[Bug 1303349] Review Request: flyingsaucersattack - Shoot down the attacking UFOs and to save the city

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303349

Link Dupont  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from Link Dupont  ---
I like Zbigniew's suggestions. I try to stick to the %make_build and
%make_install macros too. %make_install sets DESTDIR for you. d-^_^-b

== flyingsaucersattack-1.20h-2.fc23.src.rpm ==
* builds in mock/rawhide
* builds in mock/f24
* builds in mock/f25
* installs and runs fine

Package is 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1303349] Review Request: flyingsaucersattack - Shoot down the attacking UFOs and to save the city

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303349

Link Dupont  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@sub-pop.net
  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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1384133] Review Request: python3-suds - A python SOAP client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384133



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-suds-0.6-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-2a38594e5c

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

[Bug 1384133] Review Request: python3-suds - A python SOAP client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384133

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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1384133] Review Request: python3-suds - A python SOAP client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384133



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-suds-0.6-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-cdd07de07c

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

[Bug 1370064] Review Request: honggfuzz - A general-purpose, easy-to-use fuzzer with interesting analysis options

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370064



--- Comment #13 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Here is another (probably faster) example for cleaning the tarball:

https://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/calibre.git/tree/getsources.sh

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

[Bug 1367819] Review Request: znc-clientbuffer - ZNC module for client specific buffers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367819

Jason Tibbitts  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts  ---
I've been using this for a few days now and it's working great, so let's get it
into the distribution proper.

There isn't much to this package.  It's just one source file.  Upstream has
never made a release, so Version: 0 is appropriate.

Most of the fedora-review template is kind of pointless but it doesn't hurt to
paste it.  But first...

Note that nothing owns %_libdir/znc, which fedora-review conveniently complains
of.  This is a bug in znc, which I'll file.

I know there isn't much in README.md, but it should be packaged since at least
it includes a link to proper documentation and information about the author.

I'm supposed to ask you to ask upstream to include a proper license file in
their source.

So, really, it's just one %doc line, I think.  Not worth holding this up over
that.

APPROVED

Fedora review output:

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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or
 generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/tibbs/work/review/1367819-znc-
 clientbuffer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/znc
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/znc
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: 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]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag

[Bug 1367819] Review Request: znc-clientbuffer - ZNC module for client specific buffers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367819

Jason Tibbitts  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu



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

[Bug 1391291] New: Review Request: perl-DBICx-AutoDoc - Generate automatic documentation of DBIx::Class:: Schema objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391291

Bug ID: 1391291
   Summary: Review Request: perl-DBICx-AutoDoc - Generate
automatic documentation of DBIx::Class::Schema objects
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: emman...@seyman.fr
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-DBICx-AutoDoc/perl-DBICx-AutoDoc.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-DBICx-AutoDoc/perl-DBICx-AutoDoc-0.08-2.fc24.src.rpm
Description:
DBICx::AutoDoc is a utility that can automatically generate documentation
for your DBIx::Class schemas. It works by collecting information from
several sources and arranging it into a format that makes it easier to deal
with from templates.

Fedora Account System Username: eseyman
Rpmlint Output:
perl-DBICx-AutoDoc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schemas ->
schema, sachems, schemes
perl-DBICx-AutoDoc.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/share/dist/DBICx-AutoDoc/AUTODOC-graph.png [%
ENV.SHELL %]
perl-DBICx-AutoDoc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/share/dist/DBICx-AutoDoc/AUTODOC-graph.png
644 [% ENV.SHELL %]
perl-DBICx-AutoDoc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/share/dist/DBICx-AutoDoc/AUTODOC-inheritance.html
644 /usr/bin/perl 
perl-DBICx-AutoDoc.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/share/dist/DBICx-AutoDoc/AUTODOC-inheritance.png
[% ENV.SHELL %]
perl-DBICx-AutoDoc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/share/dist/DBICx-AutoDoc/AUTODOC-inheritance.png
644 [% ENV.SHELL %]
perl-DBICx-AutoDoc.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/share/dist/DBICx-AutoDoc/AUTODOC-graph.html
644 /usr/bin/perl 
perl-DBICx-AutoDoc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schemas ->
schema, sachems, schemes
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 2 warnings.

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

[Bug 1389311] Review Request: python-Events - Bringing the elegance of C# EventHanlder to Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389311

Evan Klitzke  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||e...@eklitzke.org



--- Comment #1 from Evan Klitzke  ---
I'm not an official packager, but I did take a look at your spec file and have
some feedback:

 * You've misspelled "Handler" both in the title of this bug, and throughout
the spec file
 * Your spec file refers to both C# and C; I think you just mean C#? C doesn't
have any special concept of event handlers.
 * The descriptions end in ellipses -- they should be complete sentences.

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

[Bug 1391254] New: Review Request: python3-doctutils - System for processing plaintext documentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391254

Bug ID: 1391254
   Summary: Review Request: python3-doctutils - System for
processing plaintext documentation
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: or...@cora.nwra.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-docutils.spec
SRPM URL:
https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-docutils-0.12-0.7.20140510svn7747.el7.src.rpm
Description:
The Docutils project specifies a plaintext markup language, reStructuredText,
which is easy to read and quick to write.  The project includes a python
library to parse rST files and transform them into other useful formats such
as HTML, XML, and TeX as well as commandline tools that give the enduser
access to this functionality.

Currently, the library supports parsing rST that is in standalone files and
PEPs (Python Enhancement Proposals).  Work is underway to parse rST from
Python inline documentation modules and packages.

Fedora Account System Username: orion

This is an EPEL only package.

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

[Bug 1388294] Review Request: pyflame - Ptracing Profiler For Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1388294



--- Comment #19 from Evan Klitzke  ---
Thanks, I will get to work reviewing some other Python 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1391216] New: Review Request: python3-pygments - Syntax highlighting engine written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391216

Bug ID: 1391216
   Summary: Review Request: python3-pygments - Syntax highlighting
engine written in Python
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: or...@cora.nwra.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-pygments.spec
SRPM URL:
https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-pygments-2.1.3-1.el7.src.rpm
Description:
Pygments is a generic syntax highlighter for general use in all kinds
of software such as forum systems, wikis or other applications that
need to prettify source code. Highlights are:

  * a wide range of common languages and markup formats is supported
  * special attention is paid to details that increase highlighting
quality
  * support for new languages and formats are added easily; most
languages use a simple regex-based lexing mechanism
  * a number of output formats is available, among them HTML, RTF,
LaTeX and ANSI sequences
  * it is usable as a command-line tool and as a library
  * ... and it highlights even Brainf*ck!

Fedora Account System Username: orion

This is an EPEL only package.

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

[Bug 1370064] Review Request: honggfuzz - A general-purpose, easy-to-use fuzzer with interesting analysis options

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370064



--- Comment #12 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Here is the fedora-review checklist

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "Apache (v2.0) BSD (3
 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache
 (v2.0(httpwww.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0))", "*No copyright*
 MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 21 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/athos/fedora
 /package-reviews/1370064-honggfuzz/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.
[!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 8 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: 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.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 honggfuzz-debuginfo
[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.
[-]: 

[Bug 1370064] Review Request: honggfuzz - A general-purpose, easy-to-use fuzzer with interesting analysis options

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370064



--- Comment #11 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Hi Daniel,

The -debuginfo subpackage looks good now.

Removing the third_party directory is enough for the compiler-rt library, as we
can see in [1], since it is licensed under the MIT License.

I was in doubt about the .o files, so I did some research here: I am aware of
[2], as you pointed out, and it is also worth saying that you are supposed to
"Ask upstream to remove the binaries in their next release." (that is pointed
as a 'must' in [2].

The .o files (see [3]) are part of Apple's CrashWrangler, which can be
downloaded in [4].

I downloaded the sources to check the license for those files and the only
license text we have is in the project's README.txt [5], which reads:

"Aside from CrashReport_*.o, which contain proprietary code for creating crash
logs"...

In this case, I believe the .o files in question contain proprietary software
and should not be included, even in the tarball. Would you generate a new
tarball, as pointed out in [6]?

Other than that the package seems good to me and provided the new tarball, I
believe the review would be done.

It would also be nice to ask upstream to remove the .o files from the sources,
since I am not even sure if they can be redistributed at all.

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries?rd=Packaging:Bundled_Libraries#Treatment_of_Bundled_Libraries
[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries
[3] https://github.com/google/honggfuzz/tree/master/third_party/mac
[4] https://developer.apple.com/library/content/technotes/tn2334/_index.html
[5] http://paste.fedoraproject.org/468199/10519214/
[6]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[s]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[s]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or
 generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 28 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mrunge/1359820
 -python-cloudkittyclient/licensecheck.txt
[s]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[s]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[s]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
False report

[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: 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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
 Note: Could not download Source0: http://tarballs.openstack.org
 /python-cloudkittyclient/python-cloudkittyclient/python-
 cloudkittyclient-0.5.0.tar.gz
 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-cloudkittyclient , python3-cloudkittyclient
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is 

[Bug 1387927] Review Request: numcosmo - Numerical cosmology tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387927



--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande  ---
Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/numcosmo/numcosmo.spec
SRPM URL:
https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/numcosmo/numcosmo-0.13.3-1.fc24.src.rpm

- Update to 0.13.3

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

[Bug 1297281] Review Request: endless-sky - Space exploration, trading, and combat game

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
endless-sky-0.9.4-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-51b9047635

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

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

[bugzilla]

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

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias|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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1388396] Review Request: python-pynlpl - A Python library for Natural Language Processing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1388396



--- Comment #9 from Iryna Shcherbina  ---
@Miro Thanks for pointing this out.

I have done a review for the following packages, and am planning to do more.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1383416
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

@Miro, @Dominika Thank you for approving my package, and looking forward to
getting sponsored :)

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

[Bug 1382928] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Entity-Parser - PSGI compliant HTTP Entity Parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382928

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1372836] Review Request: python-hug - A Python framework that makes developing APIs simple

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372836

Iryna Shcherbina  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ishch...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Iryna Shcherbina  ---
Hi Haïkel,

This is an informal review, as I cannot approve the package until I am
sponsored, but I would like to point your attention to a couple of issues I
have noticed:

* 2.1.2 is not the latest version. hug 2.2.0 is already available on pypi
(https://pypi.python.org/pypi/hug/). And you can now include %doc and %license
(as your PR was merged and went into the release).

* You can use files.pythonhosted.org for the Source0 url to conform to
SourceUrl guidelines for pypi packages
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Python_Packages_.28pypi.29).

* You can use `Summary:   %{summary}` macro in your python3- subpackage, which
will contain the content of the first Summary tag.

* What is the purpose of python3-mock and python3-pytest in BuildRequires?

I hope my review was helpful.

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

[Bug 1382928] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Entity-Parser - PSGI compliant HTTP Entity Parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382928



--- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
Source file is ok
Summary is ok
License is ok
Description is ok
URL and Source0 are ok
All tests passed

BuildRequires
TODO: Remove perl(Module::Build) from build-require, it is not used
FIX: Please add following build-requires:
   - perl(base) - t/Util.pm:5
   - perl(Carp) - lib/HTTP/Entity/Parser/MultiPart.pm:7
   - perl(Exporter) - t/Util.pm:5
   - perl(Fcntl) - lib/HTTP/Entity/Parser/MultiPart.pm:8
   - perl(File::Basename) - t/01_content_type/multipart.t:8
   - perl(HTTP::Headers) - t/01_content_type/multipart.t:6
   - perl(IO::File) - t/Util.pm:6
   - perl(strict) - lib/HTTP/Entity/Parser.pm:4
   - perl(utf8) - t/01_content_type/json.t:6
   - perl(warnings) - lib/HTTP/Entity/Parser.pm:5

$ rpm -qp --requires perl-HTTP-Entity-Parser-0.18-1.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort |
uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0)
  1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.8.5
  1 perl(Carp)
  1 perl(Encode)
  1 perl(Fcntl)
  1 perl(File::Temp)
  1 perl(HTTP::MultiPartParser)
  1 perl(JSON::MaybeXS)
  1 perl(Module::Load)
  1 perl(Stream::Buffered)
  1 perl(WWW::Form::UrlEncoded)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -qp --provides perl-HTTP-Entity-Parser-0.18-1.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort |
uniq -c
  1 perl(HTTP::Entity::Parser) = 0.18
  1 perl(HTTP::Entity::Parser::JSON)
  1 perl(HTTP::Entity::Parser::MultiPart)
  1 perl(HTTP::Entity::Parser::OctetStream)
  1 perl(HTTP::Entity::Parser::UrlEncoded)
  1 perl-HTTP-Entity-Parser = 0.18-1.fc26
Binary provides are Ok.

Rpmlint is ok. It reports only spelling errors.

TODO: Please packed 'eg' to %doc.

Please correct all 'FIX' issues and consider fixing 'TODO' items and
provide new spec file.

The package is not 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1388396] Review Request: python-pynlpl - A Python library for Natural Language Processing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1388396



--- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok  ---
@iryna You will not be able to create the package in pkgdb before you get
sponsored.

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

[Bug 1388396] Review Request: python-pynlpl - A Python library for Natural Language Processing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1388396

Dominika Krejčí  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Dominika Krejčí  ---
Great Iryna! :)

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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

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

[bugzilla]

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

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(tcallawa@redhat.c |
   |om) |



--- Comment #62 from Rex Dieter  ---
Alternative (and imo better) ways to search for bugs against a particular
component include:

(my favorite)
http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/chromium

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW_status=ASSIGNED=chromium_id=6427970=Fedora

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

[Bug 1154750] Review Request: mozilla-privacy-badger - Protects your privacy by blocking spying ads and invisible trackers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154750



--- Comment #13 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #12)
> I assume the FE-Legal block was because an older version of this package had
> both CC-BY code and GPL code.  I haven't checked whether the current version
> has that combination.

I don't see anything licensed with CC-BY in the current version.

Spec URL:
https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-privacy-badger/mozilla-privacy-badger.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-privacy-badger/mozilla-privacy-badger-1.8.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

* Wed Nov 02 2016 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  - 1.8.1-1
- update to 1.8.1
- bump minimum firefox version for RHEL5

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

[Bug 1388294] Review Request: pyflame - Ptracing Profiler For Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1388294



--- Comment #18 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
FTR, http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16278594 (rawhide), 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16278601 (F25).

rpmlint only has bogus spelling corrections.

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

[Bug 1388294] Review Request: pyflame - Ptracing Profiler For Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1388294

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #17 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
The change to support python versions is impressive! I wish everybody would
handle requests for python3 support so incredibly fast...

About runtests.sh: I don't think run_tests_fedora() function is worth the
trouble. I certainly does the job, so if you want it this way, it's acceptable,
but it a) makes things less transparent, b) hard-codes python versions. For
Fedora, for the foreseeable future, we'll be building against python2 and
python3, but for example for EPEL, we build against python%{python2_version},
python%{python3_version}, which currently are python2.7 and python3.4, but this
might change. So if you wanted to build an EPEL branch, you'd have to fight
with runtests.sh to specify python versions. Also, it makes hard to make the
build for a certain version conditional.

Without further ado:
- latest version
- package name is OK
- license is acceptable (ASL2)
- license is specified correctly
- macros are used where they should
- %check is present and passes
- provides/requires look OK
- no scriptlets present or necessary

Package is APPROVED. (You will not be able to request formal creation of the
package until after you are added to the packagers group, i.e. until the other
half of comment #c6 is finished.)

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

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

[bugzilla]

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

guoxiao  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||guo888x...@gmail.com,
   ||tcall...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(tcallawa@redhat.c
   ||om)



--- Comment #61 from guoxiao  ---
Can we remove the alias "chromium" from this bug report?
Every time I want to search bugs related to chromium, input "chromium" in the
search field and click search, it always come 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370064] Review Request: honggfuzz - A general-purpose, easy-to-use fuzzer with interesting analysis options

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370064



--- Comment #10 from Daniel Kopeček  ---
Spec URL:
https://pagure.io/package-review-honggfuzz/raw/master/f/honggfuzz.spec
SRPM URL:
https://pagure.io/package-review-honggfuzz/raw/master/f/honggfuzz-0.8-2.20161101git7ba1010.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370064] Review Request: honggfuzz - A general-purpose, easy-to-use fuzzer with interesting analysis options

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370064



--- Comment #9 from Daniel Kopeček  ---
(In reply to Athos Ribeiro from comment #8)
> The sources contain a thirdparty directory, which contains:
>   /third_party/android/libBlocksRuntime
> a lib from AOSP compiler-rt in [1], with the license in [2]
> 
>   /third_party/mac/*
> .o files
> 
> Can you comment on both?

These third-party files are removed before build:

35 %build
36 rm -rf third_party/

> rpmlint raises this error:
> 
> honggfuzz-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
> 
> That could be fixed in Makefile. Can you comment on this one as well?

Fixed by defining DEBUG=true environment variable during the build phase.

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

[Bug 1376848] Review Request: captagent - HOMER SIPCapture agent

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376848

Björn "besser82" Esser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(fedora@besser82.i |
   |o)  |



--- Comment #5 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
(In reply to Daniel Pocock from comment #4)
> Björn, thanks for reviewing this spec file
> 
> I'm happy to make these changes, but will all of these things be compatible
> with RHEL7 / EPEL7 as well?  I'm hoping to use the same spec file for both
> Fedora and EPEL RPMs.
> 
> If some of the changes are not good for RHEL7/EPEL builds, are they
> essential for Fedora?

You're welcome.  Those changes would be the same for EPEL7; there is no need to
have some conditionals-magic for my suggeseted changes.

BuildRequires on auto(conf|make) and libtool are needed on any release of
Fedora or EPEL, those `%make_*`-macros are available on EPEL >= 6, using
systemd-macros is mandatory starting with EPEL7 [1], %autosetup works with all
maintained releases of Fedora and EPEL (with a little exception on EPEL5 [2]),
`%license` translates to `%doc` on EPEL <= 6 [3] and changes for github-style
source packaging works fine for Fedora and EPEL >= 5.  For EPEL <= 6 the might
apply some other conditional changes [4] not needed for Fedora or EPEL >= 7.


[1]  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:SysVInitScript#EPEL_SysV_Initscripts
[2]  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#.25autosetup
[3] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Previously_required_boilerplate
[4]  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging

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

[Bug 1376848] Review Request: captagent - HOMER SIPCapture agent

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376848

Daniel Pocock  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(fedora@besser82.i
   ||o)



--- Comment #4 from Daniel Pocock  ---
Björn, thanks for reviewing this spec file

I'm happy to make these changes, but will all of these things be compatible
with RHEL7 / EPEL7 as well?  I'm hoping to use the same spec file for both
Fedora and EPEL RPMs.

If some of the changes are not good for RHEL7/EPEL builds, are they essential
for Fedora?

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