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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #31 from Julian Sikorski  ---
I'm sorry, the correct links are:
Spec URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/mame/mame.spec
SRPM URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/mame/mame-0.175-1.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 1335278] Review Request: mame - Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #30 from Julian Sikorski  ---
New packages have been uploaded:
Spec URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/mame/mame.spec
SRPM URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/mame/mame-0.175-1.fc23.src.rpm

Changes:
- Updated to 0.175
- Dropped upstreamed patches
- Removed bundled lua-sqlite and http-parser provides as they were removed
- Ensured licenses for artwork and plugins are installed appropriately
- Disabled ldplayer since it does not build currently (Github #1015)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1344115] Review Request: winetricks - Work around common problems in Wine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344115



--- Comment #8 from Ville Skyttä  ---
(In reply to Lumír Balhar from comment #7)

> - remove these dependencies: gzip unzip which

The which dependency cannot be removed. winetricks requires it, and nothing in
its dependency chain pulls it in. (gzip and unzip are being pulled in by others
so they can be dropped if you like)

The wget dependency should on the other hand still be removed, see comment 4.

And I'm not sure where the time dependency comes from, can't find a place where
it would be used. So I suppose that dep should go as well.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1344115] Review Request: winetricks - Work around common problems in Wine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344115



--- Comment #7 from Lumír Balhar  ---
Hello.

Suggested improvements:
- remove these dependencies: gzip unzip which
- package latest version (20160627)

Could you please describe to me this comment:
#FIXME bug with dnf and x86 vs. x86_64
#BuildRequires:  %winedep

Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14709622

Output from fedora-review:

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- 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: gzip unzip which
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2


= 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", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)".
 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/lbalhar/Review/1344115-winetricks/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
 desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: 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.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package 

[Bug 1350148] Review Request: php-pecl-apcu-bc - APCu Backwards Compatibility Module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350148



--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/php-pecl-apcu-bc

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1339029] Review Request: libinvm-cim - Framework library supporting storage common information model (CIM) providers.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339029



--- Comment #9 from Namratha Kothapalli  ---
Here's the result of a fedora-review run with the rest of the template filled
out: 

= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/namu/1339029
 -libinvm-cim/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libinvm-
 cim-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps 

[Bug 1350148] Review Request: php-pecl-apcu-bc - APCu Backwards Compatibility Module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350148



--- Comment #4 from Remi Collet  ---
Thanks for the review.

New package requested on 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 1344115] Review Request: winetricks - Work around common problems in Wine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344115

Lumír Balhar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lbal...@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 1339029] Review Request: libinvm-cim - Framework library supporting storage common information model (CIM) providers.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339029



--- Comment #8 from Namratha Kothapalli  ---
Created a new release v1.0.0.1040.

Spec:
https://github.com/01org/libinvm-cim/releases/download/v1.0.0.1040/libinvm-cim.spec

SRPM:
https://github.com/01org/libinvm-cim/releases/download/v1.0.0.1040/libinvm-cim-1.0.0.1040-1.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 1351041] Review Request: mlt - A multimedia framework designed for television broadcasting

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351041

Sergio Monteiro Basto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-06-29 22:31:48



--- Comment #7 from Sergio Monteiro Basto  ---
(*) for me it is better

Packaged built in rawhide , without php extension , failed to compile with the
new PHP 7 .

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #20 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #19)
> (In reply to Jerry James from comment #17)
> >   Provides: bundled(tinymt32)
> 
> Where is in Fedora ?

It isn't in Fedora.  I'm just thinking the fact that it is bundled should be
noted so that, should it ever be introduced into Fedora, its presence in this
package can be determined.

> > - The documentation bundles some javascript code:
> >   o doc/codemirror.{css,js} (MIT)
> >   o doc/FileSaver.js (MIT)
> >   o doc/matchbrackets.js (MIT)
> 
> Should be packaged in %_jsdir ?

No, I don't think so.  I think they are fine where they are; again, I'm just
wondering if the spec file shouldn't note the fact that these are bundled in
the package.

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

[Bug 1342687] Review Request: python2-backports-ssl-match-hostname - The ssl match_hostname() function from Python 3.5

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342687



--- Comment #5 from Jerry James  ---
Isn't backports.ssl_match_hostname/backports/ssl_match_hostname/LICENSE.txt the
license file?  Anyway, I've just noticed that this package already exists in
Fedora:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-backports-ssl_match_hostname/.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1351041] Review Request: mlt - A multimedia framework designed for television broadcasting

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351041



--- Comment #6 from Sergio Monteiro Basto  ---
OK only rawhide , for it is better I just need handle freeworld sub package
there .

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1270322] Review Request: chromium - A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser

[bugzilla]

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

dalefarm  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dalef...@gmail.com



--- Comment #51 from dalefarm  ---
Similar experience to Gary - as a workaround I'm  running the fedora23 binaries
( chromium-50.0.2661.94-6.fc23.x86_64 and chromium-libs ) from repo
fedora-chromium-stable on my two fedora24 boxes without problems.

I have various plugins enabled including HTTPS-Everywhere, Privacy Badger - all
running fine.

No surprise - the fedora24 binaries aren't too happy for me either - hitting
the crash in libgpu.so

As I side-note I see that the fedora24 binary from fedora-chromium-stable is
relatively old ( chromium-48.0.2564.116-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm) vs what's in there
for fedora23 that I currently have installed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
kubernetes-ansible-0.6.0-0.1.gitd65ebd5.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-2016-044a93b59f

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1350429] Review Request: python-maxminddb - Reader for the MaxMind DB format

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350429



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-maxminddb-1.2.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-cc250928e3

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1339029] Review Request: libinvm-cim - Framework library supporting storage common information model (CIM) providers.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339029



--- Comment #7 from Namratha Kothapalli  ---
Renamed the repo to libinvm-cim. 

Spec:
https://github.com/01org/libinvm-cim/releases/download/v1.0.0.1039/libinvm-cim.spec

SRPM:
https://github.com/01org/libinvm-cim/releases/download/v1.0.0.1039/libinvm-cim-1.0.0.1039-1.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 1332306] Review Request: libcxxabi - Low level support for a standard C++ library

[bugzilla]

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

schla...@users.sourceforge.net changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||schlaffi@users.sourceforge.
   ||net



--- Comment #2 from schla...@users.sourceforge.net ---
Just some positive feedback. Thanks for bringing libcxx and libcxxabi to
fedora. For my use, I sometimes prefer/need to build with clang++ and libcxx.
So it is not only the exotic "C++11 in R" case.

I ended here, because I was wondering why there is a libcxx but no libcxxabi. I
think in (almost?) all cases libc++.so requires libc++abi.so. I see you added
the dependency to libcxx. Looking forward to pull also libcxxabi from fedora
updates :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
kubernetes-ansible-0.6.0-0.1.gitd65ebd5.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-ef27b80329

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 755510] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510

Marcin Zajaczkowski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(steven.dake@gmail
   ||.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 755510] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet - Gnome shell system monitor extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510



--- Comment #89 from Marcin Zajaczkowski  ---
I would be good to have it directly in Fedora. Steven, will you have some time
to do the review?

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

[Bug 1339029] Review Request: libinvm-cim - Framework library supporting storage common information model (CIM) providers.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339029

Namratha Kothapalli  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: libinvm-cim |Review Request: libinvm-cim
   |- Framework library for |- Framework library
   |Intel NVM storage common|supporting storage common
   |information model (CIM) |information model(CIM)
   |providers.  |providers.



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #33 from Fedora Update System  ---
multilib-rpm-config-1-5.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 1344231] Review Request: multilib-rpm-config - packaging helpers for multilib issues

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System  ---
multilib-rpm-config-1-5.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 1270322] Review Request: chromium - A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #50 from Gary Gatling  ---
I ran into this problem with a chromium I built. If I ran the fedora 23 binary
on fedora 24 it worked. If I ran the fedora 24 binary it crashed with a "Aw,
snap" after pretty much every page load.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1350148] Review Request: php-pecl-apcu-bc - APCu Backwards Compatibility Module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350148

Nathanael Noblet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Nathanael Noblet  ---
Looks good to me. I've also filed a bug against PHP in F24 to own the pecl doc
directory.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1348775] Review Request: python-unidiff - Python library to parse and interact with unified diffs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348775

Ralph Bean  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean  ---
Thanks Dan!  Package is approved.  :)


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/threebean/1348775-python-unidiff/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

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

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

[bugzilla]

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

Tobias Guggenmos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tobias.guggen...@posteo.net



--- Comment #49 from Tobias Guggenmos  ---
Same problem in my case.
It may be an issue with some of the changes made by the packager, since the
official chrome provided by google runs fine. If I get the time I will build a
vanilla chromium using the instructions at
https://www.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/get-the-code and post if it worked.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1350429] Review Request: python-maxminddb - Reader for the MaxMind DB format

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350429

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-maxminddb-1.2.1-1.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-2016-1ed8e00c19

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
kubernetes-ansible-0.6.0-0.1.gitd65ebd5.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-d495ee2544

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1334888] Review Request: python-seesaw - ArchiveTeam seesaw kit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334888



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-seesaw-0.9.2-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-adal-0.1.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1347857] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-templates - Prawn:: Templates allows using PDFs as templates in Prawn

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347857



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc23,
rubygem-css_parser-1.4.2-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-icon-1.1.0-1.fc23,
rubygem-prawn-manual_builder-0.2.0-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-svg-0.25.1-1.fc23,
rubygem-prawn-table-0.2.2-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-templates-0.0.4-1.fc23 has been
pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please
make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1347856] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-table - Provides tables for PrawnPDF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347856



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc23,
rubygem-css_parser-1.4.2-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-icon-1.1.0-1.fc23,
rubygem-prawn-manual_builder-0.2.0-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-svg-0.25.1-1.fc23,
rubygem-prawn-table-0.2.2-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-templates-0.0.4-1.fc23 has been
pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please
make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1347854] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-manual_builder - A tool for writing manuals for Prawn and Prawn accessories

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347854



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc23,
rubygem-css_parser-1.4.2-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-icon-1.1.0-1.fc23,
rubygem-prawn-manual_builder-0.2.0-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-svg-0.25.1-1.fc23,
rubygem-prawn-table-0.2.2-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-templates-0.0.4-1.fc23 has been
pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please
make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1347855] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-svg - SVG renderer for Prawn PDF library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347855



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc23,
rubygem-css_parser-1.4.2-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-icon-1.1.0-1.fc23,
rubygem-prawn-manual_builder-0.2.0-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-svg-0.25.1-1.fc23,
rubygem-prawn-table-0.2.2-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-templates-0.0.4-1.fc23 has been
pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please
make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1347858] Review Request: rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf - Converts AsciiDoc documents to PDF using Prawn

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347858



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc23,
rubygem-css_parser-1.4.2-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-icon-1.1.0-1.fc23,
rubygem-prawn-manual_builder-0.2.0-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-svg-0.25.1-1.fc23,
rubygem-prawn-table-0.2.2-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-templates-0.0.4-1.fc23 has been
pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please
make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1347853] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-icon - Provides icon fonts for PrawnPDF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347853



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc23,
rubygem-css_parser-1.4.2-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-icon-1.1.0-1.fc23,
rubygem-prawn-manual_builder-0.2.0-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-svg-0.25.1-1.fc23,
rubygem-prawn-table-0.2.2-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-templates-0.0.4-1.fc23 has been
pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please
make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1347852] Review Request: rubygem-css_parser - Ruby CSS parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347852



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc23,
rubygem-css_parser-1.4.2-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-icon-1.1.0-1.fc23,
rubygem-prawn-manual_builder-0.2.0-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-svg-0.25.1-1.fc23,
rubygem-prawn-table-0.2.2-1.fc23, rubygem-prawn-templates-0.0.4-1.fc23 has been
pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please
make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1349026] Review Request: python-pkginfo - Query metadata from sdists / bdists / installed packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349026



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pkginfo-1.3.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1349026] Review Request: python-pkginfo - Query metadata from sdists / bdists / installed packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349026

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-06-29 13:21:54



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1350148] Review Request: php-pecl-apcu-bc - APCu Backwards Compatibility Module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350148



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Great thanks for taking this review.


> [x]: 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.
> 
> I assume the above is allowed due to it not being a system wide library.

This is not a library, only an extension, so indeed, OK.


> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>  Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/pecl
> 
> This directory is owned by php-pear, which is only a BuildRequires. However
> it installs documentation there so should probably have a Requires on
> php-pear if I'm not mistaken?

No we don't want to require php-pear, see Fedora 24 feature
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/drop_pear_dep

Can you please file a bug against PHP (F24) which should own this dir,
obviously not this package.


> [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>  beginning of %install.


This is only a should, not a blocker

BTW:
https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/89902df76f6f0c401760e0026b9fb57ff0308fe8

Spec:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/89902df76f6f0c401760e0026b9fb57ff0308fe8/php/pecl/php-pecl-apcu-bc/php-pecl-apcu-bc.spec
Srpm: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-pecl-apcu-bc-1.0.3-3.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 1350148] Review Request: php-pecl-apcu-bc - APCu Backwards Compatibility Module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350148

Nathanael Noblet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nathan...@gnat.ca
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nathan...@gnat.ca



--- Comment #1 from Nathanael Noblet  ---
Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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.

I assume the above is allowed due to it not being a system wide library.

[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "PHP (v3.01)". 3 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gnat/1350148-php-
 pecl-apcu-bc/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/pecl

This directory is owned by php-pear, which is only a BuildRequires. However it
installs documentation there so should probably have a Requires on php-pear if
I'm not mistaken?

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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 

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029

Jarod Wilson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tatyana.e.nikol...@intel.co
   ||m
  Flags||fedora-review?
   ||needinfo?(tatyana.e.nikolov
   ||a...@intel.com)



--- Comment #4 from Jarod Wilson  ---
Just let me know when there's an updated package I can look over, I think we
should be pretty close once the initial review pass notes are addressed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1351092] Review Request: python-geoip2 - MaxMind GeoIP2 API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351092



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-geoip2

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #3 from Jarod Wilson  ---
Some further reading on the licensing issue and a bit of back-channel
discussion, and what I now believe to be the thing to do for #7 is "License:
GPLv2 or BSD", rename COPYING to LICENSE-GPL and include a new LICENSE-BSD file
so the text of both licenses is easily distributable with the binaries. The
only GPLv3+ files are config/config.*, which aren't part of the distributed
binaries, and License: is only in reference to distributed binaries, so no
reference to GPLv3+ is required here.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1351041] Review Request: mlt - A multimedia framework designed for television broadcasting

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351041



--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla  ---
I only really needed it in rawhide for the synfig stack, anywhere else is
gravy.  I don't think so.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1351041] Review Request: mlt - A multimedia framework designed for television broadcasting

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351041



--- Comment #4 from Sergio Monteiro Basto  ---
Hi ,thanks, I will do the commits later evening ... 

I forgot to ask should I request epel7 branch ? do we need mlt in epel7 ?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1351092] Review Request: python-geoip2 - MaxMind GeoIP2 API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351092

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
Everything is done according Packaging Guidelines. Just one thing which is not
good:

* .buildinfo and .doctrees/ should be removed from -doc subpkg

just add into %install section:
rm -rf html/{.buildinfo,.doctrees}

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1351041] Review Request: mlt - A multimedia framework designed for television broadcasting

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351041



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

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2016-06-22 19:54:47 |2016-06-29 10:16:36



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #31 from Fedora Update System  ---
multilib-rpm-config-1-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1302876] Review Request: clatd - CLAT / SIIT-DC Edge Relay implementation for Linux

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302876



--- Comment #11 from Ingvar Hagelund  ---
I said BSD. I meant MIT.

Ingvar

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1302876] Review Request: clatd - CLAT / SIIT-DC Edge Relay implementation for Linux

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302876



--- Comment #10 from Ingvar Hagelund  ---
> > Release:  1.3.20160128git%{?shortcommit0}%{?dist}
> 
> The "1.3" in release looks weird; you typically use only one digit unless the
> first one is a zero. E.g. "0.3." for a pre-release snapshot and
> "3." for a post-release snapshot.

Yeah, it should perhaps rather be version 1.5 and release 0.3., but
se below.

> Also, why are you packaging a snapshot instead of a released version?

While there are few or no actual changes in the code from the 1.4 release, the
license was changed from some unclear beerware like license to the actual BSD
license after the release. This goes for the license text inside the clatd
source, and was clearly just forgotten by upstream, as the LICENSE file had
already been updated to BSD before the release. It felt wrong to change the
license through a patch, though even when fetched from upstream. I did not want
to package clatd with two different licenses.

In the spec linked below, I wrap the 1.4 release, and change the license
through a patch, noting that the author acknowledges this. I also added the
documentation fixes. (This is in effect what happens by using the snapshot.)

> > %if 0%{?fedora} > 23
> > BuildRequires:perl-podlators
> > %endif
> 
> You can get rid of the conditional if you do a BuildRequires:
> /usr/bin/pod2man

Changed to BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/pod2man as Petr suggested.

> > Requires: perl(Net::IP)
> > Requires: perl(Net::DNS)
> > Requires: perl(IO::Socket::INET6)
> > Requires: perl(File::Temp)
> 
> Hmm, these should be autogenerated; but only Net::IP is. Seems like the 
> dependency generator ignores requires if they don't start in column zero...

* Petr Pisar
> Collective wisdom says indented "require" statements generates too many false 
> positives. Therefore generators omit them. But I'm not fully convinced about 
> helpfulness of the omission.

I'll just remove perl(Net::IP), and keep the rest for now.

> > %build
> > (...)

> This all should ideally be in the upstream Makefile. Perhaps you could ask
> upstream?

Yep, I'll ask upstream for this.

> > %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}.conf
> 
> This one is a configuration file; please mark it with %config(noreplace).

Fixed

Updated spec and srpm:
https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/tayga/clatd.spec
https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/tayga/clatd-1.4-2.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 1349910] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-Copyright - Package a COPYRIGHT file with a distribution

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349910

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Module-Install-Copyrig
   ||ht-0.009-1.fc25
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-06-29 09:43:42



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1333529] Review Request: opa-fm - OPA Fabric Manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333529



--- Comment #4 from Erik E. Kahn  ---
Spec file and SRPM updated to address more issues identified in review of
sibling package opa-ff (bug 1333531):

Spec URL: https://github.com/01org/opa-fm/releases/download/v1.2/opa-fm.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/01org/opa-fm/releases/download/v1.2/opa-fm-10.1.0.0-145.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 1318988] Review Request: java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32 - OpenJDK AArch32 porting project preview release

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318988



--- Comment #34 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #30)
> [!] Changelog is not in prescribed format:
> java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32.armv7hl: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog
> 1:1.8.0.xx-1.bb ['1:1.8.0.76-1.160415.fc24', '1:1.8.0.76-1.160415']
> Use "1:1.8.0.76-1.160415" rather "than 1:1.8.0.xx-1.bb"
fixed

> [!]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
>  provided in the spec URL.
>  Used the following command to generate the source tarball locally:
>  $ PROJECT_NAME=aarch32-port VERSION=jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415
> REPO_NAME=jdk8u \
> bash ../generate_source_tarball.sh
>  where "generate_source_tarball.sh" is as in the main java-1.8.0-openjdk
>  dist-git repo.
>  $ md5sum aarch32-port-jdk8u-jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415.tar.xz 
> f4e5fa08100e18a8ed74180bcb98aea2 
> aarch32-port-jdk8u-jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415.tar.xz
>  From the SRPM:
>  $ md5sum
> srpm-unpacked/aarch32-port-jdk8u-jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415.tar.xz
> 73127e42f6536fd0c10b0237ac0ee808 
> srpm-unpacked/aarch32-port-jdk8u-jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415.tar.xz
>  Perhaps I'm doing something wrong?

There is nothing I can do about this. You know that openjdk do not do releases.
They tag, and anybody can clone.
The tar/zip archives are generally not reproducible(timestamps), and I don't
think that there is serious reason to force the reproducibiity.

In addition I'm providing scrip twhich can regenerate osurces by one click.

> [!] Mixed use of tabs and spaces in spec:
> srpm/java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32.spec:634: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
> (spaces: line 8, tab: line 634)

fixed
> 
> 
> 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]: 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.
> [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses.
>  It mentions GPL v2 + Classpath Exception. I did not check if others are
>  still relevant.

This should be ok.

> [?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.

The oownership should be correct.What is not owned by jdk itself, is owned by
jpackage-toosl or other dependencies.

> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
>  Bundled LCMS libs are being used. This is a known work-around.
> [!]: Changelog in prescribed format.

fixed
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.

that is correct.

> [-]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
>  names).

Of course it does:)
> [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
...
> [x]: Package is not relocatable.
> [!]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
>  provided in the spec URL.
>  Used the following command to generate the source tarball locally:
>  $ PROJECT_NAME=aarch32-port VERSION=jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415
> REPO_NAME=jdk8u \
> bash ../generate_source_tarball.sh
>  where "generate_source_tarball.sh" is as in the main java-1.8.0-openjdk
>  dist-git repo.
>  $ md5sum aarch32-port-jdk8u-jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415.tar.xz 
> f4e5fa08100e18a8ed74180bcb98aea2 
> aarch32-port-jdk8u-jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415.tar.xz
>  From the SRPM:
>  $ md5sum
> srpm-unpacked/aarch32-port-jdk8u-jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415.tar.xz
> 73127e42f6536fd0c10b0237ac0ee808 
> srpm-unpacked/aarch32-port-jdk8u-jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415.tar.xz

As described above.



In meantime updated to latest u91 of aarch32 8u project.

How do you feel about it now?
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32-jit/7/java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32-1.8.0.91-1.160510.fc24.src.rpm
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32-jit/7/java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32.spec

scracth build in progress:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14701925

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

[Bug 1195835] Review Request: python-qrencode - A simple wrapper for the C qrencode

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195835

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 1195835] Review Request: python-qrencode - A simple wrapper for the C qrencode

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195835



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-qrencode-0-1.git.a58d28a.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-25ba4975ef

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1303411] Review Request: geteltorito - El Torito boot image extractor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303411



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
geteltorito-0.6-3.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-93c326e183

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1303411] Review Request: geteltorito - El Torito boot image extractor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303411

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 1351041] Review Request: mlt - A multimedia framework designed for television broadcasting

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351041

Jon Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|limburg...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
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 1349910] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-Copyright - Package a COPYRIGHT file with a distribution

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349910



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1303411] Review Request: geteltorito - El Torito boot image extractor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303411



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1195835] Review Request: python-qrencode - A simple wrapper for the C qrencode

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195835



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1260208] Review Request: jandex-maven-plugin - Jandex wrapper for Maven

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1260208

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-06-29 08:57:05



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1260208] Review Request: jandex-maven-plugin - Jandex wrapper for Maven

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1260208



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
jandex-maven-plugin-1.0.4-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1297347] Review Request: java-comment-preprocessor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297347



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
java-comment-preprocessor-6.0.1-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1297347] Review Request: java-comment-preprocessor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297347

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2016-04-14 03:34:52 |2016-06-29 08:56:55



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

[Bug 1347858] Review Request: rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf - Converts AsciiDoc documents to PDF using Prawn

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347858
Bug 1347858 depends on bug 1347856, which changed state.

Bug 1347856 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-prawn-table - Provides tables for 
PrawnPDF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347856

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1347857] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-templates - Prawn:: Templates allows using PDFs as templates in Prawn

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347857

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-06-29 08:55:33



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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2016-06-13 15:44:10 |2016-06-29 08:56:09



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



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-adal-0.1.0-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1347858] Review Request: rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf - Converts AsciiDoc documents to PDF using Prawn

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347858
Bug 1347858 depends on bug 1347857, which changed state.

Bug 1347857 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-prawn-templates - Prawn::Templates 
allows using PDFs as templates in Prawn
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347857

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1347852] Review Request: rubygem-css_parser - Ruby CSS parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347852



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc24,
rubygem-css_parser-1.4.2-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-icon-1.1.0-1.fc24,
rubygem-prawn-manual_builder-0.2.0-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-svg-0.25.1-1.fc24,
rubygem-prawn-table-0.2.2-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-templates-0.0.4-1.fc24 has been
pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please
make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1347856] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-table - Provides tables for PrawnPDF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347856

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-06-29 08:55:26



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1347854] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-manual_builder - A tool for writing manuals for Prawn and Prawn accessories

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347854

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-06-29 08:55:30



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1347856] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-table - Provides tables for PrawnPDF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347856
Bug 1347856 depends on bug 1347854, which changed state.

Bug 1347854 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-prawn-manual_builder - A tool for 
writing manuals for Prawn and Prawn accessories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347854

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1347858] Review Request: rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf - Converts AsciiDoc documents to PDF using Prawn

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347858

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-06-29 08:55:12



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1347854] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-manual_builder - A tool for writing manuals for Prawn and Prawn accessories

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347854



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc24,
rubygem-css_parser-1.4.2-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-icon-1.1.0-1.fc24,
rubygem-prawn-manual_builder-0.2.0-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-svg-0.25.1-1.fc24,
rubygem-prawn-table-0.2.2-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-templates-0.0.4-1.fc24 has been
pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please
make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1347855] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-svg - SVG renderer for Prawn PDF library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347855



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc24,
rubygem-css_parser-1.4.2-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-icon-1.1.0-1.fc24,
rubygem-prawn-manual_builder-0.2.0-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-svg-0.25.1-1.fc24,
rubygem-prawn-table-0.2.2-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-templates-0.0.4-1.fc24 has been
pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please
make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1347858] Review Request: rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf - Converts AsciiDoc documents to PDF using Prawn

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347858
Bug 1347858 depends on bug 1347853, which changed state.

Bug 1347853 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-prawn-icon - Provides icon fonts 
for PrawnPDF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347853

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1347853] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-icon - Provides icon fonts for PrawnPDF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347853



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc24,
rubygem-css_parser-1.4.2-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-icon-1.1.0-1.fc24,
rubygem-prawn-manual_builder-0.2.0-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-svg-0.25.1-1.fc24,
rubygem-prawn-table-0.2.2-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-templates-0.0.4-1.fc24 has been
pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please
make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1347855] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-svg - SVG renderer for Prawn PDF library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347855
Bug 1347855 depends on bug 1347852, which changed state.

Bug 1347852 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-css_parser - Ruby CSS parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347852

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1347852] Review Request: rubygem-css_parser - Ruby CSS parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347852

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-06-29 08:55:22



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1347858] Review Request: rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf - Converts AsciiDoc documents to PDF using Prawn

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347858
Bug 1347858 depends on bug 1347855, which changed state.

Bug 1347855 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-prawn-svg - SVG renderer for Prawn 
PDF library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347855

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1347853] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-icon - Provides icon fonts for PrawnPDF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347853

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-06-29 08:55:15



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1347855] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-svg - SVG renderer for Prawn PDF library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347855

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-06-29 08:55:18



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1347856] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-table - Provides tables for PrawnPDF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347856



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc24,
rubygem-css_parser-1.4.2-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-icon-1.1.0-1.fc24,
rubygem-prawn-manual_builder-0.2.0-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-svg-0.25.1-1.fc24,
rubygem-prawn-table-0.2.2-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-templates-0.0.4-1.fc24 has been
pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please
make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1347857] Review Request: rubygem-prawn-templates - Prawn:: Templates allows using PDFs as templates in Prawn

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347857



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc24,
rubygem-css_parser-1.4.2-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-icon-1.1.0-1.fc24,
rubygem-prawn-manual_builder-0.2.0-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-svg-0.25.1-1.fc24,
rubygem-prawn-table-0.2.2-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-templates-0.0.4-1.fc24 has been
pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please
make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1347858] Review Request: rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf - Converts AsciiDoc documents to PDF using Prawn

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347858



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.1.alpha.11.fc24,
rubygem-css_parser-1.4.2-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-icon-1.1.0-1.fc24,
rubygem-prawn-manual_builder-0.2.0-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-svg-0.25.1-1.fc24,
rubygem-prawn-table-0.2.2-1.fc24, rubygem-prawn-templates-0.0.4-1.fc24 has been
pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please
make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1176595] Review Request: hypre - High performance matrix preconditioners

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176595



--- Comment #19 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Oops, sorry, I missed your answer, until Antonio added his comment. I'll reply
anyway, even though he's taking the review.

(In reply to Dave Love from comment #17)
> (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #16)
> > A single Requires/Provides per line.
> 
> Where's that documented?
It's not required, but it's generally considered good practice. It's much more
readable and diffs are much easier to read. Also, making things conditional
between branches is easier.

> > %doc is used for some license files.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > .so files would usually be named like libHYPRE.so.2.10.1 not
> > libHYPRE-2.10.1.so. With the current naming, the number is part of the file
> > name. 
> 
> See the comment in the spec file.  That's kept in Debian and, I think,
> OpenSuSE, and I didn't see anything prohibiting it when I checked.
> 
> > I don't really know what the effect of this is. It will probably break
> > linking against the library... Do you have any programs using the headers
> > and libraries in -devel?
> 
> Yes.  This was done as a dependency of petsc and trilinos.
> $ rpm -q --requires trilinos-openmpi|grep -i hypre
> libHYPRE-2.10.1.so()(64bit)

This means that the dependency is on this specific version of libHYPRE,
i.e. exactly version 2.10.1. Normally, you only need a dependency on the
first number (major version, 2 in this case), while the middle and final
numbers can change [1]. In your case dependent packages will have to be
recompiled
whenever this version changes. Actually, according to the usual Fedora
update rules [2], you wouldn't be allowed to change this number during the
lifetime of a Fedora release, because user programs linked to this specific
version would break also.

[1] http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Program-Library-HOWTO/shared-libraries.html
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Philosophy

All that said, doing this properly might be quite a bit of work, so
in this specific case just keeping the broken upstream numbering might
be an acceptable policy, if this package will mostly be used for the
two dependent packages and you'll be controlling all three.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1351092] Review Request: python-geoip2 - MaxMind GeoIP2 API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351092

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ignate...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ignate...@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 1351161] New: Review Request: homu - Bot that integrates with GitHub and your favorite continuous integration service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351161

Bug ID: 1351161
   Summary: Review Request: homu - Bot that integrates with GitHub
and your favorite continuous integration service
   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/homu.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/homu-0-0.1.gitc62396e.fc25.src.rpm
Description: Bot that integrates with GitHub and your favorite continuous
integration service.
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 1351161] Review Request: homu - Bot that integrates with GitHub and your favorite continuous integration service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351161

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1351138 (python-github3py)
  Alias||homu




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351138
[Bug 1351138] Review Request: python-github3py - Python wrapper for the
GitHub API
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1351138] Review Request: python-github3py - Python wrapper for the GitHub API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351138

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1351161 (homu)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351161
[Bug 1351161] Review Request: homu - Bot that integrates with GitHub and
your favorite continuous integration service
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1351138] Review Request: python-github3py - Python wrapper for the GitHub API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351138

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias||python-github3py



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1351138] Review Request: python-github3py - Python wrapper for the GitHub API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351138



--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
Not marking as dependent on python-betamax-matches as it's needed only for
tests which require network (so those are not used here).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1351138] Review Request: python-github3py - Python wrapper for the GitHub API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351138

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1351097
   ||(python-uritemplate)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351097
[Bug 1351097] Review Request: python-uritemplate - Simple python library to
deal with URI Templates (RFC 6570)
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1351097] Review Request: python-uritemplate - Simple python library to deal with URI Templates ( RFC 6570)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351097

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1351138




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351138
[Bug 1351138] Review Request: python-github3py - Python wrapper for the
GitHub API
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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