[Bug 1359402] Review Request: coot - crystallographic macromolecular building toolkit (unretire request )

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402



--- Comment #22 from Gianluca Sforna  ---
Sorry guys for the rdkit related issues.

Yes, right now I pushed the patch for the missing headers only in F24/F25

rdkit in rawhide had several setbacks (new archs added with missing deps, a
pre-release Inchi library that looks like it's breaking rdkit tests,
incompatible commonmark vs recommonmark python libraries, to mention a few) so
I am still not able to build it correctly.

So, for now I'd suggest you stick with F24/F25 packages to complete the review,
and do not bother complicating your package to build against rdkit rawhide; as
soon as I fix rdkit you will be able to build on all dist targets with no
changes.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395354] Review Request: python-colorlog - A colored formatter for the python logging module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395354



--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter  ---
Thanks for your comment and time to to review this package.

(In reply to Athos Ribeiro from comment #1)
> License: There is no LICENSE file. The license text is a section in the
> README file. It would be really nice to ask upstream to include a LICENSE
> file in the project (this is not a blocker)

https://github.com/borntyping/python-colorlog/pull/37

> Tests: There is a test suite in colorlog/tests. Is there any reason for not
> having a %check section in the package?

Yes, the tests require colorlog to be installed which is not the case on the
build system.

> The package does not own its own directory: %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}
> and others:
>  Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
>  packages/colorlog/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
>  packages/colorlog, /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/colorlog

It's been a while since my last work on packaging. First I thought that I was
missing something but it seems that the example [1] is not simply wrong when it
comes to ownership.

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

Updated files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-colorlog.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-colorlog-2.7.0-2.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1394240] Review Request: perl-XML-Fast - Simple and very fast XML to hash conversion

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394240

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-XML-Fast-0.11-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-cd1dc9e5c3

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1069023] Review Request: fifechan - C++ GUI library designed for games

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069023



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
fifechan-0.1.3-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f714c8334f

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394215] Review Request: perl-Tie-DataUUID - Tie interface to Data:: UUID

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394215



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Tie-DataUUID-1.02-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-35d8c96b77

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394174] Review Request: perl-XML-Spice - Generating XML in Perl way

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394174



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-XML-Spice-0.05-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a19778f161

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394969] Review Request: python-pluginbase - A support library for building plugins systems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394969



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pluginbase-0.5-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f3acd7d879

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394183] Review Request: perl-Text-VCardFast - Perl extension for very fast parsing of VCards

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394183



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Text-VCardFast-0.09-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-02d23ebb5a

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395273] Review Request: python-wcsaxes - A framework for plotting astronomical and geospatial data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395273



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-wcsaxes-0.9-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8b93ef0700

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 879740] Review Request: python-evdev - bindings for the linux input handling subsystem

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879740



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-evdev-0.6.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c33638448e

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395955] New: Review Request: fatresize - FAT16/FAT32 resizer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395955

Bug ID: 1395955
   Summary: Review Request: fatresize - FAT16/FAT32 resizer
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: re...@seznam.cz
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org//fatresize.spec
SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org//fatresize-1.0.3-1.git20100729.src.rpm

Description:
The FAT16/FAT32 non-destructive resizer.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395955] Review Request: fatresize - FAT16/FAT32 resizer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395955



--- Comment #1 from Michal Ambroz  ---
This package built on koji: 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16484277

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395947] New: Review Request: pydbus - Pythonic DBus library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395947

Bug ID: 1395947
   Summary: Review Request: pydbus - Pythonic DBus library
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mkol...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://m4rtink.fedorapeople.org/packaging/pydbus/pydbus.spec
SRPM URL:
https://m4rtink.fedorapeople.org/packaging/pydbus/python-pydbus-0.5.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: The pydbus module provides pythonic DBUS bindings. It isbased on
PyGI, the Python GObject Introspection bindings, which is the recommended way
to use GLib from Python.
Fedora Account System Username: m4rtink

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395554] Review Request: python-astral - Calculations for the position of the sun and moon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395554

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)



--- Comment #2 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
In https://developers.google.com/maps/terms, section 9.1, there are
restrictions on how a Google Maps API implementation may be used. I am not sure
if we can/should include this in Fedora, so I am adding a legal blocker here.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395554] Review Request: python-astral - Calculations for the position of the sun and moon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395554



--- Comment #1 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
As specified in [1], ASL 2.0 requires the license text to be distributed with
the binaries/sources. In this case, you should ask upstream to include the full
license text in the package. Note that in this case, this is a blocker for this
review.

Is there any reason for using "%bcond_with tests" and not running the %check
section by default?

Finally, there is a notes.txt file in the sources, saying "Written Consent from
Google has been obtained by following the steps outlined at the following
location"... [2]. What is this about?

In the README file there is a note, saying:

"Access to the `GoogleGeocoder` requires you to agree to be bound by
Google Maps/Google Earth APIs Terms of Service found at
https://developers.google.com/maps/terms which includes but is not limited to
having a Google Account."

When the author says `GoogleGeocoder`, is he referring to the class
GoogleGeocoder inside this package or to the google service it accesses? Of
course the former makes less/no sense, but that's something I kept asking
myself when I read that.

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
[2] http://support.google.com/maps/bin/static.py?hl=en&ts=1342531&page=ts.cs

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395554] Review Request: python-astral - Calculations for the position of the sun and moon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395554

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||athoscribe...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|athoscribe...@gmail.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 1166916] Review Request: fuzzynet - Fuzzy Logic Library for Mono

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166916
Bug 1166916 depends on bug 1220138, which changed state.

Bug 1220138 Summary: EPEL's version of Mono is horrendously outdated with lots 
of vulns. [epel-all]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220138

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1166897] Review Request: mono-nat - Mono library for automatic port forwarding ( new github project name: Mono.NAT)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166897
Bug 1166897 depends on bug 1220138, which changed state.

Bug 1220138 Summary: EPEL's version of Mono is horrendously outdated with lots 
of vulns. [epel-all]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220138

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1159091] Review Request: openra - Libre/ Free Real Time Strategy project [+Tracker to unbundle all dependencies]

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159091
Bug 1159091 depends on bug 1220138, which changed state.

Bug 1220138 Summary: EPEL's version of Mono is horrendously outdated with lots 
of vulns. [epel-all]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220138

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1395867] Review Request: python-mnemonic - Implementation of Bitcoin BIP-0039

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395867

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-11-16 18:13:20



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394502] Review Request: daq - Data Acquisition Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
daq-2.0.6-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-aa3ba5ce3e

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395867] Review Request: python-mnemonic - Implementation of Bitcoin BIP-0039

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395867



--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-mnemonic

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1382152] Review Request: orpie - scientific calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382152

Jared Wallace  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(jared-wallace@us. |
   |ibm.com)|



--- Comment #14 from Jared Wallace  ---
Something changed in rawhide, it would seem. I reverted my git repo back to the
initial commit, and tried building that version on Rawhide - and it failed.

I'll do some digging.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394502] Review Request: daq - Data Acquisition Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
daq-2.0.6-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-6fefc97dbe

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394502] Review Request: daq - Data Acquisition Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502

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

[Bug 1395867] Review Request: python-mnemonic - Implementation of Bitcoin BIP-0039

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395867



--- Comment #8 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
> Apart from the problem with the license (please, fix before import) file
> else seems okay

Thanks!

I think messed because I used:
> $ spectool -g -R python-mnemonic.spec

And the old wrong license html page was already there, so the SRPM included the
old file.

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

[Bug 1395867] Review Request: python-mnemonic - Implementation of Bitcoin BIP-0039

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395867



--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo  ---
Created attachment 1221389
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1221389&action=edit
LICENSE diff

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395867] Review Request: python-mnemonic - Implementation of Bitcoin BIP-0039

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395867



--- Comment #6 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3)
> Seem you have the copy of the "LICENSE" page [1],
> and not just the "LICENSE" itself.
> Please, check. Maybe you could use (e.g.)
> #
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/trezor/python-mnemonic/
> f3348b32217d2bacf7438f5c40e8da4653887c70/LICENSE
> Source1:ìpython-mnemonic-LICENSE
> 
> python2-mnemonic.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/share/licenses/python2-mnemonic/LICENSE
> python3-mnemonic.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/share/licenses/python3-mnemonic/LICENSE
> 
> python-mnemonic.src: W: file-size-mismatch LICENSE = 37384,
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/trezor/python-mnemonic/
> f3348b32217d2bacf7438f5c40e8da4653887c70/LICENSE = 1084
> 
> [1]
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/trezor/python-mnemonic/
> f3348b32217d2bacf7438f5c40e8da4653887c70/LICENSE

Looks like I have messed up something, will look into it.

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

[Bug 1395867] Review Request: python-mnemonic - Implementation of Bitcoin BIP-0039

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395867

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo  ---
Apart from the problem with the license (please, fix before import) file else
seems okay

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1037900] Review Request: rubygem-resque-job-stats - Job-centric stats for Resque

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1037900

František Dvořák  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2016-11-16 17:13:55



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

[Bug 1028743] Review Request: hans - IP over ICMP tunneling solution

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1028743] Review Request: hans - IP over ICMP tunneling solution

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |



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

[Bug 1395867] Review Request: python-mnemonic - Implementation of Bitcoin BIP-0039

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395867



--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo  ---
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in ~/1395867-python-
  mnemonic/diff.txt
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
 See above Comment#3

= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1395867
 -python-mnemonic/licensecheck.txt
[?]: 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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 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]: 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.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-mnemonic , python3-mnemonic
[x]: Package functions as described.
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: 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.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Revi

[Bug 1376867] Review Request: python3-pycurl - Python interface to libcurl for Python 3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376867



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-pycurl-7.43.0-5.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-409af75f59

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1376867] Review Request: python3-pycurl - Python interface to libcurl for Python 3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376867

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 1376867] Review Request: python3-pycurl - Python interface to libcurl for Python 3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376867



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-pycurl-7.43.0-5.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-e930eac29e

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1276632] Review Request: geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api - Apache Geronimo JCDI Spec 1.1

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276632



--- Comment #10 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #9)
> Sure, i'm starting now

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

[Bug 1395867] Review Request: python-mnemonic - Implementation of Bitcoin BIP-0039

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395867



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
Seem you have the copy of the "LICENSE" page [1],
and not just the "LICENSE" itself.
Please, check. Maybe you could use (e.g.)
#
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/trezor/python-mnemonic/f3348b32217d2bacf7438f5c40e8da4653887c70/LICENSE
Source1:ìpython-mnemonic-LICENSE

python2-mnemonic.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/licenses/python2-mnemonic/LICENSE
python3-mnemonic.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/licenses/python3-mnemonic/LICENSE

python-mnemonic.src: W: file-size-mismatch LICENSE = 37384,
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/trezor/python-mnemonic/f3348b32217d2bacf7438f5c40e8da4653887c70/LICENSE
= 1084

[1]
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/trezor/python-mnemonic/f3348b32217d2bacf7438f5c40e8da4653887c70/LICENSE

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

[Bug 1395867] Review Request: python-mnemonic - Implementation of Bitcoin BIP-0039

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395867

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  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 1276632] Review Request: geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api - Apache Geronimo JCDI Spec 1.1

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276632



--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #8)
> Can you review bug 1395867 ?

Sure, i'm starting now

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1276632] Review Request: geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api - Apache Geronimo JCDI Spec 1.1

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276632



--- Comment #8 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
Can you review bug 1395867 ?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395867] Review Request: python-mnemonic - Implementation of Bitcoin BIP-0039

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395867



--- Comment #2 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
New koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16480382

Needed to include python{2,3}-pbkdf2 as BR

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395867] Review Request: python-mnemonic - Implementation of Bitcoin BIP-0039

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395867

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it



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

[Bug 1395867] Review Request: python-mnemonic - Implementation of Bitcoin BIP-0039

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395867



--- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16479966

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395867] New: Review Request: python-mnemonic - Implementation of Bitcoin BIP-0039

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395867

Bug ID: 1395867
   Summary: Review Request: python-mnemonic - Implementation of
Bitcoin BIP-0039
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jonnyheggh...@sigaint.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/python-mnemonic.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/python-mnemonic-0.15-1.fc25.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jonny

Description: This BIP describes the implementation of a mnemonic code or
mnemonic sentence –
a group of easy to remember words – for the generation of deterministic
wallets.

It consists of two parts: generating the mnenomic, and converting it into a
binary seed. This seed can be later used to generate deterministic wallets
using
BIP-0032 or similar methods.

See https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039.mediawiki for full
specification.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395341] Review Request: python-zeroconf - A Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395341

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2016-11-16 16:09:20



--- Comment #2 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Actually, there is an older review request for this package. I am marking it as
a duplication and closing.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1392089 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1392089] Review Request: python-zeroconf: Pure Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392089

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch



--- Comment #3 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
*** Bug 1395341 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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

[Bug 1395341] Review Request: python-zeroconf - A Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395341



--- Comment #1 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
The package does not install:

No package provides python2-enum34

Also, consider the following:

$ dnf --enablerepo=rawhide repoquery --whatprovides python3-enum34
python3-libs-0:3.5.2-6.fc26.i686
python3-libs-0:3.5.2-6.fc26.x86_64

python3-enum34 is already provided by python3-libs.

Upstream ships a test suite in test_zeroconf.py. Is there any reason the
package does not have a %check section?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1376932] Review Request: python3-markupsafe - Implements a XML/HTML/ XHTML Markup safe string for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376932



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-markupsafe-0.23-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-97d424a8e6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1376932] Review Request: python3-markupsafe - Implements a XML/HTML/ XHTML Markup safe string for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376932

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 1376932] Review Request: python3-markupsafe - Implements a XML/HTML/ XHTML Markup safe string for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376932



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-markupsafe-0.23-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-abe8665c7c

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1382152] Review Request: orpie - scientific calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382152

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(jared-wallace@us.
   ||ibm.com)



--- Comment #13 from Randy Barlow  ---
It seems that there is a build failure now. This command fails to build on my
Rawhide box:

$ fedora-review -b 1382152

Additionally, I was able to get this build to fail in koji on both Rawhide and
F23:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16479303
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16479312

It does appear that this build succeeds on Fedora 24:

https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9306/16479306/build.log

You can navigate to the build.log files on those two Koji links by clicking on
the child tasks that are red and then clicking on build.log. For Rawhide:

https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9306/16479306/build.log

If you don't intend to add this package to F23 we can ignore that failure, but
you will need to make sure it works on Rawhide.

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

[Bug 1394147] Review Request: mpg123 - mp3 audio playback library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394147

Yaakov Selkowitz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1395861




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395861
[Bug 1395861] Enable MPG123 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1394267] Review Request: perl-NNTPClient - Perl 5 module to talk to NNTP (RFC977) server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394267

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
BuildRequires ok

binary Requires ok

binary Provides ok

Looks good to me. Approved

Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: 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]: 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

Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.

= 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.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all in

[Bug 1394174] Review Request: perl-XML-Spice - Generating XML in Perl way

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394174

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-XML-Spice-0.05-1.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-2016-1fb58d68c4

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1069023] Review Request: fifechan - C++ GUI library designed for games

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069023

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|DUPLICATE   |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
fifechan-0.1.3-1.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-ca1553f662

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394215] Review Request: perl-Tie-DataUUID - Tie interface to Data:: UUID

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394215

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Tie-DataUUID-1.02-1.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-2016-7a74d13110

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 879740] Review Request: python-evdev - bindings for the linux input handling subsystem

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879740

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-evdev-0.6.1-1.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-2016-76396fd739

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394183] Review Request: perl-Text-VCardFast - Perl extension for very fast parsing of VCards

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394183

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Text-VCardFast-0.09-2.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-d21eb3c9e9

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395273] Review Request: python-wcsaxes - A framework for plotting astronomical and geospatial data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395273

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-wcsaxes-0.9-2.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-2016-884992496e

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395121] Review Request: perl-Crypt-IDEA - Perl interface to IDEA block cipher

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395121



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Crypt-IDEA-1.10-5.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-2016-4d6f56c103

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1387250] Review Request: python-lazr-smtptest - Test framework for SMTP-based applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387250

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-lazr-smtptest-2.0.3-1.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-2016-54be67dd74

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1279112] Review Request: kiss-fft - Fast Fourier Transform library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279112



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
kiss-fft-1.3.0-1.fc25, qm-dsp-1.7.1-1.fc25, qm-vamp-plugins-1.7.1-1.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-e69dcc5d0b

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394146] Review Request: perl-Convert-Base64 - Encoding and decoding of Base64 strings

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394146



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Convert-Base64-0.001-1.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-ce08d48f91

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394139] Review Request: perl-Mail-IMAPTalk - IMAP client interface with lots of features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394139



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Encode-IMAPUTF7-1.05-2.fc25, perl-Mail-IMAPTalk-4.04-1.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-fb1ede8818

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1386774] Review Request: kf5-libktorrent - Library providing torrent downloading code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386774

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu
  Flags||needinfo?(rdie...@math.unl.
   ||edu)



--- Comment #3 from Randy Barlow  ---
There are a few things in the MUST section that we will need to fix. I've added
"randy: " comments to expand on the !'s a bit.

All of my comments outside of the MUST section are just recommendations, so you
can feel free to ignore those if you disagree.


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.
[!]: 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.
 randy: It looks like the %license macro is commented out in the %files 
section. It could/should also be added to the devel subpackage. 
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. 
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses  
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 
 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 105 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in   
 /home/rbarlow/reviews/1386774-kf5-libktorrent/licensecheck.txt 
 randy: It sounds like we should set the license field to   
"BSD, MIT, and GPLv2+"  
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.   
 randy: Same as above, let's add the %license macro to both 
subpackages.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/hne,
 /usr/share/locale/hne/LC_MESSAGES
 randy: I'm not sure what to do on this one. It seems that filesystem
 owns the other directories. Perhaps we should file a ticket against
 that package to request this hne locale be added?
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/KF5,
 /usr/share/locale/hne/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/hne
 randy: I think adding Requires: kf5-filesystem will fix this one.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
 randy: I think we just need a Requires: kf5-filesystem
[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.
[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: Ther

[Bug 1394952] Review Request: python-avocado - Framework with tools and libraries for Automated Testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394952



--- Comment #4 from Merlin Mathesius  ---
After looking through the avocado selftests, there appear to be many more
potential race conditions that may randomly cause build failures. Thus, the
selftests have been commented out with a note about the situation. The patches
for the selftests have also been removed, since they are no longer relevant.

An upstream issue has been raised:
https://github.com/avocado-framework/avocado/issues/1619

Spec URL: https://merlinm.fedorapeople.org/python-avocado.spec
SRPM URL: https://merlinm.fedorapeople.org/python-avocado-43.0-4.fc24.src.rpm
COPR build URL:
https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/merlinm/avocado/build/477928/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1376932] Review Request: python3-markupsafe - Implements a XML/HTML/ XHTML Markup safe string for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376932



--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python3-markupsafe

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1392649] Review Request: tacacs+- Cisco AAA server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392649



--- Comment #4 from Philip Prindeville  ---
Updated rpmlint:

$ rpmlint -i /home/philipp/rpmbuild/SRPMS/tacacs-F4.0.4.29b-1.fc24.src.rpm
/home/philipp/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/tacacs-F4.0.4.29b-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
tacacs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: tacacs-F4.0.4.29b.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

tacacs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tac_convert
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 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 1392649] Review Request: tacacs+- Cisco AAA server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392649



--- Comment #3 from Philip Prindeville  ---
Updating the template:

Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~philipp/tacacs.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~philipp/tacacs-F4.0.4.29b-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Tacacs+ authentication/authorization/accounting daaemon
Fedora Account System Username: philipp

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394502] Review Request: daq - Data Acquisition Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502



--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/daq

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394502] Review Request: daq - Data Acquisition Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502



--- Comment #14 from marcindulak  ---
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1394502] Review Request: daq - Data Acquisition Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #13 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to marcindulak from comment #11)
> Hmm, it may be parallel make is the source of the failure - investigating
> https://trac.macports.org/ticket/45159

Indeed, tokdefs.h is required before it is created.

(In reply to marcindulak from comment #12)
> 
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16477244
> 
> Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/daq/r05/daq.spec
> SRPM URL:
> http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/daq/r05/daq-2.0.6-1.fc23.src.rpm

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 1395804] New: Review Request: python-batinfo - A Python module to retrieve battery information

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395804

Bug ID: 1395804
   Summary: Review Request: python-batinfo - A Python module to
retrieve battery information
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-batinfo.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-batinfo-0.3-1.fc24.src.rpm

Project URL: https://github.com/nicolargo/batinfo

Description:
batinfo is a Python module to retrieve battery information on Linux-based
operating system.
Only the Linux kernel and its /sys/class/power_supply folder.

Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16477192

rpmlint output:
[fab@laptop016 SRPMS]$ rpmlint python-batinfo-0.3-1.fc24.src.rpm 
python-batinfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sys -> says, sis,
syn
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


[fab@laptop016 noarch]$ rpmlint python*-batinfo*
python2-batinfo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sys -> says,
sis, syn
python3-batinfo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sys -> says,
sis, syn
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394151] Review Request: perl-Mail-JMAPTalk - Perl client for JMAP protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394151

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Mail-JMAPTalk-0.02-1.f
   ||c26



--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar  ---
Thank you for the review and the repository.

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

[Bug 1394502] Review Request: daq - Data Acquisition Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502



--- Comment #12 from marcindulak  ---
I use %{__make} instead of %{make_build} and it builds

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16477244

Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/daq/r05/daq.spec
SRPM URL:
http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/daq/r05/daq-2.0.6-1.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1394502] Review Request: daq - Data Acquisition Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502



--- Comment #11 from marcindulak  ---
Hmm, it may be parallel make is the source of the failure - investigating
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/45159

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394240] Review Request: perl-XML-Fast - Simple and very fast XML to hash conversion

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394240



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-XML-Fast-0.11-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-cd1dc9e5c3

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394240] Review Request: perl-XML-Fast - Simple and very fast XML to hash conversion

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394240



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-XML-Fast-0.11-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-84113c90c6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394240] Review Request: perl-XML-Fast - Simple and very fast XML to hash conversion

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394240

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||perl-XML-Fast-0.11-1.fc26



--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar  ---
Thank you for the review and the repository.

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

[Bug 1394502] Review Request: daq - Data Acquisition Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502



--- Comment #10 from marcindulak  ---
Does not compile
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6248/16476248/build.log

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1387447] Review Request: php-sentry - PHP client for Sentry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387447



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-sentry-0.22.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1392227] Review Request: pidgin-groupchat-typing-notifications - Adds typing notifications for group chats in Pidgin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392227



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
pidgin-groupchat-typing-notifications-0-2.git33a75f9.fc23 has been pushed to
the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of
it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1394267] Review Request: perl-NNTPClient - Perl 5 module to talk to NNTP (RFC977) server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394267


--- Doc Text *updated* by Petr Pisar  ---
undefined


--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar  ---
(In reply to Athos Ribeiro from comment #1)
> Package name: Is there a reason for this package not being named
> perl-News-NNTPClient?
>
The reason is the upstream is called "NNTPClient"
. The guidelines say we should prefer
an upstream name.

> License: There is no license text other than a note in the README file and
> in the module itself, saying it can be redistributed or modified under the
> same terms of Perl itself. It would be nice to ask upstream to distribute a
> LICENSE file as well (not a blocker).
>
Reported as .

> Tests: Some tests on %check are failing, apparently, they rely on a running
> news server. Would you work on it, so it doesn't run these tests?

Yes. I patched them. First I tried to run them against Fedora's inn server, but
there is a bug in the inn daemon preventing from it.

Updated package is available on the same URL.

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

[Bug 1394502] Review Request: daq - Data Acquisition Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502



--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande  ---
> ExcludeArch: %{ix86}
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16476436

Does not work on 32-bit?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394502] Review Request: daq - Data Acquisition Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502



--- Comment #8 from marcindulak  ---
Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/daq/r04/daq.spec
SRPM URL:
http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/daq/r04/daq-2.0.6-1.fc23.src.rpm


(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #6)
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> >> - Files in sfbpf/ are licensed under BSD* licenses.
> >>   Add BSD to License tag.
> >>
> >>Added a comment to daq.spec about sfbpf.
> >
> > I had a discussion once which concluded that one should use an "effective" 
> > license: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893#c11
> > Daq is very explicit about being GPLv2 https://github.com/jasonish/daq/blob
> > /master/COPYING so I think we have no choice.
> 
> Code under BSD is directly involved, BSD is not compatible with GPLv2;
> License should be 'GPLv2 and BSD', unless upstream chooses to use
> a GPLv2+.

using GPLv2 and BSD now

> See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.
> 22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F
> 
> - dap does not build globally on rawhide:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16476243
> 
> - Use these scriptlets
> 
> %post -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
> 

fixed

> = MUST items =
> 
> C/C++:
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
>  Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
>  attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
> [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.
> 
> 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)", "Unknown or
>  generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)",
>  "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2)". 19 files have
>  unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>  /home/sagitter/1394502-daq/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
>  one supported primary architecture.
> [x]: Package installs properly.
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
>  Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
>  license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
>  license(s) for the package is included in %license.
> [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
>  that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
> [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>  beginning of %install.
> [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable a

[Bug 1394151] Review Request: perl-Mail-JMAPTalk - Perl client for JMAP protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394151



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394502] Review Request: daq - Data Acquisition Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502



--- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande  ---
>- dap does not build globally on rawhide:

Sorry, i meant 'daq'

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394502] Review Request: daq - Data Acquisition Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502



--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande  ---
Package Review
==

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

>> - Files in sfbpf/ are licensed under BSD* licenses.
>>   Add BSD to License tag.
>>
>>Added a comment to daq.spec about sfbpf.
>
> I had a discussion once which concluded that one should use an "effective" 
> license: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893#c11
> Daq is very explicit about being GPLv2 https://github.com/jasonish/daq/blob
> /master/COPYING so I think we have no choice.

Code under BSD is directly involved, BSD is not compatible with GPLv2;
License should be 'GPLv2 and BSD', unless upstream chooses to use
a GPLv2+.
See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F

- dap does not build globally on rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16476243

- Use these scriptlets

%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.

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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)", "Unknown or
 generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)",
 "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2)". 19 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/sagitter/1394502-daq/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream sour

[Bug 1394151] Review Request: perl-Mail-JMAPTalk - Perl client for JMAP protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394151

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



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

$ rpm -qp --requires perl-Mail-JMAPTalk-0.02-1.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0)
  1 perl(Carp)
  1 perl(Convert::Base64)
  1 perl(HTTP::Tiny)
  1 perl(JSON::XS)
  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-Mail-JMAPTalk-0.02-1.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
  1 perl(Mail::JMAPTalk) = 0.02
  1 perl-Mail-JMAPTalk = 0.02-1.fc26
Binary provides are Ok.

$ rpmlint ./perl-Mail-JMAPTalk*
perl-Mail-JMAPTalk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP
perl-Mail-JMAPTalk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jmap -> map,
j map
perl-Mail-JMAPTalk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US io -> oi,
Io, ii
perl-Mail-JMAPTalk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP
perl-Mail-JMAPTalk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jmap -> map, j
map
perl-Mail-JMAPTalk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US io -> oi, Io,
ii
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

Rpmlint is ok

The package looks good.
Approved

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

[Bug 1394151] Review Request: perl-Mail-JMAPTalk - Perl client for JMAP protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394151

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 1382332] Review Request: python-axolotl-curve25519 - curve25519 with ed25519 signatures

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382332



--- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch  ---
Hi,

thx for your comment. Sorry for answering that late, just forgot it...

(In reply to Dominika Krejčí from comment #1)
> Hello Christian, I have some comments:
> 
> * It is useless to create a %{sum} macro. Just write the content to
> `Summary` and in the rest of the file you can use %{summary} macro. ;)

Definitely not useless. We have subpackages here where the summary macro is
overwritten (by itself). It is also common practice to write python specs that
way, check
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file

> 
> * `%description` should contain more comprehensive description then
> `Summary`.
> 
> * The file `PKG-INFO` is not a license. ("If the source package does not
> include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager
> SHOULD query upstream to include it.")

True, I wrote upstream but got no reply yet. So I decided to add PKG_INFO to
%license because at least it contains an information about the license.

> 
> * If you run rpmlint, you will get many errors and warnings. Some of them: 
> 
> python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C curve25519
> with ed25519 signatures
> python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/share/licenses/python3-axolotl-curve25519/PKG-INFO
> python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/python_axolotl_curve25519-0.1-py3.5.egg-
> info/dependency_links.txt
> python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/python_axolotl_curve25519-0.1-py3.5.egg-
> info/PKG-INFO
> python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/python_axolotl_curve25519-0.1-py3.5.egg-
> info/top_level.txt
> python3-axolotl-curve25519.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/python_axolotl_curve25519-0.1-py3.5.egg-
> info/SOURCES.txt
> ...

False positives, e.g. PKG_INFO is not a script, so it cannot be a
script-without-shebang. I always check my stuff using rpmlint, but it is often
complaining where it should not.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395255] Review Request: python3-zope-interface - Zope 3 Interface Infrastructure

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395255

Yanko Kaneti  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||yan...@declera.com
Summary|Review Request:  -|Zope 3 Interface
   ||Infrastructure



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394962] Review Request: clevis - Automated decryption framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394962



--- Comment #11 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
(In reply to Nathaniel McCallum from comment #10)
> The clevis-decrypt binary is not executed as root. We drop privileges much
> earlier than that. See:
> https://github.com/latchset/clevis/blob/master/clevis-luks-udisks2.c#L384
> 
> However, your concern is still valid because we pass information obtained as
> root to that process. So it still represents a security concern. I'd love to
> chat with you on IRC to discuss some of my concerns with my own code if you
> have time.

Yeah, I think it's a concern, also because the program uses the information
received *from* the other binary.

Please ping me on IRC when you're around. I saw your ping yesterday after I
returned home, but you were already gone...

> Yeah, I agree. The main reason I haven't done this is because it makes
> in-tree unit testing (after build, before install) more difficult.
> Suggestions welcome.

I'd add a C define with the full path (using AC_DEFINE or similar), and
allow overriding it using a shell variable in non-suid process.

const char *p = secure_getenv("CLEVIS_HELPER_PATH");
if (p)
   return p;
else
   return HELPER_PATH;

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394502] Review Request: daq - Data Acquisition Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502



--- Comment #5 from marcindulak  ---
Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/daq/r03/daq.spec
SRPM URL:
http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/daq/r03/daq-2.0.6-1.fc23.src.rpm

thanks, my answers below

(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4)
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> - Files in sfbpf/ are licensed under BSD* licenses.
>   Add BSD to License tag.

Added a comment to daq.spec about sfbpf.

I had a discussion once which concluded that one should use an "effective"
license: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893#c11
Daq is very explicit about being GPLv2
https://github.com/jasonish/daq/blob/master/COPYING so I think we have no
choice.

> 
> - devel sub-packages do not need to provide COPYING

fixed

> 
> - %{_configure} macro is wrong.
>   Use %configure

fixed

> 
> - Following lines are useless
> 
> %post -n %{name}-devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %postun -n %{name}-devel -p /sbin/ldconfig

fixed

> 
> - %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} = %make_build

fixed

> 
> - Once you set %configure, probably you will not need using
> 
> %{__make} install prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix}
> exec_prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_exec_prefix} libdir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}
> 
> anymore, but %make_install

that's right, all problems related to %{__make} install requiring extra
arguments disappeared!

> 
> - Static files are not necessary, unless there is some specific reason.
>   Use  --enable-static=no

actually Snort responds that the static libraries are for convenience of using
Snort https://sourceforge.net/p/snort/mailman/message/35489435/
I got rid of all the static libraries for now.

> 
> - AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
> --
>   AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: daq-2.0.6/configure.ac:13
> 
> See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
> 
> = MUST items =
> 
> C/C++:
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
>  Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
>  attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

I think this is about /usr/lib64/daq/? They are not in ld path.

> [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.
> 
> 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)", "Unknown or
>  generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)",
>  "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2)". 19 files have
>  unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>  /home/sagitter/1394502-daq/licensecheck.txt
> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

I think this is the case

> [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

using %configure macro now, should be OK

> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
>  names).
> [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> [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.
> [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.

looks to me daq-debuginfo is useful (gdb loads symbols)

> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>  (~1MB) or number of files.
>  Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
>  one supported primary architecture.
> [x]: Package installs properly.
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
>  Note: There are rpml

[Bug 1069023] Review Request: fifechan - C++ GUI library designed for games

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069023



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
fifechan-0.1.3-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f714c8334f

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1069023] Review Request: fifechan - C++ GUI library designed for games

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069023



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
fifechan-0.1.3-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ca1553f662

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395726] Review Request: apache-commons-configuration2 - Java library providing a generic Configuration interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395726

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

[Bug 1395726] New: Review Request: apache-commons-configuration2 - Java library providing a generic Configuration interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395726

Bug ID: 1395726
   Summary: Review Request: apache-commons-configuration2 - Java
library providing a generic Configuration interface
   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/apache-commons-configuration2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-configuration2-2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description:
The Commons Configuration library provides a generic Configuration
interface which enables a Java application to read configuration data
from a variety of sources.

Configuration parameters may be loaded from the following sources:

 * Properties files
 * XML documents
 * Windows INI files
 * Property list files (plist)
 * JNDI
 * JDBC Datasource
 * System properties
 * Applet parameters
 * Servlet parameters

Configuration objects are created using configuration builders. Different
configuration sources can be mixed using a CombinedConfigurationBuilder and
a CombinedConfiguration. Additional sources of configuration parameters
can be created by using custom configuration objects. This customization
can be achieved by extending AbstractConfiguration or
AbstractHierarchicalConfiguration.
Fedora Account System Username: gil

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16475635

Used by ActiveMQ Artemis 1.5.0

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394502] Review Request: daq - Data Acquisition Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502



--- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande  ---
Package Review
==

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

- Files in sfbpf/ are licensed under BSD* licenses.
  Add BSD to License tag.

- devel sub-packages do not need to provide COPYING

- %{_configure} macro is wrong.
  Use %configure

- Following lines are useless

%post -n %{name}-devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -n %{name}-devel -p /sbin/ldconfig

- %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} = %make_build

- Once you set %configure, probably you will not need using

%{__make} install prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix}
exec_prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_exec_prefix} libdir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}

anymore, but %make_install

- Static files are not necessary, unless there is some specific reason.
  Use  --enable-static=no

- AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
--
  AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: daq-2.0.6/configure.ac:13

See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: 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.

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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)", "Unknown or
 generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)",
 "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2)". 19 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/sagitter/1394502-daq/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the