[Bug 1259002] Review Request: rudiments - C++ class library for developing systems and applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259002



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
rudiments-0.53-5.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ea2cdb5b6b

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

[Bug 1259002] Review Request: rudiments - C++ class library for developing systems and applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259002

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |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 1358293] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358293

Itamar Reis Peixoto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||manisan...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(manisandro@gmail.
   ||com)



--- Comment #19 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
would you like to send it for inclusion in rpmfusion ?

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

[Bug 1050744] Review Request: belle-sip - Linphone SIP stack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050744



--- Comment #48 from Orion Poplawski  ---
Comment on attachment 1183912
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1183912
Replace readdir_r with readdir

From man 3 readdir:

On success, readdir() returns a pointer to a dirent structure.  (This structure
may be statically  allocated;  do  not  attempt  to free(3) it.)  If the end of
the directory stream is reached, NULL is returned and errno is not changed.  
If  an  error  occurs, NULL is returned and errno is set appropriately.


So I think you want to check errno for errors.

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

[Bug 1270405] Review Request: native_client - Google Native Client Toolchain

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270405



--- Comment #14 from Orion Poplawski  ---
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #13)
> I could call it chromium-native_client. Is that name preferred?

Works for me, assuming this is only relevant for chromium.

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

[Bug 1354113] Review Request: python-pytest-catchlog - py.test plugin to catch log messages ( fork of pytest-capturelog)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354113



--- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski  ---
Package Review
==

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

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


= 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". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/python-pytest-
 catchlog-1.2.2/1354113-python-pytest-catchlog/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags 

[Bug 1354113] Review Request: python-pytest-catchlog - py.test plugin to catch log messages ( fork of pytest-capturelog)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354113

Orion Poplawski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.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 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #10 from Michal Karm Babacek  ---
Hi Paul,

no need for a test server, a small virtual machine is enough to test and play.
If you would like to know more about setting up a test virtual machine, feel
free to post a question on http://ask.fedoraproject.org/

These are _untested_ Fedora 23 packages (I haven't even tried to install them
yet), if you happen to have Fedora 23 somewhere:

https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5787/15015787/mod_cluster-1.3.3-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5787/15015787/mod_cluster-java-1.3.3-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5787/15015787/mod_cluster-java-catalina-1.3.3-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5787/15015787/mod_cluster-java-tomcat8-1.3.3-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm

Please, under no circumstances put these scratch build test packages into
production anywhere.

Cheers
-K-

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

[Bug 1359802] Review Request: golang-github-gosexy-gettext - Gettext support for the Go language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359802



--- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa  ---
It looks like there's quite a few changes between that commit and master:
https://github.com/gosexy/gettext/compare/98b7b91596d20b96909e6b60d57411547dd9959c...master

There may be other new dependencies involved 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 1339302] Review Request: libinvm-cli - Framework library supporting common Intel NVM storage CLI applications.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339302



--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libinvm-cli

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/v8-314

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

[Bug 1359802] Review Request: golang-github-gosexy-gettext - Gettext support for the Go language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359802

Zygmunt Krynicki  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(m...@zygoon.pl) |



--- Comment #5 from Zygmunt Krynicki  ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #4)
> (In reply to Zygmunt Krynicki from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2)
> > > A cursory check of this package sources indicate that it depends on 
> > > gettext
> > > (maybe gettext-devel?) to and "golang(github.com/jessevdk/go-flags)" to
> > > build. Neither appear present in your spec.
> > > 
> > > Are you sure this is set up right?
> > 
> > This is actually (confusingly) correct.
> > 
> > Checking the code we simply link to libc, not to anything specific in
> > gettext-devel.
> >
> 
> Weird, the readme seems to imply that it needs to link to gettext-devel...

Ah, all is clear now. Look at the version I'm working on vs upstream master

https://github.com/gosexy/gettext/commits/98b7b91596d20b96909e6b60d57411547dd9959c

I guess I should simply update the package to take the most recent
release/commit.

Thanks
ZK

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

[Bug 1359802] Review Request: golang-github-gosexy-gettext - Gettext support for the Go language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359802

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@zygoon.pl
  Flags||needinfo?(m...@zygoon.pl)



--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa  ---
(In reply to Zygmunt Krynicki from comment #3)
> (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2)
> > A cursory check of this package sources indicate that it depends on gettext
> > (maybe gettext-devel?) to and "golang(github.com/jessevdk/go-flags)" to
> > build. Neither appear present in your spec.
> > 
> > Are you sure this is set up right?
> 
> This is actually (confusingly) correct.
> 
> Checking the code we simply link to libc, not to anything specific in
> gettext-devel.
>

Weird, the readme seems to imply that it needs to link to gettext-devel...

> Ah, I missed the go-flags comment. How did you find this? AFAIK nothing
> imports go-flags in the source package (I just gripped for it)
> 
> 

I saw the go-flags import here:
https://github.com/gosexy/gettext/blob/master/go-xgettext/main.go#L42

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

[Bug 1359802] Review Request: golang-github-gosexy-gettext - Gettext support for the Go language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359802



--- Comment #3 from Zygmunt Krynicki  ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2)
> A cursory check of this package sources indicate that it depends on gettext
> (maybe gettext-devel?) to and "golang(github.com/jessevdk/go-flags)" to
> build. Neither appear present in your spec.
> 
> Are you sure this is set up right?

This is actually (confusingly) correct.

Checking the code we simply link to libc, not to anything specific in
gettext-devel.

Ah, I missed the go-flags comment. How did you find this? AFAIK nothing imports
go-flags in the source package (I just gripped for it)


^^ - just comments I wrote as a reply to the bugzilla email (sorry, not used to
the process yet).

Best regards
ZK

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

[Bug 1359914] Review Request: lollypop - Music player for GNOME

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359914

MartinKG  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

URL||http://gnumdk.github.io/lol
   ||lypop/
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: lollypop -
   |xt7-player-mpv - Qt/Gambas  |Music player for GNOME
   |gui to mpv media player |



--- Comment #1 from MartinKG  ---
correct Description: Lollypop is a new GNOME music playing application.

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

[Bug 1359914] New: Review Request: xt7-player-mpv - Qt/ Gambas gui to mpv media player

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359914

Bug ID: 1359914
   Summary: Review Request: xt7-player-mpv - Qt/Gambas gui to mpv
media player
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mgans...@alice.de
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/lollypop.spec
SRPM URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/lollypop-0.9.112-1.fc24.src.rpm

Description: Aims to be an (in)complete graphical interface to mpv, focused on
usability. It also provides extra features like youtube and shoutcast
integration, dvbt, media tagging, library and playlist managment and a lot
more.

Fedora Account System Username: martinkg

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

[Bug 1358293] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358293

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |ASSIGNED
 CC||tcall...@redhat.com



--- Comment #18 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
Uh, yeah. This cannot go into Fedora. Sorry.

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

[Bug 1050744] Review Request: belle-sip - Linphone SIP stack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050744



--- Comment #47 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
Created attachment 1183912
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1183912=edit
Replace readdir_r with readdir

I _think_ this patch is right. Would appreciate other people reviewing it for
sanity.

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

[Bug 1270405] Review Request: native_client - Google Native Client Toolchain

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270405



--- Comment #13 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
I could call it chromium-native_client. Is that name preferred?

As to the license, toolchain_build is where all the fun happens. We're talking
about binutils, gcc, newlib, llvm (and components).

Also, the tooling in native_client depends on the .git files (I think. This
code build process is incredibly fragile and poorly understood by humans.)

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

[Bug 1205872] Review Request: python-padme - Mostly transparent proxy class for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205872

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ngomp...@gmail.com
 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |



--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa  ---
zyga was sponsored in bug 1358692, clearing the path for this to be reviewed.


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 1359802] Review Request: golang-github-gosexy-gettext - Gettext support for the Go language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359802



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
A cursory check of this package sources indicate that it depends on gettext
(maybe gettext-devel?) to and "golang(github.com/jessevdk/go-flags)" to build.
Neither appear present in your spec.

Are you sure this is set up right?

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

[Bug 1359802] Review Request: golang-github-gosexy-gettext - Gettext support for the Go language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359802

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ngomp...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa  ---
Taking this 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 1359804] Review Request: golang-github-mvo5-goconfigparser - Golang implementation of Python ConfigParser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359804

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
Package was generated through gofed, simplifying the review considerably.

- Conforms to packaging guidelines (gofed generated spec)
- license correct and valid
- only sources installed

Since this package depends on "golang(gopkg.in/check.v1)", you'll need to do a
buildroot override to ensure you can build against it for F23 and F24.

See more information on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi/BuildRootOverrides

Package approved.

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

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243

Paul Roubekas  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(paul@orthogroup.h |
   |oldings)|



--- Comment #9 from Paul Roubekas  ---
I am a small startup company.  I don't have a test server, period.  I am not
able to install Fedora 24.  I will gladly help in the future when I have more
than one server.

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

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243

Michal Karm Babacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(paul@orthogroup.h
   ||oldings)



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

[Bug 1356907] Review Request: rust - The Rust Programming Language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356907

Josh Stone  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1359763




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359763
[Bug 1359763] Rust Compiler
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243

Michal Karm Babacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|csuth...@redhat.com
 QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |jcl...@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 1357749] Review Request: cargo - Rust' s package manager and build tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357749

Josh Stone  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1359763




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359763
[Bug 1359763] Rust Compiler
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #8 from Michal Karm Babacek  ---
Dear Paul, thank you for your interest in mod_cluster project.

Here is an _untested_ scratch build of the upcoming update, you could give it a
shot on Fedora 24:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15014378

Sources: https://github.com/Karm/mod_cluster-fedora-packages

Note: It brings:
 - httpd modules
 - Tomcat 8 dependencies
 - Wildfly dependencies 

Tomcat 7 nor Tomcat 6 and not even JBoss AS7 libs are present. Tomcat 6 and
JBoss AS7 are definitely dropped and Tomcat 7 could re-appear if there is a
strong interest in it.

Feedback is more than welcome.

Cheers
-K-

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

[Bug 1339302] Review Request: libinvm-cli - Framework library supporting common Intel NVM storage CLI applications.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339302

Dan Williams  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from Dan Williams  ---
Looks good to me.

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

[Bug 1358357] Review Request: python-pygpgme - Python module for working with OpenPGP messages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358357

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 1358357] Review Request: python-pygpgme - Python module for working with OpenPGP messages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358357



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
gpgme-1.6.0-3.fc24 python-pygpgme-0.3-18.fc24 has been submitted as an update
to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-198d93bc53

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

[Bug 1358357] Review Request: python-pygpgme - Python module for working with OpenPGP messages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358357



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
gpgme-1.6.0-3.fc23 python-pygpgme-0.3-18.fc23 has been submitted as an update
to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-33b89975fe

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



--- Comment #4 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
Good catch:

New Spec: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libcxxabi.spec
New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libcxxabi-3.8.0-2.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 1359804] Review Request: golang-github-mvo5-goconfigparser - Golang implementation of Python ConfigParser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359804

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ngomp...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa  ---
Taking this 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 1036130] Review request: plv8 - javascript language extension for postgresql

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036130



--- Comment #28 from John Griffiths  ---
Any progress one 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 1358980] Review Request: johnzon - Implementation of JSR-353

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358980

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 1358980] Review Request: johnzon - Implementation of JSR-353

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358980



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
johnzon-0.9.4-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7fe0755f3d

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

[Bug 1343063] Review Request: artemis - Java high performance, clustered, asynchronous messaging system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343063



--- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo  ---
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15014104

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

[Bug 1343063] Review Request: artemis - Java high performance, clustered, asynchronous messaging system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343063



--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #8)
> I think using just:
> %cmake .
> should be enough.

Done

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

[Bug 1358357] Review Request: python-pygpgme - Python module for working with OpenPGP messages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358357



--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-pygpgme

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

[Bug 1358357] Review Request: python-pygpgme - Python module for working with OpenPGP messages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358357

Jon Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Ok, looks good.

APPROVED.

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

[Bug 1359401] Review Request: cutegram - Cutegram is a telegram client by Aseman Land

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359401



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
aseman-qt-tools-1.0.0-5.fc23 cutegram-3.0-0.5gitc67ce70.fc23
libqtelegram-ae-10.0.0-2.fc23 telegramqml-2.0.0-2.fc23 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b83952c941

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

[Bug 1359400] Review Request: telegramqml - Telegram API tools for QtQml and Qml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359400



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
aseman-qt-tools-1.0.0-5.fc23 cutegram-3.0-0.5gitc67ce70.fc23
libqtelegram-ae-10.0.0-2.fc23 telegramqml-2.0.0-2.fc23 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b83952c941

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

[Bug 1359401] Review Request: cutegram - Cutegram is a telegram client by Aseman Land

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359401



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
aseman-qt-tools-1.0.0-5.fc23 cutegram-3.0-0.5gitc67ce70.fc23
libqtelegram-ae-10.0.0-2.fc23 telegramqml-2.0.0-2.fc23 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b83952c941

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

[Bug 1359399] Review Request: aseman-qt-tools - Shared tools and functions , used in the aseman's projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359399



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
aseman-qt-tools-1.0.0-5.fc23 cutegram-3.0-0.5gitc67ce70.fc23
libqtelegram-ae-10.0.0-2.fc23 telegramqml-2.0.0-2.fc23 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b83952c941

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

[Bug 1246761] Review Request: libqtelegram-ae - Qt Telegram API wrapper library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246761



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
aseman-qt-tools-1.0.0-5.fc23 cutegram-3.0-0.5gitc67ce70.fc23
libqtelegram-ae-10.0.0-2.fc23 telegramqml-2.0.0-2.fc23 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b83952c941

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

[Bug 1359401] Review Request: cutegram - Cutegram is a telegram client by Aseman Land

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359401



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
aseman-qt-tools-1.0.0-5.fc24 cutegram-3.0-0.5gitc67ce70.fc24
libqtelegram-ae-10.0.0-2.fc24 telegramqml-2.0.0-2.fc24 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f124196a0d

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

[Bug 1246761] Review Request: libqtelegram-ae - Qt Telegram API wrapper library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246761

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |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 1359399] Review Request: aseman-qt-tools - Shared tools and functions , used in the aseman's projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359399



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
aseman-qt-tools-1.0.0-5.fc24 cutegram-3.0-0.5gitc67ce70.fc24
libqtelegram-ae-10.0.0-2.fc24 telegramqml-2.0.0-2.fc24 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f124196a0d

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

[Bug 1359400] Review Request: telegramqml - Telegram API tools for QtQml and Qml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359400



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
aseman-qt-tools-1.0.0-5.fc24 cutegram-3.0-0.5gitc67ce70.fc24
libqtelegram-ae-10.0.0-2.fc24 telegramqml-2.0.0-2.fc24 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f124196a0d

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

[Bug 1359399] Review Request: aseman-qt-tools - Shared tools and functions , used in the aseman's projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359399

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |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 1246761] Review Request: libqtelegram-ae - Qt Telegram API wrapper library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246761



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
aseman-qt-tools-1.0.0-5.fc24 cutegram-3.0-0.5gitc67ce70.fc24
libqtelegram-ae-10.0.0-2.fc24 telegramqml-2.0.0-2.fc24 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f124196a0d

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

[Bug 1359401] Review Request: cutegram - Cutegram is a telegram client by Aseman Land

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359401



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
aseman-qt-tools-1.0.0-5.fc24 cutegram-3.0-0.5gitc67ce70.fc24
libqtelegram-ae-10.0.0-2.fc24 telegramqml-2.0.0-2.fc24 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f124196a0d

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

[Bug 1359401] Review Request: cutegram - Cutegram is a telegram client by Aseman Land

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359401

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1359400] Review Request: telegramqml - Telegram API tools for QtQml and Qml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359400

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |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 1356552] Review Request: php-onelogin-php-saml - SAML support for PHP softwares

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356552

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #15 from Remi Collet  ---
--- php-onelogin-php-saml.spec.02016-07-20 13:37:25.0 +0200
+++ php-onelogin-php-saml.spec2016-07-25 17:07:35.0 +0200
@@ -2,18 +2,22 @@
 %global gh_short %(c=%{gh_commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
 %global gh_owner onelogin
 %global gh_project   php-saml
+%global php_vendor   OneLogin

 %global php_minver 5.3.2

 Name:   php-%{gh_owner}-%{gh_project}
 Version:2.9.1
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:3%{?dist}
 Summary:SAML support for PHP

 License:MIT
 URL:https://github.com/%{gh_owner}/%{gh_project}
 Source0:   
%{url}/archive/%{gh_commit}/%{gh_project}-%{version}-%{gh_short}.tar.gz

+# Patch the test bootstrap for our autoload.php rather than adjust in %%check
to simplify spec
+Patch0: php-saml-bootstrap-autoloader.patch
+
 BuildArch:  noarch

 BuildRequires:  php(language) >= %{php_minver}
@@ -28,19 +32,36 @@
 # From composer.json, "require": {
 #"php": ">=5.3.2"
 Requires:   php(language) >= %{php_minver}
+Requires: php-openssl
+Requires: php-dom
+
 # From manual unbundling, needs 1.4 contrary to the bundled 2.0 due to
namespace issues
 Requires:   php-composer(robrichards/xmlseclibs) >= 1.4.1
 Requires:   php-composer(robrichards/xmlseclibs) < 2.0.0

-Provides:   php-composer(%{gh_owner}/%{gh_project}) = %{version}
-# Uses the mcrypt algorithms 
+# From phpci analysis
+Requires: php-date
+Requires: php-filter
+Requires: php-hash
+Requires: php-libxml
+Requires: php-pcre
+Requires: php-session
+Requires: php-zlib
+
+
+Suggests: php-gettext
+
+# Uses the mcrypt algorithms which is a suggests in xmlseclibs
 Requires:   php-mcrypt

+Provides:   php-composer(%{gh_owner}/%{gh_project}) = %{version}
+
+
 %description
 OneLogin's SAML PHP toolkit let you build a SP (Service Provider) over 
 your PHP application and connect it to any IdP (Identity Provider).

-Autoloader: %{_datadir}/php/%{gh_project}/autoload.php
+Autoloader: %{_datadir}/php/%{php_vendor}/Saml2/autoload.php


 %prep
@@ -50,27 +71,22 @@
 %build
 rm -rf extlib
 : Generate autoloader
-%{_bindir}/phpab -n --output lib/autoload.php lib
+%{_bindir}/phpab -n --output lib/Saml2/autoload.php lib
 # Append the xmlseclibs requirement not in composer
-cat >> lib/autoload.php <> lib/Saml2/autoload.php < - 2.9.1-3
+- Switch to a single autoloader after feedback
+
+* Mon Jul 25 2016 James Hogarth  - 2.9.1-2
+- Update spec with comments from review
+
 * Wed Jul 20 2016 James Hogarth  - 2.9.1-1
 - update to 2.9.1


[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Please add CHANGELOG as %doc


Everything is now OK.

It seems the "--debug" option is not needed (create lof ot output lines)


=== 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 1358980] Review Request: johnzon - Implementation of JSR-353

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358980



--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo  ---
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 1270322] Review Request: chromium - A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser

[bugzilla]

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #58 from Fedora Update System  ---
chromium-52.0.2743.82-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3a9adbe000

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

[bugzilla]

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

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1354625




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354625
[Bug 1354625] [RFE] We would like to have Tacker packages for RHOSP
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1356552] Review Request: php-onelogin-php-saml - SAML support for PHP softwares

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356552



--- Comment #14 from James Hogarth  ---
Following IRC discussion ... reduced to single autoloader but keeping split PSR
directories:

Spec URL: https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/php-saml/php-onelogin-php-saml.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/php-saml/php-onelogin-php-saml-2.9.1-3.fc25.src.rpm

koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15013330

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

[Bug 1356594] Review Request: shibboleth-java-support - Java Support for Shibbleth projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356594



--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #6)
> Issues
> --
> - The license tag should be "ASL 2.0 and BSD"
Done ("or" operator is for those projects with dual license?
   if is so this project in under dual license ...)
> - Typo in summary and description - Shibbleth -> Shibboleth
Done
> - There is an upstream version 7.2.0 available, can you use that one?
No. for now i will use this release, thanks


Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/shibboleth-java-support.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gil.fedorapeople.org/shibboleth-java-support-7.1.1-1.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 1358980] Review Request: johnzon - Implementation of JSR-353

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358980



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

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

[Bug 1359116] Review Request: eclipse-m2e-maven-dependency-plugin - M2E maven-dependency-plugin connector

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359116



--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been denied with the reason: Error, fixed manually.

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

[Bug 1359820] New: Review Request: python-cloudkittyclient - Client library for CloudKitty

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359820

Bug ID: 1359820
   Summary: Review Request: python-cloudkittyclient - Client
library for CloudKitty
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: karlthe...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-cloudkittyclient.spec
SRPM URL:
https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-cloudkittyclient-0.5.0-2.fc25.src.rpm
Description: Client library for CloudKitty
Fedora Account System Username: hguemar

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

[Bug 1359820] Review Request: python-cloudkittyclient - Client library for CloudKitty

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359820

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1329341 (RDO-NEWTON)




Referenced Bugs:

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 1359116] Review Request: eclipse-m2e-maven-dependency-plugin - M2E maven-dependency-plugin connector

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359116



--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/eclipse-m2e-maven-dependency-plugin

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

[Bug 1359401] Review Request: cutegram - Cutegram is a telegram client by Aseman Land

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359401



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

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

[Bug 1359234] Review Request: auter - Prepare and apply updates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359234

gryfrev8-redhat.com-rj...@tux.com.pt changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||gryfrev8-redhat.com-rjmco@t
   ||ux.com.pt
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|gryfrev8-redhat.com-rjmco@t
   ||ux.com.pt



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

[Bug 1356594] Review Request: shibboleth-java-support - Java Support for Shibbleth projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356594



--- Comment #6 from Michael Simacek  ---
Package Review
==

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

Issues
--
- The license tag should be "ASL 2.0 and BSD"
- Typo in summary and description - Shibbleth -> Shibboleth
- There is an upstream version 7.2.0 available, can you use that one?


= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No
 copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/msimacek/reviews/1356594-shibboleth-
 java-support/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
 Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
 is pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
 subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
 when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
 utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

= SHOULD items =

[Bug 1359473] Review Request: legendsbrowser - Java-based legends viewer for Dwarf Fortress

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359473

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1359804] New: Review Request: golang-github-mvo5-goconfigparser - Golang implementation of Python ConfigParser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359804

Bug ID: 1359804
   Summary: Review Request: golang-github-mvo5-goconfigparser -
Golang implementation of Python ConfigParser
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@zygoon.pl
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zyga/golang-github-mvo5-goconfigparser.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~zyga/golang-github-mvo5-goconfigparser-0-0.1.gitefba970.fc24.src.rpm
Description:
This parser is build as a go equivalent of the Python ConfigParser module and
is aimed for maximum compatibility for both the file format and the API. This
should make it easy to use existing python style configuration files from go
and also ease the porting of existing python code.

Fedora Account System Username: zyga

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

[Bug 1359473] Review Request: legendsbrowser - Java-based legends viewer for Dwarf Fortress

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359473



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo  ---
Seem also which most of the java/source code are without license headers.

Please, ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s,
and add license headers

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 1323186] Review Request: opa-fmgui - Intel OPA Fabric GUI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323186

Rick Tierney  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?



--- Comment #86 from Rick Tierney  ---
I'm at the last stages of this BZ, but have been unable to push my changes to
pkgs.fedoraproject.org.

I followed the procedure starting here: 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Check_out_the_module

1. fedpkg clone opa-fmgui
I was having problems with Ssh and this didn't work so I used http instead: 
git clone http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/git/rpms/opa-fmgui.git

2. Once I had my empty package module I successfully ran the following:
cd opa-fmgui
fedpkg import opa-fmgui-10.1.0.0-112.fc25.src.rpm

3. Then I commited to the local branch
git commit -m "Initial import (#1323186)."

4. But when I tried to push this to Fedora I got the following error:
ssh: connect to host pkgs.fedoraproject.org port 22: Connection timed out
fatal: Could not read from remote repository.

Does Fedora use the default port 22 for SSH?

Notes
-
* Created my ssh keys: ~/.ssh/id-rsa-fedora and ~/.ssh/id-rsa-fedora.pub
* Added my private key to the local ssh-agent (confirmed sucesss with "ssh-add
-l")
* Added my public key to my account at:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts

* Ssh Configuration
HOST *.fedoraproject.org fedorapeople.org *.fedorahosted.org
IdentityFile ~/.ssh/id-rsa-fedora

* Git Configuration - push won't work unless the "push" and "pushurl" fields
are set correctly.  By default these fields are ommitted, so I took my best
guess; odds are these fields are wrong.
[core]
repositoryformatversion = 0
filemode = true
bare = false
logallrefupdates = true
[remote "origin"]
url = ssh://rjtie...@pkgs.fedoraproject.org/rpms/opa-fmgui
fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
push = HEAD:refs/for/master
pushurl = ssh://rjtie...@pkgs.fedoraproject.org/rpms/opa-fmgui
[branch "master"]
remote = origin
merge = refs/heads/master

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

[Bug 1359473] Review Request: legendsbrowser - Java-based legends viewer for Dwarf Fortress

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359473

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||punto...@libero.it



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
Please, remove useless
Requires:   dom4j
Requires:   junit
Requires:   guava
Requires:   reflections
Requires:   velocity
Requires:   apache-commons-logging, apache-commons-lang,
apache-commons-collections, apache-commons-cli

require are generate during the build

%dir %{_javadir}/%{name}
prevent duplicate file

Add for each single JS library or fonts : Provides: bundled(foo) =fooversion
where foo is jquery, bootstrap, leaflet, d3js, font-awesome,
glyphicons-halflings-regular

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

[Bug 1359802] New: Review Request: golang-github-gosexy-gettext - Gettext support for the Go language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359802

Bug ID: 1359802
   Summary: Review Request: golang-github-gosexy-gettext - Gettext
support for the Go language
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@zygoon.pl
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zyga/golang-github-gosexy-gettext.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~zyga/golang-github-gosexy-gettext-0-0.1.git98b7b91.fc24.src.rpm
Description:
Go bindings for GNU gettext, an internationalization and localization library
for writing multilingual systems.

Fedora Account System Username: zyga

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

[Bug 1359797] Review Request: neko-htmlunit - HtmlUnit adaptation of NekoHtml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359797

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1359797] New: Review Request: neko-htmlunit - HtmlUnit adaptation of NekoHtml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359797

Bug ID: 1359797
   Summary: Review Request: neko-htmlunit - HtmlUnit adaptation of
NekoHtml
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: punto...@libero.it
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/neko-htmlunit.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/neko-htmlunit-2.21-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description:
HtmlUnit adaptation of NekoHtml. It has the
same functionality but exposing HTMLElements
to be overridden.
Fedora Account System Username: gil

Used by htmlunit-2.22

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15012963

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

[Bug 1359092] Review Request: golang-gopkg-go-check-check - Rich testing extension for Go' s testing package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359092



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-gopkg-go-check-check-1-1.git4f90aea.fc23 has been submitted as an update
to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-515782ea97

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

[Bug 1359794] New: Review Request: python-marrow-util - A collection of many commonly re-implemented utility classes and functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359794

Bug ID: 1359794
   Summary: Review Request: python-marrow-util - A collection of
many commonly re-implemented utility classes and
functions
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: lbal...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-marrow-util.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-marrow-util-1.2.3-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: A collection of many commonly re-implemented utility classes and
functions for Marrow projects.

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15012818

Issue to improve package content on PyPI (license, readme, tests):
https://github.com/marrow/util/issues/9

Fedora Account System Username: lbalhar

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

[Bug 1359092] Review Request: golang-gopkg-go-check-check - Rich testing extension for Go' s testing package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359092



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-gopkg-go-check-check-1-1.git4f90aea.fc24 has been submitted as an update
to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-049cd2318e

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

[Bug 1359092] Review Request: golang-gopkg-go-check-check - Rich testing extension for Go' s testing package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359092

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1356552] Review Request: php-onelogin-php-saml - SAML support for PHP softwares

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356552



--- Comment #13 from James Hogarth  ---
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15012687

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

[Bug 1356552] Review Request: php-onelogin-php-saml - SAML support for PHP softwares

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356552



--- Comment #12 from James Hogarth  ---
Updated as per comments:

In addition there with the separation of Saml and Saml2 there are two loaders
in the Saml directory ... a compat one that uses static loading like that used
in the phpunit tests and upstream's compatibility.php and also one using
classname based loading such as carried out by the composer based loader in
nextcloud's user_saml application.

Spec URL: https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/php-saml/php-onelogin-php-saml.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/php-saml/php-onelogin-php-saml-2.9.1-2.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 1344415] Review Request: v8-314 - JavaScript Engine

[bugzilla]

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

Zuzana Svetlikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zsvet...@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 1344415] Review Request: v8-314 - JavaScript Engine

[bugzilla]

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

Zuzana Svetlikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zsvet...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Zuzana Svetlikova  ---
Is it necessary to have bumped Epoch if this is a new package?

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]: 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)", "BSD", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or
 generated", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 88 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/kasicka/1344415-v8-314/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.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 143360 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]: 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 

[Bug 1358357] Review Request: python-pygpgme - Python module for working with OpenPGP messages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358357

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias||python-pygpgme



--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
Spec URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pygpgme.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pygpgme-0.3-18.fc24.src.rpm

Note it requires gnupg-2.1.13 along with gpgme-0.6.0-2.

Tests fixed. Actually it's bug from:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359521

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

[Bug 1358980] Review Request: johnzon - Implementation of JSR-353

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358980



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
Thanks for the review!

create new SCM requests:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/6617
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/6618

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

[Bug 1358980] Review Request: johnzon - Implementation of JSR-353

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358980



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #1)

> Issues
> --
> - Source0 is 404, the URL is missing .gz extension

> APPROVED. Please fix the Source URL during the import.

Until a few days ago it was not present the source archive with the extension
.gz

Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/johnzon.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/johnzon-0.9.4-1.fc23.src.rpm

- update SOURCE0

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

[Bug 1359401] Review Request: cutegram - Cutegram is a telegram client by Aseman Land

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359401

Christian Dersch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Christian Dersch  ---
Looks ok, Approved! Just have a look at the update-desktop-database scriptlets.


Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

===> The packages look fine, just a false-positive as two deps (aseman-qt-tools
and telegramqml are not yet synced to mirrors)

- update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
  contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
  Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in cutegram
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
  database

===> Please check this


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 34 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/review/1359401-cutegram/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in cutegram
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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]: 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]: 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.

[Bug 1358980] Review Request: johnzon - Implementation of JSR-353

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358980

Michael Simacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Michael Simacek  ---
Package Review
==

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

Issues
--
- Source0 is 404, the URL is missing .gz extension


= 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* Apache (v2.0)". 4 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/msimacek/reviews/1358980-johnzon/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 51200 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]: 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

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
 Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
 is pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
 subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
 when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
 utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

= SHOULD items =

[Bug 1358980] Review Request: johnzon - Implementation of JSR-353

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358980

Michael Simacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||msima...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msima...@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 1346249] Review Request: resultsdb - Results store for automated tasks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249



--- Comment #3 from Martin Krizek  ---
(In reply to Jiri Kulda from comment #1)
> 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.
> [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>  found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have
>  unknown license. 
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [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
> [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
>  names).
> [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
> [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>  Provides are present.
> [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>  (~1MB) or number of files.
>  Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 4 files.
> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
>  one supported primary architecture.
> [x]: Package installs properly.
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
>  Note: 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
> 
> 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.
> [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
> [x]: Package functions as described.
> [x]: Latest version is packaged.
> [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
>  translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
> [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>  architectures.
> [x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>  files.
> [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
> [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
> [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
> [x]: Buildroot is not present
> 

[Bug 1341099] Review Request: taskotron-trigger - Triggering Taskotron jobs on fedmsgs

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #4 from Martin Krizek  ---
(In reply to Jiri Kulda from comment #2)
> 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.
> [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>  found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 20 files have
>  unknown license. 
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>  Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/logrotate.d
> [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.
>  Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
> [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
> [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
>  names).
> [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. 
> [x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
> [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>  Provides are present.
> [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>  (~1MB) or number of files.
>  Note: Documentation size is 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 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
> 
> Python:
> [!]: 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.
> [!]: 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]: Package functions as described.
> [x]: Latest version is packaged.
> [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> [?]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
>  translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
> [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>  architectures.
> [x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>  files.

[Bug 1286467] Review Request: curvesapi - Java implementation of various mathematical curves

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286467



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
curvesapi-1.03-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-520303b97d

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #13 from François Kooman  ---
Update to 1.1.14.

SRPM:
https://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/zerotier-one/zerotier-one-1.1.14-1.fc23.src.rpm
SPEC: https://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/zerotier-one/zerotier-one.spec

COPR builds:

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fkooman/zerotier/build/417412/

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

[Bug 1343063] Review Request: artemis - Java high performance, clustered, asynchronous messaging system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343063



--- Comment #8 from Michael Simacek  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6)
> (In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #5)
> > AS we talked on IRC, you should also remove the json.org license from
> > LICENSE file.
> fro this i waiting a upstream response
> > Also, can you use %cmake macro? It should set the CFLAGS for you.
> sorry for my ignorance, i should change cmake line in this way?
> %cmake -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS:STRING="${CFLAGS:-%optflags}"
> -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS:STRING="${CXXFLAGS:-%optflags}" .

I think using just:
%cmake .
should be enough.

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

[Bug 1358248] Review Request: python-http-client - HTTP REST client, simplified for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358248



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-http-client-2.1.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-10f3138a48

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

[Bug 1358248] Review Request: python-http-client - HTTP REST client, simplified for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358248

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



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