date:20160706

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

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System  ---
mame-0.175-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-17c1c5ad71

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

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System  ---
mame-0.175-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ab1e111bf6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1297281] Review Request: endless-sky - Space exploration, trading, and combat game

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297281



--- Comment #10 from Link Dupont  ---
Hi, sorry to have dropped the ball on this. Life caught up with me real quick
and it doesn't look like I'll have the time to commit to this right now. Anyone
else is free to pick up where I left off.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1352091] Review Request: enunciate (Re-review: enunciate-core-annotations) - Build-time enhancement tool for Java-based Web services projects

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352091



--- Comment #15 from Ding-Yi Chen  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #14)
> Created attachment 1176834 [details]
> enunciate licensececk
> 
> see enunciate-licensececk.txt
> this is a list with all source files without license headers
> you should report the underlying problem to upstream and
> make sure that in the new version this problem is not present
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/
> LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification

Filed as https://github.com/stoicflame/enunciate/issues/450

However, I don't think the fix will apply to 1.X.


Spec URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate-1.31-4.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 1353404] New: Review Request: nodejs-figures - Unicode symbols with Windows CMD fallbacks

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353404

Bug ID: 1353404
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-figures - Unicode symbols with
Windows CMD fallbacks
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-figures/nodejs-figures.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-figures/nodejs-figures-1.7.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Unicode symbols with Windows CMD fallbacks
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1353404] Review Request: nodejs-figures - Unicode symbols with Windows CMD fallbacks

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353404

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1269538 (IoT)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1353399] Review Request: nodejs-optionator - Option parsing and help generation

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353399

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1269538 (IoT)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1353399] New: Review Request: nodejs-optionator - Option parsing and help generation

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353399

Bug ID: 1353399
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-optionator - Option parsing and
help generation
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-type-name/nodejs-type-name.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-optionator/nodejs-optionator-0.8.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Option parsing and help generation
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

Notice that this build is built in "bootstrap" mode, which runs from javascript
pre-generated from the livescript source.  Once this package is built, we can
build nodejs-livescript, which depends on this package.  Then, once
nodejs-livescript is built, we can then rebuild this package from the
livescript sources.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1353389] Review Request: nodejs-woothee - User-Agent string parser ( js implementation)

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353389

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1353390




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353390
[Bug 1353390] Review Request: nodejs-type-name - Just a reasonable typeof
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1353390] Review Request: nodejs-type-name - Just a reasonable typeof

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353390

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1269538 (IoT)
 Depends On||1353389




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353389
[Bug 1353389] Review Request: nodejs-woothee - User-Agent string parser (js
implementation)
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1353390] New: Review Request: nodejs-type-name - Just a reasonable typeof

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353390

Bug ID: 1353390
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-type-name - Just a reasonable
typeof
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-type-name/nodejs-type-name.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-type-name/nodejs-type-name-2.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Just a reasonable typeof
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1353389] New: Review Request: nodejs-woothee - User-Agent string parser (js implementation)

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353389

Bug ID: 1353389
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-woothee - User-Agent string
parser (js implementation)
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-woothee/nodejs-woothee.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-woothee/nodejs-woothee-1.4.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: User-Agent string parser (js implementation)
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1353389] Review Request: nodejs-woothee - User-Agent string parser ( js implementation)

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353389

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1269538 (IoT)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1353382] New: Review Request: nodejs-is-url - Check whether a string is a URL

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353382

Bug ID: 1353382
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-is-url - Check whether a string
is a URL
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-is-url/nodejs-is-url.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-is-url/nodejs-is-url-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Check whether a string is a URL
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1353367] Review Request: nodejs-shelljs-nodecli - ShellJS Node CLI Extension

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353367

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1269538 (IoT)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1353367] New: Review Request: nodejs-shelljs-nodecli - ShellJS Node CLI Extension

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353367

Bug ID: 1353367
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-shelljs-nodecli - ShellJS Node
CLI Extension
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-shelljs-nodecli/nodejs-shelljs-nodecli.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-shelljs-nodecli/nodejs-shelljs-nodecli-0.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: ShellJS Node CLI Extension
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1280054] Review Request: nodejs-array-reduce - `[].reduce() ` for old browsers

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280054



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-array-reduce-0.0.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c5a396bf83

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1279981] Review Request: nodejs-array-filter - Array#filter for older browsers

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279981



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-array-filter-1.0.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-bde2934afd

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1352743] Review Request: nodejs-component-indexof - A lame indexOf thing

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352743



--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith  ---
Updating to a different (more modern) version.

Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-component-indexof/nodejs-component-indexof.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-component-indexof/nodejs-component-indexof-0.0.3-2.fc24.src.rpm
Description: A lame indexOf thing
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1273134] Review Request: nodejs-tmatch - acilitate the `t.match() ` method in `tap`

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273134



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-tmatch-2.0.1-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9be88c573e

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

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #7 from tatyana  ---
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
 Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/libibverbs.d/i40iw.driver

The file /etc/libibverbs.d/i40iw.driver contains the driver name to be used by
ib verbs and is not intended to be edited by the user. This file stays the same
in different library versions (since the driver name is the same). If the file
is somehow modified by the user, it can cause issues and it is preferred to be
overwritten by the next libi40iw install.

We are working on fixes for the other items on the list.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1352169] Review Request: zerotier-one - Network Virtualization Everywhere https://www.zerotier.com /

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352169

Kristof Szabo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: zerotier -  |Review Request:
   |Network Virtualization  |zerotier-one - Network
   |Everywhere  |Virtualization Everywhere
   |https://www.zerotier.com/   |https://www.zerotier.com/



--- Comment #6 from Kristof Szabo  ---
I agree, let's stick to upstream, thanks for the update.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1331589] Review Request: multibit-commons - Classes and libraries to support MultiBit projects

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589



--- Comment #13 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
>> have you time for this 
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1346382 ? (priority is 
>> low)
> 
> I will start on it after I have finished this ticket.

It have been reviewed, just let me know if you want me to review another ticket

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1308480] Review Request: wlc - Wayland compositor library

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308480

Adam Miller  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||admil...@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 1331589] Review Request: multibit-commons - Classes and libraries to support MultiBit projects

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589



--- Comment #12 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
> license field should be: MIT and GPLv2+

Fixed + updated the URL and Source0 to keepkey.

Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/multibit-commons/multibit-commons.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/multibit-commons/multibit-commons-1.1.0-1.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 1353343] New: Review Request: qmc2 - M.A.M.E. Catalog / Launcher II

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353343

Bug ID: 1353343
   Summary: Review Request: qmc2 - M.A.M.E. Catalog / Launcher II
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: beleg...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/qmc2/qmc2.spec
SRPM URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/qmc2/qmc2-0.65-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: QMC2 is a Qt4 based UNIX frontend for MAME and MESS.

Following the acceptance of mame into Fedora package collection, the 2nd step
is to move qmc2.

Fedora Account System Username: belegdol

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

[Bug 1331589] Review Request: multibit-commons - Classes and libraries to support MultiBit projects

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589



--- Comment #11 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
> Please, report the problem to upstream.

Added a new issue here: https://github.com/keepkey/multibit-commons/issues/2

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1343608] Review Request: python-pyprocdev - Pythonic interface to / proc/devices

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343608



--- Comment #2 from mulhern  ---
Fixed.

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

[Bug 1343738] Review Request: lxqt-admin - LXQt system administration tool

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343738



--- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner  ---
Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/lx/lxqt-admin.spec
SRPM URL:
https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/lx/lxqt-admin-0.10.0-2.20160705git8acfd2a.fc24.src.rpm

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14797406

* Wed Jul 06 2016 Raphael Groner <> - 0.10.0-2.20160705git8acfd2a
- new git snapshot
- drop dependency to liboobs
- add polkit
- adjust license

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1308561] Review Request: sway - i3-compatible window manager for Wayland

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308561

Adam Miller  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||admil...@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 1348006] Review Request: python-i3ipc - An improved Python library to control i3wm

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348006



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-i3ipc-1.2.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4b67281d78

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1343608] Review Request: python-pyprocdev - Pythonic interface to / proc/devices

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343608

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||projects...@smart.ms



--- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner  ---
Why do you use GPLv2 instead of GPLv2+? I don't see a restriction in sources,
the LICENSE file clearly says "or later".

GNU General Public License v2.0 only  GPLv2 
GNU General Public License v2.0 or later  GPLv2+

Could do the official review in swap with bug #1343738.

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

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

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

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #42 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Julian Sikorski from comment #34)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #32)
> > (In reply to Julian Sikorski from comment #31)
> > > 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
> > 
> > Review is finished but I still have an error like this
> > https://github.com/mamedev/mame/issues/953 if I try to build with
> > fedora-review.
> > 
> > Instead works on koji ...
> > 
> > Are you able to build 'mame' with mock on rawhide ?
> 
> Would you be OK approving the review request? The rawhide build issue is
> beyond my ability to fix myself, and a bug has been filled with upstream.
> Rawhide is at relatively early development stage atm so this issue is
> unlikely to affect many at this point. Thank you.

Review had to be done against rawhide:

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
 found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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 225280 bytes in 12 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: %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

[Bug 1343733] Review Request: system-tools-backends - Common DBus interface to modify or read the system configuration

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343733

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2016-07-06 14:53:53



--- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner  ---
Lost interest for this 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 1343734] Review Request: liboobs - Wrapping library to the System Tools Backends

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343734

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Blocks|1343738 (lxqt-admin)|
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2016-07-06 14:53:01



--- Comment #15 from Raphael Groner  ---
Agreed. Closing.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343738
[Bug 1343738] Review Request: lxqt-admin - LXQt system administration tool
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1195853] Review Request: monkeysign - OpenGPG Key Exchange for Humans

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195853
Bug 1195853 depends on bug 1195835, which changed state.

Bug 1195835 Summary: Review Request: python-qrencode - A simple wrapper for the 
C qrencode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195835

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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

[Bug 1352380] Review Request: python-parsimonious - a lookahead parser written in pure Python

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352380

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mru...@redhat.com
 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

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

[Bug 1352065] Review Request: gst-transcoder - GStreamer Transcoding API

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352065



--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Right, but we shouldn't alter the file payload in post and postun. 
Additionally, doing so as proposed, using libdir in post, will behave
differently on 32 and 62 bit systems.  It will also break on 32 bit, as libdir
evaluates to /usr/lib.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1349575] Review Request: python-multidict - MultiDict implementation

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349575



--- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
(In reply to Athmane Madjoudj from comment #1)
> Hi Igor,
> 
> Since this is blocking my other pkgs, I'll be doing full review in next ~24h
> (busy atm).
> 
> Couple questions though:
> 
> - Is there reason for 'BuildRequires:  gcc', gcc should be included in
> buildroot (@buildsys-build) unless we stripped the gcc compilers too (in
> addition to perl :)
Every build requires should be specified. It has been introduced something half
year ago.
> 
> - The module seem to support both py2 and py3, however only python 3 is
> built, any comments on this ?
IIRC it's python3 only.

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

[Bug 1349575] Review Request: python-multidict - MultiDict implementation

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349575

Athmane Madjoudj  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Athmane Madjoudj  ---
Hi Igor,

Since this is blocking my other pkgs, I'll be doing full review in next ~24h
(busy atm).

Couple questions though:

- Is there reason for 'BuildRequires:  gcc', gcc should be included in
buildroot (@buildsys-build) unless we stripped the gcc compilers too (in
addition to perl :)

- The module seem to support both py2 and py3, however only python 3 is built,
any comments on this ?

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

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

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #25 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/giac

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1353224] Review Request: python-tackerclient - Client for OpenStack tacker project

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353224



--- Comment #1 from hgue...@redhat.com ---
I am sponsoring Alfredo, but informal reviews are welcome.
My FAS is hguemar, I'll make sure to switch accounts before changing flags.

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

[Bug 1344415] Review Request: v8-314 - JavaScript Engine

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
Updated with fixes from nodejs:

Spec URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/v8-314.spec
SRPM URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/v8-314-3.14.5.10-2.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 1352993] Review Request: python-args - Argument Parsing for Humans

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352993



--- Comment #2 from Jeremy Cline  ---
Spec URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/python-args.spec
SRPM URL: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/python-args-0.1.0-2.fc25.src.rpm

I'm fine with all these changes, but it's worth noting the packaging guidelines
for Python exhibit most of these problems[0]. If these are true blockers for
review, I think the guidelines should be updated.

[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1306353] Review Request: libunity - Library for integrating with Unity and Plasma

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306353



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
libunity-7.1.4-2.20151002.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-18e76d06b7

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1353224] Review Request: python-tackerclient - Client for OpenStack tacker project

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353224

Alfredo Moralejo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1329341 (RDO-NEWTON),
   ||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329341
[Bug 1329341] Tracker: Blockers and Review requests for new RDO Newton
packages
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1352993] Review Request: python-args - Argument Parsing for Humans

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352993

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
In general looks good, but there are some issues:

> Source0:
> https://github.com/kennethreitz/%{srcname}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz
Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz

> Summary:%{sum}
Just put summary here and use further by %{summary}

> BuildRequires:  python2-devel python3-devel
Put
BuildRequires: python2-devel
BuildRequires: python2-setuptools
under %package -n python2-%{srcname}

> %description -n python2-%{srcname}
> Argument Parsing for Humans.
%description -n python2-%{srcname}
%{summary}.

Python 2 version.



Same for python3.


Once will be fixed - we can approve it.

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

[Bug 1353224] New: Review Request: python-tackerclient - Client for OpenStack tacker project

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353224

Bug ID: 1353224
   Summary: Review Request: python-tackerclient - Client for
OpenStack tacker project
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: amora...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Tacker is an OpenStack based NFV Orchestrator service with built-in general
purpose VNF Manager to deploy and operate Virtual Network Functions (VNFs) on
an OpenStack based NFV Platform

Description: python-tackerclient provides the client library and executable to
interact with OpenStack Tacker service.

SRPM URL:
https://github.com/amoralej/python-tackerclient/raw/master/python-tackerclient-0.4.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
Spec URL:
https://github.com/amoralej/python-tackerclient/raw/master/python-tackerclient.spec

Fedora Account System Username: amoralej

Koji scratch build available at
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14793473

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1315870] Review Request: libhfi1verbs - verbs userspace driver for Intel HFIs

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315870

Neil Horman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(dennis.dalessandr
   ||o...@intel.com)



--- Comment #28 from Neil Horman  ---
It looks like at some point in your update you removed the _smp_mflags macro:

[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.

Its not a huge deal, I can let that slide, but please fix it when you check it
in.

Also, something just occured to me.  Is this verb library named libhfi1 because
its meant to supersede libhfi?  If so, you might consider renaming it upstream,
and just using the epoch tag in the spec to make sure the upgrade path is
right.  Doing so would let you avoid the obsoletes tag requirements, as you we
could update the libhfiverbs package that exists.

The question to really answer is "is libhfiverbs still under active
development"?  If it is, then you proably want what you have.  If not, and if
libfhi1 is compatible with libhfi in terms of hardware, then you may want to
consider renaming the package upstream.

Let me know what you want to do.  If you are happy with the way it currently
is, then I can approve this as it is.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1348202] Review Request: rubygem-pcaprub - libpcap bindings for ruby

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348202



--- Comment #3 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
I would say that the error is pretty clear and straight-forward:

Elaborazione file: rubygem-pcaprub-0.12.4-1.fc24.x86_64
errore: File non trovato:
/home/user/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-pcaprub-0.12.4-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/share/gems/gems/pcaprub-0.12.4/ext

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1353169] Review Request: python-nikola - A static website and blog generator

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353169



--- Comment #3 from José Matos  ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #1)
> Please update the spec to follow the current guidelines (python2 stuff in a
> python2 subpackage, unversioned binaries to use the python 3 version, etc.).
> 
> See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python

Spec URL: https://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-nikola.spec
SRPM URL: https://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-nikola-7.7.9-3.fc25.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1315870] Review Request: libhfi1verbs - verbs userspace driver for Intel HFIs

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315870

Neil Horman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(nhor...@redhat.co |
   |m)  |



--- Comment #27 from Neil Horman  ---
sorry, I completely missed this, I'll review it right away

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

[Bug 1343734] Review Request: liboobs - Wrapping library to the System Tools Backends

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343734



--- Comment #14 from mulhern  ---
I'm assuming this and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343733 can
be closed, since the packages are not needed by lxqt-admin.

On the other hand, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343608 is still
open. It is _very_ simple, pure Python, and should be essentially a rubber
stamp. Do you think you can do it?

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

[Bug 1348202] Review Request: rubygem-pcaprub - libpcap bindings for ruby

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

lpcap  -lpthread -ldl -lcrypt -lm  
-lc
current directory:
/home/user/rpmbuild/BUILD/pcaprub-0.12.4/usr/share/gems/gems/pcaprub-0.12.4/ext/pcaprub_c
make "DESTDIR=" install
/usr/bin/mkdir -p . ./.gem.20160706-15761-1v5ysuc
exit > .RUBYARCHDIR.time
/usr/bin/install -c -m 0755 pcaprub_c.so ./.gem.20160706-15761-1v5ysuc
To see why this extension failed to compile, please check the mkmf.log which
can be found here:

 
/home/user/rpmbuild/BUILD/pcaprub-0.12.4/usr/lib64/gems/ruby/pcaprub-0.12.4/mkmf.log
Successfully installed pcaprub-0.12.4
Parsing documentation for pcaprub-0.12.4
Parsing sources...
100% [13/13]  lib/pcaprub/version.rb
Installing ri documentation for pcaprub-0.12.4
Installing darkfish documentation for pcaprub-0.12.4
Done installing documentation for pcaprub after 0 seconds
1 gem installed
+ exit 0
Esecuzione(%install) in corso: /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.9dfiOf
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/user/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ '[' /home/user/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-pcaprub-0.12.4-1.fc24.x86_64 '!=' /
']'
+ rm -rf /home/user/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-pcaprub-0.12.4-1.fc24.x86_64
++ dirname /home/user/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-pcaprub-0.12.4-1.fc24.x86_64
+ mkdir -p /home/user/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT
+ mkdir /home/user/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-pcaprub-0.12.4-1.fc24.x86_64
+ cd pcaprub-0.12.4
+ mkdir -p
/home/user/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-pcaprub-0.12.4-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/share/gems
+ cp -a ./usr/share/gems/build_info ./usr/share/gems/cache ./usr/share/gems/doc
./usr/share/gems/extensions ./usr/share/gems/gems
./usr/share/gems/specifications
/home/user/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-pcaprub-0.12.4-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/share/gems/
+ mkdir -p
/home/user/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-pcaprub-0.12.4-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/lib64/gems/ruby/pcaprub-0.12.4
+ cp -a ./usr/lib64/gems/ruby/pcaprub-0.12.4/gem.build_complete
./usr/lib64/gems/ruby/pcaprub-0.12.4/pcaprub_c.so
/home/user/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-pcaprub-0.12.4-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/lib64/gems/ruby/pcaprub-0.12.4/
+ rm -rf
/home/user/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-pcaprub-0.12.4-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/share/gems/gems/pcaprub-0.12.4/ext/
+ /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh --strict-build-id -m --run-dwz
--dwz-low-mem-die-limit 1000 --dwz-max-die-limit 11000
/home/user/rpmbuild/BUILD/pcaprub-0.12.4
extracting debug info from
/home/user/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-pcaprub-0.12.4-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/lib64/gems/ruby/pcaprub-0.12.4/pcaprub_c.so
dwz: Too few files for multifile optimization
/usr/lib/rpm/sepdebugcrcfix: Updated 1 CRC32s, 0 CRC32s did match.
66 blocks
+ '[' noarch = noarch ']'
+ case "${QA_CHECK_RPATHS:-}" in
+ /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot
+ /usr/lib/rpm/brp-compress
+ /usr/lib/rpm/brp-strip-static-archive /usr/bin/strip
+ /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-bytecompile /usr/bin/python 1
+ /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-hardlink
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-java-repack-jars
Esecuzione(%check) in corso: /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.xD3nuY
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/user/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ cd pcaprub-0.12.4
+ pushd ./usr/share/gems/gems/pcaprub-0.12.4
~/rpmbuild/BUILD/pcaprub-0.12.4/usr/share/gems/gems/pcaprub-0.12.4
~/rpmbuild/BUILD/pcaprub-0.12.4
+ popd
~/rpmbuild/BUILD/pcaprub-0.12.4
+ exit 0
Elaborazione file: rubygem-pcaprub-0.12.4-1.fc24.x86_64
errore: File non trovato:
/home/user/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-pcaprub-0.12.4-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/share/gems/gems/pcaprub-0.12.4/ext


Errori di compilazione RPM:
File non trovato:
/home/user/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/rubygem-pcaprub-0.12.4-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/share/gems/gems/pcaprub-0.12.4/ext

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1353169] Review Request: python-nikola - A static website and blog generator

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353169

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@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 1353169] Review Request: python-nikola - A static website and blog generator

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353169

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ngomp...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa  ---
Please update the spec to follow the current guidelines (python2 stuff in a
python2 subpackage, unversioned binaries to use the python 3 version, etc.).

See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python

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

[Bug 1350700] Review Request: nodejs-emojione - Emoji One is a complete set of emojis designed for the web

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350700



--- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
I invested some time today on this package and comeup with this partial changes 
https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-emojione.spec

We still need to work on this spec and as pointed above on fonts. If working
fonts are provided by other packages, we can just pull those packages and link
them to emojione/assets/fonts/. 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 1350700] Review Request: nodejs-emojione - Emoji One is a complete set of emojis designed for the web

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350700



--- Comment #3 from Mike FABIAN  ---
Created attachment 1176850
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1176850=edit
emojione-android.ttf-versus-emojione-apple.ttf.png

When trying to view the fonts with:

ftview 20 /usr/lib/node_modules/emojione/assets/fonts/emojione-android.ttf 
ftview 20 /usr/lib/node_modules/emojione/assets/fonts/emojione-apple.ttf 

the mojione-apple.ttf works, even in colour, but emojione-android.ttf 
does not seem to work, ftview shows "Invalid pixel size" (See attached screen
shot).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1350700] Review Request: nodejs-emojione - Emoji One is a complete set of emojis designed for the web

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350700



--- Comment #2 from Mike FABIAN  ---
Should the fonts be packaged somewhere to /usr/share/fonts/... instead of:

/usr/lib/node_modules/emojione/assets/fonts/emojione-android.ttf
/usr/lib/node_modules/emojione/assets/fonts/emojione-apple.ttf

?

The fonts don’t seem to work though, at least not when using "xfd":

$ fc-list  "Emoji One"
/home/mfabian/.fonts/emojione-android.ttf: Emoji One:style=Regular
$ fc-list "Apple Color Emoji"
/home/mfabian/.fonts/emojione-apple.ttf: Apple カラー絵文字,Apple 彩色表情符號,Apple
farve\-emoji,Apple Farben\-Emoji,Applen väri\-emoji,Apple Emoji couleur,Colore
Emoji Apple,Apple 컬러 이모티콘,Apple Kleur\-Emoji,Apple farge\-emoji,Apple Emoji em
Cores,Цветные эмодзи Apple,Apple färg\-emoji,Apple 彩色表情符号,Apple Emoji
الملونة,Apple Emoji color,Apple Color
Emoji:style=レギュラー,標準體,Ordinær,Normal,Regular,Normaali,Regolare,일반체,Regulier,Обычный,常规体,عادي

$ xfd -fa "Apple Color Emoji"
X Error of failed request:  BadLength (poly request too large or internal Xlib
length error)
  Major opcode of failed request:  138 (RENDER)
  Minor opcode of failed request:  20 (RenderAddGlyphs)
  Serial number of failed request:  326
  Current serial number in output stream:  514
$ xfd -fa "Emoji One"
X Error of failed request:  BadLength (poly request too large or internal Xlib
length error)
  Major opcode of failed request:  138 (RENDER)
  Minor opcode of failed request:  20 (RenderAddGlyphs)
  Serial number of failed request:  192
  Current serial number in output stream:  657

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1353169] New: Review Request: python-nikola - A static website and blog generator

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353169

Bug ID: 1353169
   Summary: Review Request: python-nikola - A static website and
blog generator
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jama...@fc.up.pt
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/python-nikola.git/plain/python-nikola.spec?h=f24
SRPM URL:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/python-nikola/7.7.9/2.fc24/src/python-nikola-7.7.9-2.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Nikola is a static site and blog generator using Python. It
generates sites with tags, feeds, archives, comments, and more from plain text
files. Source can be unformatted, or formatted with reStructuredText or
Markdown. It also automatically builds image galleries.
Fedora Account System Username: jamatos

Note that this review is to unretire the package for rawhide, where it is
orphaned.

The reason why it was retired was:
This package has very dynamic dependencies on specific versions of libraries
that it uses. These dependencies are prohibitively difficult to meet in Fedora,
because the dependencies have their own life cycle and other packages depend on
those libraries but may not work with the specific versions that Nikola needs.

Since it was retired things have improved a lot, now packages for Fedora 24
builds meeting every dependencies, while missing just one for testing
(importing a wordpress site into nikola) and some extra functionality
dependencies.

Note that this is an application that uses python and not a python library.

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

[Bug 1352091] Review Request: enunciate (Re-review: enunciate-core-annotations) - Build-time enhancement tool for Java-based Web services projects

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352091



--- Comment #14 from gil cattaneo  ---
Created attachment 1176834
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1176834=edit
enunciate licensececk

see enunciate-licensececk.txt
this is a list with all source files without license headers
you should report the underlying problem to upstream and
make sure that in the new version this problem is not present
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1352091] Review Request: enunciate (Re-review: enunciate-core-annotations) - Build-time enhancement tool for Java-based Web services projects

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352091



--- Comment #13 from gil cattaneo  ---
Created attachment 1176832
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1176832=edit
spec file changes

- remove useless main package
- fix jersey version and cglib aId
- fix BRs list

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14790219

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1268377] Review Request: gnome-encfs-manager - An easy to use manager and mounter for encfs stashes

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268377

jeremy9...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jeremy9...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from jeremy9...@gmail.com ---
It will be great if gnome-encfs-manager be in the repo. I hope that will
happen.

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 1352666] Review Request: perl-Pod-Constants - Include constants from POD

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352666



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Pod-Constants-0.19-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a729c1a1c4

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1348202] Review Request: rubygem-pcaprub - libpcap bindings for ruby

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348202



--- Comment #1 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
This package does not compile due to:

pcaprub.c:11:18: fatal error: pcap.h: No such file or directory
 #include 
  ^
compilation terminated.


Probably there is a missing buildrequire. My guess would be that you need to
add:

BuildRequires: libpcap-devel

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1348163] Review Request: rubygem-network-interface - A cross platform gem to help get network interface information

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348163



--- Comment #1 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
This package does not compile due to:

RPM build errors:
error: File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-network_interface-0.0.1-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/share/gems/gems/network_interface-0.0.1/ext
File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-network_interface-0.0.1-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/share/gems/gems/network_interface-0.0.1/ext

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162



--- Comment #2 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
Also, The license should be "BSD" and not "BSDL" to comply with Fedora standard
for shorts licenses names

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162



--- Comment #1 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
TODO list:
- Add LICENSE file
- Align spec file inside and outside the sprm package






This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/fale/1348162-rubygem-net-
 dns/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
 /usr/share/gems/doc
[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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[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 rubygem-
 net-dns-doc
[x]: Package functions

[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy

2016-07-06 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160



--- Comment #1 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
Things to fix/improve:
- Include the LICENSE file in the package
- Exclude the .rspec folder from the rpm package
- Fix script-without-shebang
/usr/share/gems/gems/em-proxy-0.1.8/examples/balancing-client.rb
- Align file SPEC with SRPM






This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/fale/1348160-rubygem-em-
 proxy/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
 /usr/share/gems/doc
[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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned

69 matches

Mail list logo