN3* perl-RDF-TriN3.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized perl-RDF-TriN3.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formulae -> formula, formulate, formulas perl-RDF-TriN3.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Trine -> Trina, Taine, Urine perl-RDF-TriN3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Trine -> Trina, Taine, Urine perl-RDF-TriN3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized perl-RDF-TriN3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formulae -> formula, formulate, formulas 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint is ok TODO: There is typo in description "formulae" Otherwise package is good Approved $ rpm -qp --provides perl-RDF-TriN3-0.206-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(RDF::TriN3) = 0.206 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Node::Formula) = 0.206 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Parser::Notation3) = 0.206 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Parser::ShorthandRDF) = 0.206 1 perl(RDF::Trine::Serializer::Notation3) = 0.206 1 perl(RDF::TrineX::Parser::Pretdsl) = 0.206 1 perl-RDF-TriN3 = 0.206-1.fc25 Binary provides are Ok. $ rpmlint ./perl-RDF-TriN3* perl-RDF-TriN3.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized perl-RDF-TriN3.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formulae -> formula, formulate, formulas perl-RDF-TriN3.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Trine -> Trina, Taine, Urine perl-RDF-TriN3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Trine -> Trina, Taine, Urine perl-RDF-TriN3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized perl-RDF-TriN3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formulae -> formula, formulate, formulas 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint is ok TODO: There is typo in description "formulae" Otherwise package is good 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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1340269] Review Request: keepassx0 - Cross-platform password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340269 --- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely --- Not a big deal though, I can definitely live with keepassx0, thanks for resolving the situation nicely. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1340269] Review Request: keepassx0 - Cross-platform password manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340269 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jwak...@redhat.com --- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely --- keypassx upstream refers to the 0.4.4 branch as "keepass 1", see e.g. the menu option "Import KeePass 1 database" and https://www.keepassx.org/faq/#q_2 Wouldn't 'keepassx1' be a better name for the binary? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1329340] Review Request: python-cradox - Python libraries for the Ceph librados library with use cython instead of ctypes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329340 Javier Peña changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(jp...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #5 from Javier Peña --- I have updated the SPEC and SRPM, including another fix (/usr/lib and /usr/src were not using macros). SPEC: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-cradox/python-cradox.spec SRPM: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-cradox/python-cradox-1.1.8-2.fc25.src.rpm Koji scratch build at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14448018 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1310294] Review Request: sqlcipher - An SQLite extension that provides 256 bit AES encryption of database files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310294 --- Comment #12 from Siddharth Sharma --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #10) > What's your FAS account? Please use the same e-mail address and name for > your Bugzilla account. Otherwise, people have trouble to identify you. FAS: siddharths -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1340417] Review Request: perl-RDF-TriN3 - Notation 3 extensions for RDF::Trine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340417 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jples...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1344231] Review Request: multilib-rpm-config - packaging helpers for multilib issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344231 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts --- For epel, I can just add a dependency to epel-rpm-macros. You're welcome to file a ticket there. And many releases currently have %rpmmacrodir, but I don't believe that I pushed it to F23. It was my intention to do so but I'm not sure I ever got around to it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1340349] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-TrustMetaYml - Trusts META.yml list of dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340349 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Source file is ok Summary is ok License is ok Description is ok URL and Source0 are ok All tests passed BuildRequires are ok $ rpm -qp --requires perl-Module-Install-TrustMetaYml-0.003-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0) 1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.5.0 1 perl(Module::Install::Base) 1 perl(YAML::Tiny) 1 perl(base) 1 perl(strict) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -qp --provides perl-Module-Install-TrustMetaYml-0.003-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(Module::Install::TrustMetaYml) = 0.003 1 perl-Module-Install-TrustMetaYml = 0.003-1.fc25 Binary provides are Ok. $ rpmlint ./perl-Module-Install-TrustMetaYml* 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint is ok The package looks good. 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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
