[Bug 1167175] Review Request: CheMPS2 - spin-adapted DMRG for ab initio quantum chemistry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167175



--- Comment #2 from Matt Chan  ---
Hi Susi,

Here's the srpm on copr. Ignore the el5/6 builds please. We will try to figure
out what happened. It's not immediately obvious to me but there's something
going with the old versions of cmake/hdf5?

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/talcite/CheMPS2/build/341404/

Thanks!
Matt

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 - Logbook system to manage notes through a Web interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302504

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
elog-3.1.1-5.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-323afbeadb

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1336833] Review Request: python-resultsdb_api - API to resultsdb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336833



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-resultsdb_api-1.2.2-3.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 on the CC 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 1263905] Review Request: ghc-old-time - Time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263905

Jens Petersen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen  ---
Built for f25-ghc:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=772631

Thanks again

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1263904] Review Request: ghc-old-locale - Locale library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263904

Jens Petersen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen  ---
Built in f25-ghc:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=772630

this will move to rawhide once the rebuilding work in f25-ghc completed.

Thank you again!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1346018] Review Request: jmake - Make utility for large Java projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346018

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||punto...@libero.it



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo  ---
hi
you must set:
javac.source, javac.target, default.javac.source and default.javac.target to
1.6
and you must sure which javadoc.encoding and source.encoding is set to UTF-8
see nbproject/build-impl.xml



e.g. 
ant -DVERSION=%{srcversion} \
 -Ddefault.javac.source=1.6 \
 -Ddefault.javac.target=1.6 \
 ...

(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #1)
> jmake.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Provides mvn(org.pantsbuild:jmake:pom:) =
> %VERSION% %VERSION
> jmake.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jmake
> 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
> 
> - No idea how to set a value for %VERSION%.
sed -i "s/%VERSION%/%version/" jmake.pom ?
and
sed -i "s/%TAG%/%commit0/" jmake.pom

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1294523] Review Request: purple-skypeweb - Adds support for Skype to libpurple-based clients

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523



--- Comment #6 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
> This is ok, but please ask upstream to add all proper headers. Otherwise, 
> since this is a subset of the whole (obsolete) skype4pidgin tarball, just 
> package in the tarball only the required folders. You can use this guideline 
> if you want to proceed that way:

Yes, I'll add script which will repackage tarball.

> Just remove the "theme" at the end of this line in the files section:

Done.

> Please add some notes to the patch. I don't see why the code in the patch 
> should be removed, if there is an explanation for it, please add it to the 
> SPEC file.

This patch is no longer needed.

> There's a typo in the comment, 's/inplemented/implemented/g'.

Fixed. 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 1342743] Review Request: crawl - Roguelike dungeon exploration game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342743

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Ben Rosser  ---
I see; well, as the test suite cannot be run, the package is APPROVED.

Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "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.
[x]: 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
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in crawl-common-data
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 890880 bytes in 32 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
 desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Avoid 

[Bug 1310368] review request: rubygem-jekyll - A simple, blog aware, static site generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310368

John Heidemann  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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1341283] Review Request: php-lukasreschke-id3parser - ID3 parser library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341283



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-lukasreschke-id3parser-0.0.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1344231] Review Request: multilib-rpm-config - packaging helpers for multilib issues

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344231



--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/multilib-rpm-config

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1341815] Review Request: python-zope-testrunner - Zope testrunner script

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341815



--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-zope-testrunner

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344231



--- Comment #9 from Pavel Raiskup  ---
Thanks for the review!  SCM request submitted in pkgdb.

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

[Bug 1341283] Review Request: php-lukasreschke-id3parser - ID3 parser library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341283

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-06-13 16:55:41



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1327511] Review Request: php-justinrainbow-json-schema - A library to validate a json schema

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-06-13 16:56:06



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1332267] Review Request: golang-github-heketi-tests - Test utility functions for golang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332267

Olivier Lemasle  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||o.lema...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Olivier Lemasle  ---
This package seems ok to me.

NB: I'm not yet a maintainer, as I haven't been sponsored, so this comment is
unofficial.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src,
 /usr/share/gocode, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com
[?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/heketi(heketi-devel)
[?]: %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.
[?]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: 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]: 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).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: 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]: %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, 

[Bug 1302504] Review Request: elog - Logbook system to manage notes through a Web interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302504



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
elog-3.1.1-5.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b8a53f56ab

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1336773] Review Request: python-Pympler - Measure, monitor and analyze the memory behavior of Python objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336773

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from William Moreno  ---
Please note than some tests are failing in f23 and f24:

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/williamjmorenor/fedora-review-test/build/341248/

Any way I am fine with this packaging so I will aprove 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 1346060] New: Review Request: python-pintail-asciidoc - Use AsciiDoc pages in Pintail sites

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346060

Bug ID: 1346060
   Summary: Review Request: python-pintail-asciidoc  - Use
AsciiDoc pages in Pintail sites
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: dhanvi...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/dhanvi/pintail-asciidoc/python-pintail-asciidoc.git/tree/pintail-asciidoc.spec

SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dhanvi/pintail-asciidoc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00341230-python-pintail-asciidoc/python-pintail-asciidoc-0.0.20160527git97c5e94-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description: Use AsciiDoc pages in Pintail sites

Fedora Account System Username: dhanvi

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1341815] Review Request: python-zope-testrunner - Zope testrunner script

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341815

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from William Moreno  ---
Looks good, package aproved.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1305502] Review Request: python-adal - ADAL for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305502

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-06-13 15:44:10



--- Comment #6 from William Moreno  ---
Looks like the package was build in koji:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/search?type=package=glob=python-adal

But there is not any update in bodhi:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-adal

Please send the updates to bodhi. Any way I will close thie bug as fixed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1260845] Review Request: sshguard - Protect hosts from brute-force attacks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1260845



--- Comment #17 from William Moreno  ---
This package is still failing to build:

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/williamjmorenor/fedora-review-test/build/341237/

checking for gawk... (cached) gawk
checking for x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu-gcc... no
checking for gcc... gcc
checking whether the C compiler works... yes
checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
checking for suffix of executables... 
checking whether we are cross compiling... configure: error: in
`/builddir/build/BUILD/sshguard-1.6.1':
configure: error: cannot run C compiled programs.
If you meant to cross compile, use `--host'.
See `config.log' for more details
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.z7oE7A (%build)
RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.z7oE7A (%build)
Child return code was: 1
EXCEPTION: [Error()]
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line
88, in trace
result = func(*args, **kw)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py", line 551, in do
raise exception.Error("Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s" %
(command,), child.returncode)
mockbuild.exception.Error: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # bash --login -c /usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps
/builddir/build/SPECS/sshguard.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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1302504] Review Request: elog - Logbook system to manage notes through a Web interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302504



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
elog-3.1.1-5.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d432cbcf44

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 - Logbook system to manage notes through a Web interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302504

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1302504] Review Request: elog - Logbook system to manage notes through a Web interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302504



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
elog-3.1.1-5.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-323afbeadb

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1297852] Review Request: python-azure-sdk - Microsoft Azure SDK for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297852

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(pikachu.2014@gmai
   ||l.com)



--- Comment #4 from William Moreno  ---
ping

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1346038] Review Request: python-blivet1 - python2/ blivet-1.x compatibility package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346038



--- Comment #1 from David Lehman  ---
A bit more information:
python-blivet-2.x is python3-only. This package contains python-blivet-1.20
packaged for python2 only.

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

[Bug 1206888] Review Request: golang-github-spf13-jWalterWeatherman - Seamless printing to the terminal (stdout) and logging to a io.Writer (file) that’s as easy to use as fmt.Println.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206888

Olivier Lemasle  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||o.lema...@gmail.com



--- Comment #3 from Olivier Lemasle  ---
Isn't it a duplicate from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270061 ?

golang-github-spf13-jWalterWeatherman is now in Fedora repositories.
I guess this ticket should be closed.

NB: I'm not yet a maintainer, as I haven't been sponsored, so this comment is
unofficial.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1341642] Review Request: cryptlib - Security library and toolkit for encryption and authentication services

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341642



--- Comment #9 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
These Provides shouldn't be necessary:

Provides: libcl.so.3 = 3.4.3
Provides: cryptlib_py.so

For the first one, it is autogenerated in a standard way that Fedora/EPEL
packages use:
[spot@localhost SPECS]$ rpm -qp
/home/spot/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cryptlib-3.4.3-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm --provides
cryptlib = 3.4.3-4.fc24
cryptlib(x86-64) = 3.4.3-4.fc24
libcl.so.3()(64bit)

For the python2 subpackage, nothing should depend on "cryptlib_py.so", so that
Provides isn't useful.

* The %files entry for the -test subpackage is wrong. You're getting everything
from the java, perl, and python packages too and duplicating it.

rpmlint output:

cryptlib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts,
crypt o
cryptlib.src:114: W: macro-in-comment %package
cryptlib.src:118: W: macro-in-comment %description
cryptlib.src:246: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
cryptlib.src:246: W: macro-in-comment %{cryptlibdir}
cryptlib.src:297: W: macro-in-comment %files
cryptlib.src: W: invalid-url Source5: perlfiles.tar.gz
cryptlib.src: W: invalid-url Source4: cryptlib-tests.tar.gz
cryptlib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt,
crypts, crypt o
cryptlib.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid
/usr/lib64/libcl.so.3.4.3
cryptlib-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
cryptlib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cryptlib-test.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/cryptlib/stestlib
cryptlib-test.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cryptlib-test.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/cryptlib/test/filename.h
cryptlib-test.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/cryptlib/c/cryptlib-test.c
cryptlib-test.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/cryptlib/test/test.h
cryptlib-java.x86_64: E: devel-dependency cryptlib-devel
cryptlib-java.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
cryptlib-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cryptlib-javadoc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/javadoc/cryptlib/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
cryptlib-python2.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cryptlib_py.so
cryptlib-python2.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cryptlib-perl.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/perl5/auto/PerlCryptLib/PerlCryptLib.so
cryptlib-perl.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man3
cryptlib-perl.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/perl5/auto/PerlCryptLib/PerlCryptLib.so 555
cryptlib-perl.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/lib64/perl5/auto/PerlCryptLib/.packlist
cryptlib-perl.x86_64: W: perl-temp-file
/usr/lib64/perl5/auto/PerlCryptLib/.packlist

To sum that up:
* You should add URLs for sources, unless they are not available anywhere
online, and if that's the case, you need to add a comment describing how to
construct that source tarball.
* Are the source files useful in the -test subpackage?
* Please fix the end-of-line encoding in the MANIFEST.MF
* Delete the perl5 hidden files (they're not useful post-build)
* Please remove macros from comments or replace "%" with "%%" to ensure they're
not accidentally invoked. This is happening because you have the python3 bits
commented out. An easier way to do it is to wrap those sections like this:

%if 0
%package python3
Summary:  Cryptlib bindings for python3
Group:System Environment/Libraries
...
%endif

If you want to be fancy, you can do:

%global with_python3 0

%if %{with_python3}
%package python3
Summary:  Cryptlib bindings for python3
Group:System Environment/Libraries
...
%endif

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1346038] New: Review Request: python-blivet1 - python2/ blivet-1.x compatibility package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346038

Bug ID: 1346038
   Summary: Review Request: python-blivet1 - python2/blivet-1.x
compatibility package
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: dleh...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://dlehman.fedorapeople.org/python-blivet1/python-blivet1.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dlehman.fedorapeople.org/python-blivet1/python-blivet1-1.20.4-0.1.20160613171442.fc25.src.rpm
Description: The python-blivet package is a python module for examining and
modifying storage configuration. This package provides the old 1.20 API for use
with python2.
Fedora Account System Username: dlehman

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1341310] Review Request: kubernetes-ansible - Playbook and set of roles for seting up a Kubernetes cluster onto machines

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341310



--- Comment #1 from Jan Chaloupka  ---
@gofedbot 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 1346018] Review Request: jmake - Make utility for large Java projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346018



--- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner  ---
Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/jmake/jmake.spec
SRPM URL:
https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/jmake/jmake-1.3.8.8-1.20150716git7761ee3.fc24.src.rpm

- fixed version
- try to fix rpmlint:

$ rpmlint SPECS/jmake.spec
SRPMS/jmake-1.3.8.8-1.20150716git7761ee3.fc24.src.rpm
RPMS/noarch/jmake-1.3.8.8-1.20150716git7761ee3.fc24.noarch.rpm
RPMS/noarch/jmake-javadoc-1.3.8.8-1.20150716git7761ee3.fc24.noarch.rpm 
jmake.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Provides mvn(org.pantsbuild:jmake:pom:) =
%VERSION% %VERSION
jmake.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jmake
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

- No idea how to set a value for %VERSION%.
- Help output is not compatible with help2man.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342743



--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande  ---
Spec URL:
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/sagitter/crawl/crawl.git/plain/crawl.spec

SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/crawl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00341180-crawl/crawl-0.18.1-5.fc25.src.rpm

- Remove unused/bundled files
- License clarification
- Compile debugging files and make Crawl tests

Note.

'crawl -test' looks not playable at build time because the DATADIR directory is
set for run-time use only.
Also, I reported a presumed bug:
https://crawl.develz.org/mantis/view.php?id=10499

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1321687] Review Request: qpid-java - Apache Qpid Java Components

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321687

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||projects...@smart.ms



--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner  ---
Review swap with bug #1346018?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1346018] Review Request: jmake - Make utility for large Java projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346018

Raphael Groner  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 1335278] Review Request: mame - Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #9 from Julian Sikorski  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7)
> (In reply to Julian Sikorski from comment #6)
> > bgfx is not made to be linked to dynamically as per [1].
> > http-parser got dropped from upstream git and will be removed in 0.175
> > lsqlite3 got dropped from upstream git and will be removed in 0.175
> > luafilesystem and lua-zlib have no fedora packages ATM and are very tiny
> > luv on anything but rawhide is too old
> > lzma is not made to be linked dynamically
> > softfloat is not made to be linked dynamically
> > 
> > [1] http://forums.bannister.org/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat=104437
> 
> Please, leave a comment about Provides lines.

Will do.

> 
> Just another issue: locale files are not managed by %find_lang.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files

This will not work unfortunately, I tried. %find_lang looks for .mo files in
%{_datadir}/locale, whereas mame puts them into %{_datadir}/%{name}.


(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #8)
> 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

The tar.gz is 33 MiB bigger than the .exe (102 vs 69). Having said that, the
Source URL needs to be updated to point to github indeed.

New packages have been uploaded:
Spec URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/mame/mame.spec
SRPM URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/mame/mame-0.174-2.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 1346015] Review Request: scudcloud - Non official desktop client for Slack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346015

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias||scudcloud



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1167076] Review Request: jlibrtp - Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167076

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias|jlibrtp |



--- Comment #21 from Raphael Groner  ---
Removing alias to allow general search for bugs.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1346018] New: Review Request: jmake - Make utility for large Java projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346018

Bug ID: 1346018
   Summary: Review Request: jmake - Make utility for large Java
projects
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: projects...@smart.ms
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/jmake/jmake.spec
SRPM URL:
https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/jmake/jmake-1.3.8.1-1.20150716git7761ee3.fc24.src.rpm

Description: Make utility for large Java projects
JMake (formerly Javamake) is a tool for Java programmers to make
compiling large projects consisting of many packages and source
files easy. It is similar in purpose to the make utility familiar
to C programmers, except it requires no user configuration.

Fedora Account System Username: raphgro

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14474428

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1346015] New: Review Request: scudcloud - Non official desktop client for Slack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346015

Bug ID: 1346015
   Summary: Review Request: scudcloud - Non official desktop
client for Slack
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ignate...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/scudcloud.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/scudcloud-1.24-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description:
ScudCloud improves the Slack integration with Linux desktops featuring:
* multiple teams support
* native system notifications
* count of unread direct mentions at launcher/sytray icon
* alert/wobbling on new messages
* optional tray notifications and "Close to Tray"
* follow your desktop activity and will stay online while you're logged in
Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1330861] Review Request: numix-icon-theme-circle - Numix Project circle icon theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330861



--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/numix-icon-theme-circle

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1330858] Review Request: numix-icon-theme - Numix Project icon theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330858



--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/numix-icon-theme

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1330856] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix Gtk Theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330856



--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/numix-gtk-theme

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344231

Kamil Dudka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #8 from Kamil Dudka  ---
Package Review
==

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



= 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". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/kdudka/fedora/curl/1344231-multilib-
 rpm-config/licensecheck.txt
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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 be in spec file
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
---
Checking: multilib-rpm-config-1-3.fc24.noarch.rpm
  multilib-rpm-config-1-3.fc24.src.rpm
multilib-rpm-config.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
multilib-rpm-config.src: W: strange-permission multilib-fix 755
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)

multilib-rpm-config.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires

multilib-rpm-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
redhat-rpm-config



Provides

multilib-rpm-config:
multilib-rpm-config



Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line 

[Bug 1344673] Review Request: perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare - Syntax keywords for Test2::Tools::Spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344673

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDecla
   ||re-0.03-1.fc25
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-06-13 10:35:50



--- 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 475823] Review Request: menu-cache - Caching mechanism for freedesktop.org compilant menus

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475823

Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(ke...@scrye.com)  |



--- Comment #15 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
Clearing needinfo.

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330861] Review Request: numix-icon-theme-circle - Numix Project circle icon theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330861



--- Comment #8 from Sascha Spreitzer  ---
Updated spec at spec url

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1330858] Review Request: numix-icon-theme - Numix Project icon theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330858



--- Comment #11 from Sascha Spreitzer  ---
Updated spec at spec url

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1330861] Review Request: numix-icon-theme-circle - Numix Project circle icon theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330861

Simone Caronni  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Simone Caronni  ---
Just noticed, "filesystem" is missing as requirement as specified in comment
#3. Just add it after committing in the repository. All other requests have
been satisfied, 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 1330858] Review Request: numix-icon-theme - Numix Project icon theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330858



--- Comment #10 from Simone Caronni  ---
Sorry, just noticed, "filesystem" is missing as requirement as specified in
comment #3. Just add it after committing in 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 1330858] Review Request: numix-icon-theme - Numix Project icon theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330858

Simone Caronni  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #9 from Simone Caronni  ---
All requests have been satisfied, 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 1330856] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix Gtk Theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330856

Simone Caronni  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #11 from Simone Caronni  ---
All requests have been satisfied, 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 1330861] Review Request: numix-icon-theme-circle - Numix Project circle icon theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330861



--- Comment #6 from Sascha Spreitzer  ---
Updates based on sponsor guidance

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sspreitzer/numix-specs/development/numix-icon-theme-circle.spec
SRPM URL:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3099/14473099/numix-icon-theme-circle-0.1.0-8.git475d649.fc25.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1330858] Review Request: numix-icon-theme - Numix Project icon theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330858



--- Comment #8 from Sascha Spreitzer  ---
Updates based on sponsor guidance

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sspreitzer/numix-specs/development/numix-icon-theme.spec
SRPM URL:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3074/14473074/numix-icon-theme-0.1.0-10.git101307f.fc25.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1330856] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix Gtk Theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330856



--- Comment #10 from Sascha Spreitzer  ---
Updates based on sponsor guidance

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sspreitzer/numix-specs/development/numix-gtk-theme.spec
SRPM URL:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3072/14473072/numix-gtk-theme-2.5.1-4.gitbde0a73.fc25.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1344673] Review Request: perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare - Syntax keywords for Test2::Tools::Spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344673



--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1344415] Review Request: v8-314 - JavaScript Engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344415



--- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
Whoops. Here are the correct URLs:

Spec URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/v8-314.spec
SRPM URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/v8-314-3.14.5.10-1.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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1153724] Review Request: golang-github-mitchellh-mapstructure - Go library for decoding generic map values into native Go structures

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1153724

Jan Chaloupka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jeffschroe...@computer.org



--- Comment #11 from Jan Chaloupka  ---
*** Bug 1060503 has been marked as a duplicate of this 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 1060503] Review Request: golang-github-mitchellh-mapstructure - A Go library for decoding generic map values to structures and vice versa

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060503

Jan Chaloupka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||jchal...@redhat.com
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2016-06-13 09:51:40



--- Comment #5 from Jan Chaloupka  ---
Thanks Olivier for pointing this out.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1153724 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1343580] Review Request: perl-rdapper - Command-line RDAP client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343580

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-rdapper-0.08-1.fc25
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-06-13 09:51:08



--- 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 1344673] Review Request: perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare - Syntax keywords for Test2::Tools::Spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344673

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 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-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare-0.03-1.fc25.noarch.rpm |
sort | uniq -c
i  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0)
  1 perl(B::Hooks::EndOfScope) >= 0.08
  1 perl(Carp)
  1 perl(Devel::Declare) >= 0.006011
  1 perl(Test2::Bundle::Extended) >= 0.30
  1 perl(Test2::IPC) >= 1.302022
  1 perl(Test2::Plugin::SpecDeclare)
  1 perl(Test2::Tools::Spec)
  1 perl(Test2::Workflow) >= 0.08
  1 perl(strict)
  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-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare-0.03-1.fc25.noarch.rpm |
sort | uniq -c
  1 perl(Test2::Bundle::SpecDeclare)
  1 perl(Test2::Plugin::SpecDeclare) = 0.03
  1 perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare = 0.03-1.fc25
Binary provides are Ok.

$ rpmlint ./perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare*
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

[Bug 1343580] Review Request: perl-rdapper - Command-line RDAP client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343580



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-rdapper

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1330858] Review Request: numix-icon-theme - Numix Project icon theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330858

Simone Caronni  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  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 1330861] Review Request: numix-icon-theme-circle - Numix Project circle icon theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330861

Simone Caronni  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  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 1330856] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix Gtk Theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330856

Simone Caronni  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  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 1263904] Review Request: ghc-old-locale - Locale library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263904



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1263905] Review Request: ghc-old-time - Time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263905



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

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

[Bug 1294523] Review Request: purple-skypeweb - Adds support for Skype to libpurple-based clients

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523



--- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni  ---
> - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
>   in the spec URL.
>   Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
>   /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1294523-purple-skypeweb/diff.txt
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL

This is ok, the tarball is renamed according to packaging guidelines.

> - 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
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

This is ok as no longer true, BR can now be excplicitly required.

> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>  found: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)",
>  "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output
>  of licensecheck in /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1294523-purple-
>  skypeweb/licensecheck.txt

This is ok, but please ask upstream to add all proper headers. Otherwise, since
this is a subset of the whole (obsolete) skype4pidgin tarball, just package in
the tarball only the required folders. You can use this guideline if you want
to proceed that way:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code

> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>  Note: Directories without known owners:
>  /usr/share/pixmaps/pidgin/emotes/skype

Just remove the "theme" at the end of this line in the files section:

%{_datadir}/pixmaps/pidgin/emotes/skype/theme

> [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
>  justified.

Please add some notes to the patch. I don't see why the code in the patch
should be removed, if there is an explanation for it, please add it to the SPEC
file.

Also, please remove the "%if 0%{?fedora}/%endif" part around Patch0. If I'm
downloading the source rpm for some rebuild on (whatever) unreleased
distribution (let's say a beta RHEL that has everything included) I won't get
the patch file from the Koji build, and I would need to download it from the
SCM.

It's perfectly acceptable to have patches shipped and just applied
conditionally.

> pidgin-skypeweb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inplemented 
> -> implemented, supplemented, complemented

There's a typo in the comment, 's/inplemented/implemented/g'.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 - Logbook system to manage notes through a Web interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302504



--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/elog

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1294523] Review Request: purple-skypeweb - Adds support for Skype to libpurple-based clients

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294523



--- Comment #3 from Simone Caronni  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
  /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1294523-purple-skypeweb/diff.txt
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- 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
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)",
 "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output
 of licensecheck in /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1294523-purple-
 skypeweb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners:
 /usr/share/pixmaps/pidgin/emotes/skype
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pidgin-

[Bug 1344673] Review Request: perl-Test2-Plugin-SpecDeclare - Syntax keywords for Test2::Tools::Spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344673

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 1343580] Review Request: perl-rdapper - Command-line RDAP client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343580

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
No test defined
BuildRequires are ok

$ rpm -qp --requires perl-rdapper-0.08-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
  1 /usr/bin/perl
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0)
  1 perl(Getopt::Long)
  1 perl(HTTP::Request::Common)
  1 perl(IO::Socket::SSL)
  1 perl(JSON)
  1 perl(JSON::Path)
  1 perl(LWP) >= 6.00
  1 perl(LWP::Protocol::https)
  1 perl(MIME::Base64)
  1 perl(MIME::Type)
  1 perl(Mozilla::CA)
  1 perl(POSIX)
  1 perl(Pod::Usage)
  1 perl(URI)
  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-rdapper-0.08-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
  1 perl-rdapper = 0.08-1.fc25
Binary provides are Ok.

$ rpmlint ./perl-rdapper*
perl-rdapper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP
perl-rdapper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ietf -> diet
perl-rdapper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wg -> w, g, wig
perl-rdapper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weirds -> wards,
weird, weirs
perl-rdapper.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/licenses/perl-rdapper/COPYING
perl-rdapper.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP
perl-rdapper.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ietf -> diet
perl-rdapper.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wg -> w, g, wig
perl-rdapper.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weirds -> wards,
weird, weirs
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings.

The incorrect FSF address was reported to the upstream.

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

[Bug 1298652] Review Request: python-django-redis - Full featured redis cache backend for Django

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298652

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-06-13 08:32:25



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1343580] Review Request: perl-rdapper - Command-line RDAP client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343580

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 1345887] Review Request: golang-github-yosssi-ace - HTML template engine for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1345887

Olivier Lemasle  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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1345887] New: Review Request: golang-github-yosssi-ace - HTML template engine for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1345887

Bug ID: 1345887
   Summary: Review Request: golang-github-yosssi-ace - HTML
template engine for Go
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: o.lema...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-yosssi-ace.spec
SRPM URL:
https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-yosssi-ace-0.0.4-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: HTML template engine for Go
Fedora Account System Username: olem

Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14471912

NB: I need a sponsor, as I'm not in maintainer group. I've already proposed an
other package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344936

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1344415] Review Request: v8-314 - JavaScript Engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344415

Jeroen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jeroeno...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Jeroen  ---
+1 for a v8-314 package. The 3.14 API is the de-facto standard for building
software that links against libv8. The 4.x and 5.x series have a completely
different API. 

As a maintainer of software that uses V8, breaking compatibility by upgrading
v8 on Fedora/EPEL would be devastating to us. We would basically have to
rewrite all software from scratch. We really appreciate the effort to provide a
v8-314 package.

PS: I think the URL needs to point to fedorapeople.org instead of
fedoraproject.org.

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

[Bug 1060503] Review Request: golang-github-mitchellh-mapstructure - A Go library for decoding generic map values to structures and vice versa

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060503

Olivier Lemasle  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||o.lema...@gmail.com



--- Comment #4 from Olivier Lemasle  ---
This package is now in Fedora repositories:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/golang-github-mitchellh-mapstructure/

I guess this ticket should be closed.

NB: I'm not yet a maintainer, as I haven't been sponsored.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344231

Kamil Dudka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||kdu...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kdu...@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 1263904] Review Request: ghc-old-locale - Locale library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263904



--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen  ---
Thank you very much - most helpful!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1263905] Review Request: ghc-old-time - Time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263905



--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen  ---
Thank you very for the speedy review! :-)

Good point about the url - let me fix that when importing.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1263904] Review Request: ghc-old-locale - Locale library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263904

Jan Synacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Jan Synacek  ---
Since this is a very simply package and the spec is generated by cabal-rpm, I'm
not going to post the output from fedora-review here.

All looks fine.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1263905] Review Request: ghc-old-time - Time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263905

Jan Synacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Jan Synacek  ---
Since this is a very simply package and the spec is generated by cabal-rpm, I'm
not going to post the output from fedora-review here.

All looks fine. One thing I would do, though, is change the package link in the
description in the spec file to something human friendlier. It looks like it
was taken straight from the markup.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1338553



--- Comment #26 from Raphael Groner  ---
Nathan, thanks for your support. We'll get a notification from Anitya when
v0.3.2 gets in the game. That's the reason I chose to use 0.3.1-3 instead of
0.3.2-0.1 to not confuse upstream monitoring cause of a bug with pre-releases.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1263904] Review Request: ghc-old-locale - Locale library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263904

Jan Synacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jsyna...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsyna...@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 1263905] Review Request: ghc-old-time - Time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263905

Jan Synacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jsyna...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsyna...@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 1338553] Review Request: nitroshare - Transfer files from one device to another made extremely simple

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1338553



--- Comment #25 from Nathan Osman  ---
I installed nitroshare-0.3.1-3.20160612git930c9b7.fc23 on my Fedora 23
Workstation VM and tested sending and receiving files. Everything seems to work
perfectly and the icons/images display without any problem.

I am hoping to have version 0.3.2 released around the end of the month or the
beginning of July, depending on how things go.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1341099] Review Request: taskotron-trigger - Triggering Taskotron jobs on fedmsgs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341099



--- Comment #1 from Martin Krizek  ---
Found some issues, updated version:

Spec URL: https://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/specs/taskotron-trigger.spec
SRPM URL:
https://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/srpms/taskotron-trigger-0.3.16-3.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 965431] Review Request: gedit-editorconfig - EditorConfig plugin for Gedit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965431
Bug 965431 depends on bug 965417, which changed state.

Bug 965417 Summary: Review Request: editorconfig-core-python - Clone of 
EditorConfig core written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965417

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENT_DATA



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 965417] Review Request: editorconfig-core-python - Clone of EditorConfig core written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965417

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENT_DATA
Last Closed||2016-06-13 03:02:10



--- Comment #7 from Matthias Runge  ---
Please re-open, when there's more time.

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