[Bug 1371158] Review Request: ebtree - Elastic binary tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371158
--- Comment #9 from Petr Pisar ---
(In reply to Ingvar Hagelund from comment #7)
> > %build
> > +# Some hardening on epel5,6
> > +%if 0%{?rhel} == 5 || 0%{?rhel} == 6
> > +export CFLAGS="%{optflags} -fPIE"
> > +export LDFLAGS="-Wl,-z,relro -z,now"
> > +%endif
> >
> > TODO: Here you still ignores %{__global_ldflags} for EPEL 5 and 6. The same
> > applies to %check section. The macro is maybe empty there but still for the
> > sake of consistency and those who redefines it locally it should be
> > respected.
>
> I don't know how often anybody uses %{__global_ldflags} on epel5,6, but OK:
>
> # Some hardening on epel5,6
> %if 0%{?rhel} == 5 || 0%{?rhel} == 6
> export CFLAGS="%{optflags} -fPIE"
> export LDFLAGS="%{__global_ldflags} -fPIC -DPIC -Wl,-z,relro -z,now"
> %endif
>
> > TODO: I recommend to add -fPIC -DPIC compiler options when building the
> > shared library object files. They are required for building a shared
> > library. The build passes only because
> > /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 hardening configuration supplies
> > -fPIE.
>
> Is it enough to just add them to LDFLAGS, like above?
>
-fPIC -DPIC are compiler options. Not linker options. The should be added to
CFLAGS. Not LDFLAGS.
> > TODO: I recommend to build the tests in %build section.
>
> Why? Isn't this exactly what %check is for?
>
I think %check is for running tests. Not for compiling code. But it does not
matter much.
> > > TODO: The library SONAME should be two-digit because this not an upstream
> > > versioning. It also does not make sense to start with "6". You could start
> > > with "0.1".
> > (...)
> > TODO: This is not a 2-digit SONAME. SONAME is what you pass to -soname
> > linker option.
>
> Like this?
>
> +SOREL = 0
> +SOMIN = 1
>
> (...)
>
> +libebtree.so: $(OBJS)
> + $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -shared -Wl,-soname,libebtree.so.$(SOREL).$(SOMIN)
> -o libebtree.so.$(SOREL).$(SOMIN) $(OBJS)
> + ln -sf libebtree.so.$(SOREL).$(SOMIN) libebtree.so.$(SOREL)
> + ln -sf libebtree.so.$(SOREL) libebtree.so
> +
>
No. The SOREL should be "0.1", SOMIN whatever you want (actually you does not
have to use it), and -soname option would be "libebtree.so.$(SOREL)" only.
The idea is to have soname different from whatever upstream could use when he
decided to start using soname.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell integration for Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 --- Comment #3 from Yuri Konotopov --- Version 8 with Firefox support released. See also: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeShellIntegrationForChrome/ReleaseNotes/8 https://blogs.gnome.org/ne0sight/2016/12/25/how-to-install-gnome-shell-extensions-with-firefox-52/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409363] Review Request: llvm3.9 -- Versioned LLVM 3.9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409363 --- Comment #8 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- Yes, for now rawhide has 3.9.0, but I expect F26 to ship with 4.0, which will be released in February. So indeed for the next few weeks it's going to be redundant, but I figured I'd better start the review process early. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1176273] Review Request: andy-super-great-park - 2D arcade game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273 --- Comment #29 from MartinKG --- (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #28) > (In reply to MartinKG from comment #27) > > (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #26) > > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > > > found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa", "GPL (v2 or > > > later)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v3.0)", "Unknown or generated". > > > 1555 files have unknown license. > > > > License is GPLv3 not GPLv3+. See LICENSE file > > > > done > > > > > > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > > > must be documented in the spec. > > > > You should really add a breakdown if possible > > > > done > > I think you misunderstood. There are two licenses provided: CCPL (CC by-sa > v3.0) and GPL. > > According you the readme, all code is GPL v3 (excluding data/common.scm, > which is actually GPLv2+) and all multimedia is CC by-sa v3.0. You can > change the breakdown to the following: > > > # All code is GPLv3 except: > > # asgp/data/common.scm is GPL (v2 or later) > > # All multimedia (pictures, sounds, levels, etc.) is CC BY-SA V3.0 done > As well, asgp/android can be deleted in prep as you shouldn't need these > files for Fedora (thus you should also remove ASL 2.0). > done, delete android and removed ASL 2.0 license > Also please include the full licenses in the data file %license macro like > so: > > > %license asgp/LICENSE asgp/license/* done > Note the %license macro for the main package is not necessary, since the > main package requires the data package, but you may include it if you so > please. > > > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > > Note: Directories without known owners: > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/bear-factory > > > > This can be fixed by adding the following to the main package: > > > BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme > > > Requires: hicolor-icon-theme > > > > Which is something I missed when I was reviewing bear. Please fix this. > > > > - add RR hicolor-icon-theme in both packages, I think BR is not required. > > Indeed, the BR is not required, but it should silence the fedora-review > warning. Adding only the RR is fine by me. > > The license issue is the only thing that needs to be fixed. You don't have > to upload another srpm if you don't want to, but please post the new spec > with the suggested changes before I can approve. all suggestions hopefully changed. new spec file only: Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/asgp.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409882] Review Request: noise - The official elementary music player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409882 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409882] Review Request: noise - The official elementary music player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409882 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- noise-0.4.0.2-4.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-97f2dedf24 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409926] Review Request: scratch-text-editor - The text editor that works
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409926 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- scratch-text-editor-2.3-7.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-bde72325e6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409926] Review Request: scratch-text-editor - The text editor that works
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409926 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409884] Review Request: DayJournal - A digital journal that uses plain text files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409884
--- Comment #4 from Brian Exelbierd ---
Hi Igor,
Thank you for the feedback. It is extremely valuable.
> 1. I would recommend to change name of package to something in lower-case
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming#General_Naming)
Ahh. I read "should" as meaning that projects that have formally upcased names
can have upcased packages. This change will definitely make other lines
easier.
> 2. Missing BuildRequires: gcc (all BuildRequires must be specified)
Ok. I has thought that allowing it to be brought in implicitly because vala
needs it was enough. I'll fix this.
> 3. Since upstream uses pkg-config to find dependencies
> (PKG_CHECK_MODULES(DAYJOURNAL, gee-0.8
> [gtk+-3.0 libnotify appindicator3-0.1 gio-2.0 gdk-3.0 gtk+-3.0 glib-2.0])),
> it's worth to change style of BuildRequires:
> pkgconfig(gtk+-3.0)
> pkgconfig(libnotify)
> ...
> and remaining ones
This also makes sense. If anyone comes after me and reads this, I think this
requirement is documented here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_based_on_pkg-config
> 4. if you will rename package to dayjornal, then you can drop "-n ..." part
> in %autosetup -n dayjournal-%{version}
> 5. cp %{SOURCE1} . doesn't preserve timestamps (you can add `-a` to cp
> invocation)
> 6. make %{?_smp_mflags} -> %make_build (this is preferred because of some
> switches in parallel building inside RPM)
done. I was able to eliminate the copies, see %install
> 7. install -m 644 -D dayjournal.desktop
> %{buildroot}/usr/share/applications/dayjournal.desktop
> 7.1. Add `-p` to preserve timestamps
> 7.2. Use %{name} instead of dayjornal if you will rename it
> 7.3. replace /usr/share with %{_datadir}
I missed %{_datadir} in my reading. I should have searched more.
> 8. %make_install install-exec, is it really needed to specify install-exec?
In this case, I think so. The install will, by default, install bunch of
zero-byte "documentation" files. The patch I wrote eliminates those from the
build at the install-exec level.
> 9. /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/dayjournal-icon.png
> 9.1. same to replace /usr/share with %{_datadir}
> 9.2. I think having "-icon" is pointless
I updated to use the macro, however the icon was not getting picked up unless
named -icon. I am not sure why.
> 10. You should run desktop-file-validate against desktop file in %check
> section
Based on my read of
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files I am
wondering if using desktop-file-install in %install isn't better. Let me know.
> 11. License is GPLv3+, not GPLv3
fixed.
The spec file and SRPM have been uploaded to the same urls. The COPR has been
updated as well.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1371158] Review Request: ebtree - Elastic binary tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371158 --- Comment #11 from Petr Pisar --- Yes, I think this is the best. Thank you for polishing the package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1371158] Review Request: ebtree - Elastic binary tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371158 --- Comment #10 from Ingvar Hagelund --- (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #9) Thanks again, Petr. I'll try again. Updated srpm and spec here (did not bump release tag) https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/ebtree/ebtree.spec https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/ebtree/ebtree-6.0.8-4.fc25.src.rpm > -fPIC -DPIC are compiler options. Not linker options. The should be added to > CFLAGS. Not LDFLAGS. Right. Fixed > I think %check is for running tests. Not for compiling code. But it does not > matter much. I can take away a few lines by moving it %build, and just run the check under %check, so it's an improvement as well. Fixed. > (...)The SOREL should be "0.1", SOMIN whatever you want (actually you does > not have to use it), and -soname option would be "libebtree.so.$(SOREL)" > only. > > The idea is to have soname different from whatever upstream could use when > he decided to start using soname. uh, ok. Something like this, then: SOREL = 0.1 (...) libebtree.so: $(OBJS) $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -shared -Wl,-soname,libebtree.so.$(SOREL) -o libebtree.so.$(SOREL) $(OBJS) ln -sf libebtree.so.$(SOREL) libebtree.so Better now? Ingvar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409869] Review Request: perl-X10 - X10 perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409869 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com Depends On||1409866 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409866 [Bug 1409866] Review Request: perl-Astro-SunTime - Astro::SunTime perl module -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409866] Review Request: perl-Astro-SunTime - Astro:: SunTime perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409866 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1409869 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409869 [Bug 1409869] Review Request: perl-X10 - X10 perl module -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409866] Review Request: perl-Astro-SunTime - Astro:: SunTime perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409866 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com Flags||fedora_requires_release_not ||e? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409866] Review Request: perl-Astro-SunTime - Astro:: SunTime perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409866 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora_requires_release_not |fedora-review? |e? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409866] Review Request: perl-Astro-SunTime - Astro:: SunTime perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409866
--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ---
Next time, please link to raw spec file. Not an HTML document.
URL and Source addresses are usable. Ok.
Source archive is original (SHA-256:
29b190112117c50ef08d02caedb3c325af48fad3e5a8d195a38cec0470e235d0). Ok.
FIX: Do not undefine the %debug_package macro. debuginfo packages are not
created for noarch packages by default.
FIX: The summary text is poor. Instead of naming modules the package contains
it should summaries purpose of the package. For example `Sun rise and set
times'.
Description verified from README. Ok.
TODO: I think the `perl' in the description text should be spelled as `Perl'
because it's a name of a programming language. `perl' denotes the Perl
interpreter, a command for executing /usr/bin/perl.
FIX: There is no license text or disclaimer in the sources. Where did you find
that `GPL+ or Artistic' applies? In case there is no license defined in the
sources, one has to contact author of the sources and ask him/her for
clarification. If the author does not release a new version that will include
the license, the author's clarification (e.g. an e-mail response with all
e-mail headers) must be added to the package using %license macro in the %files
section. If author does not provide any clarification acceptable by Fedora
legal team, the package cannot be distributed withing Fedora distribution
because copyright law denies redistributing copyrighted material by default.
The missing license is a fatal problem and I would stop the review now until
resolving it. But because you are newbie, I will continue and show you what
other deficiencies should be fixed in this package.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.
TODO: You can simplify the find command in the %install section like this:
find %{buildroot} -type f -name .packlist -delete
Otherwise you should build-require `coreutils' because you execute `rm' command
provided by coreutils package.
TODO: Do not package `MANIFEST' file. It has no meaning in RPM package, it's
used only by CPAN site.
TODO: Do not package `test.pl' file. We normally do not package tests as they
are not needed at run time. We package them as a documentation if there is not
any better documentation. This package does not have any documentation, but the
test.pl actually does not show any usage of Astro::SunTime API, so it'd not
good as as a documentation as well.
FIX: Build-require `perl' because you execute perl in perl-Astro-SunTime.spec
at lines 17 and 26.
FIX: Build-require `findutils' (perl-Astro-SunTime.spec:32).
FIX: Build-require `coreutils' (perl-Astro-SunTime.spec:32).
FIX: Build-require these Perl modules because they are used when executing
tests:
`perl(POSIX)' (SunTime.pm:10)
`perl(strict)' (SunTime.pm:12)
`perl(Time::ParseDate)' (SunTime.pm:9)
`perl(vars)' (SunTime.pm:2).
You can use `tangerine' tool the scan the sources for used Perl modules. You
can verify the modules are used by mangling their identifiers to non-existing
modules in the sources and than executing `make test'.
All tests pass. Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-Astro-SunTime.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-4.fc26.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-4.fc26.noarch.rpm
perl-Astro-SunTime.spec:8: W: non-standard-group Applications/CPAN
perl-Astro-SunTime.spec:48: W: macro-in-%changelog %check
perl-Astro-SunTime.src: E: description-line-too-long C Astro::SunTime perl
module provides a function interface to calculate sun rise/set times.
perl-Astro-SunTime.src: W: non-standard-group Applications/CPAN
perl-Astro-SunTime.src:48: W: macro-in-%changelog %check
perl-Astro-SunTime.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Astro::SunTime perl
module provides a function interface to calculate sun rise/set times.
perl-Astro-SunTime.noarch: W: non-standard-group Applications/CPAN
perl-Astro-SunTime.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.03-4
['0.01-4.fc26', '0.01-4']
perl-Astro-SunTime.noarch: W: manifest-in-perl-module
/usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-SunTime/MANIFEST
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings.
FIX: Change the Group tag value to one enumerated in /usr/share/doc/rpm/GROUPS
(`Development/Libraries' probably) or remove the tag because it's deprecated in
Fedora.
FIX: Escape `%' character in the %changelog by another per-cent character.
FIX: Correct version number for the latest %changelog entry to match Version
tag.
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Astro-SunTime-0.01-4.fc26.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jan 4 13:55
/usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-SunTime
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 105 Nov 8 1999
/usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-SunTime/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 55 Dec 13 1999
/usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-SunTime/MANIFEST
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 80 Dec 13 1999
/usr/share/doc/perl-Astro-SunTime/README
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 659 Nov 8 1999
[Bug 1371158] Review Request: ebtree - Elastic binary tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371158 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/ebtree -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1371158] Review Request: ebtree - Elastic binary tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371158 Ingvar Hagelund changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2017-01-04 08:39:00 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1176273] Review Request: andy-super-great-park - 2D arcade game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273 Jeremy Newton changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #30 from Jeremy Newton --- 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 1410113] New: Review Request: perl-Sub-Info - Tool for inspecting Perl subroutines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410113 Bug ID: 1410113 Summary: Review Request: perl-Sub-Info - Tool for inspecting Perl subroutines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Sub-Info/perl-Sub-Info.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Sub-Info/perl-Sub-Info-0.002-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: This allows to inspect Perl subroutines. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1410113] Review Request: perl-Sub-Info - Tool for inspecting Perl subroutines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410113 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1410084 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410084 [Bug 1410084] perl-Test2-Suite-0.67 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1371158] Review Request: ebtree - Elastic binary tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371158 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- ebtree-6.0.8-4.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-e10fdab597 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1371158] Review Request: ebtree - Elastic binary tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371158 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- ebtree-6.0.8-4.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2ed27ba719 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1410113] Review Request: perl-Sub-Info - Tool for inspecting Perl subroutines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410113 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 1028743] Review Request: hans - IP over ICMP tunneling solution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743 --- Comment #10 from Michal Ambroz --- Yes ... the xmass frenzy is behind us I will be on it 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 1410126] New: Review Request: pantheon-terminal - The terminal of the 21st century
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410126 Bug ID: 1410126 Summary: Review Request: pantheon-terminal - The terminal of the 21st century Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decatho...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/decathorpe/fedora-packaging/af1eefec59a7d0e5b2e36901105a987d372a0bbe/specs/pantheon-terminal/pantheon-terminal.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/decathorpe/staging/fedora-25-x86_64/00495512-pantheon-terminal/pantheon-terminal-0.4.0.3-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: A super lightweight, beautiful, and simple terminal. It's designed to be setup with sane defaults and little to no configuration. It's just a terminal, nothing more, nothing less. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17162197 COPR build for rawhide and f25: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/decathorpe/staging/build/495512/ This package was already available via my elementary-stable/nightly COPR repository. Comment on the occurring "invalid-lc-messages-dir" rpmlint errors: These errors don't seem to apply to fedora, since many already existing packages put translation files there (mainly those translated through launchpad/rosetta, I think). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409866] Review Request: perl-Astro-SunTime - Astro:: SunTime perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409866 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Bauer --- Hi Petr, Thank you for taking the time to produce such a thorough review. This will definitely help me write better specfiles moving forward. It will take me a bit to go through all of these in finer detail, but you can expect these all to get fixed. Thanks for the heads up regarding the tangerine tool. I was wondering if there was good way to know exactly what packages are needed when performing a perl test during the build. My apologies for leaving %debug_package macro in there. That was a quick fix to allow the build to succeed... before I discovered the root cause was really a missing "BuildArch: noarch". The summary & License text came directly from cpanspec Astro::SunTime But I will certainly change either if they aren't right. I get it. cpanspec is just a program, which makes some best-guess assumptions. We need to be smarter than that. I'll contact the author of the perl module about the missing license text immediately. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1410126] Review Request: pantheon-terminal - The terminal of the 21st century
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410126 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- Taking this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1409866] Review Request: perl-Astro-SunTime - Astro:: SunTime perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409866 Damian Wrobel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dwro...@ertelnet.rybnik.pl --- Comment #4 from Damian Wrobel --- (In reply to Andrew Bauer from comment #3) > > I'll contact the author of the perl module about the missing license text > immediately. Andrew, Before you mentioned you would like to submit those packages to Fedora I already contacted author and he promised me to include license files to both packages (X110 & Astro::SunTime). If you prefer I can forward to you response from the author. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409866] Review Request: perl-Astro-SunTime - Astro:: SunTime perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409866 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Bauer --- Thanks for the help Damian. Yes, I'd appreciate if you could forward his response to me. Seems I went to the same college as the author so I may contact him simply for nostalgia. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1410126] Review Request: pantheon-terminal - The terminal of the 21st century
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410126 --- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa --- According to licensecheck, this code is actually LGPLv3. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1408620] Review Request: rdfind - Program that finds duplicate files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1408620 --- Comment #10 from Gerd Pokorra --- I got a pre-release from Paul. Paul fixes for us the incorrect-fsf-address error. rpmlint do not show an error any more: $ rpmlint /home/gz016/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/rdfind-1.3.5-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. The link ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/rdfind/spec/rdfind.spec points to ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/rdfind/spec/rdfind.spec.3 now. The new SRPM URL is: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/rdfind/srpm/rdfind-1.3.5-1.fc25.src.rpm May be you want to have a look at it again, Igor. rawhide scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17162413 f25 scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17162493 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1329125] Review Request: python-oslo-privsep - OpenStack library for privilege separation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329125 Charalampos Stratakis changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cstra...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #10 from Charalampos Stratakis --- The package hasn't been built yet. Could a build be created in 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 1410126] Review Request: pantheon-terminal - The terminal of the 21st century
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410126 --- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3) > [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 134 > files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/makerpm/1410126-pantheon-terminal/licensecheck.txt Gah, this is supposed to be ! to denote failure. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1410126] Review Request: pantheon-terminal - The terminal of the 21st century
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410126
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 134
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/makerpm/1410126-pantheon-terminal/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/rue/LC_MESSAGES,
/usr/share/locale/ckb/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/ckb,
/usr/share/locale/rue
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/locale/ckb,
/usr/share/locale/rue/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/rue,
/usr/share/locale/ckb/LC_MESSAGES
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: 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.
[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]: 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 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
pantheon-terminal-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present
[Bug 1406517] Review Request: container-selinux - Summary: SELinux policies for container runtimes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406517 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||l...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(l...@redhat.com) --- Comment #5 from Jan Chaloupka --- Otherwise LGTM. Please, resolve the two issues. Once done, I will approve. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1406517] Review Request: container-selinux - Summary: SELinux policies for container runtimes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406517 --- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka --- Based on [1] you are missing "Obsoletes: container-selinux < 2:1.12.5.13". Or whatever version of the docker is the latest in the time of building first container-selinux rpm from the new package. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1406517] Review Request: container-selinux - Summary: SELinux policies for container runtimes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406517
--- Comment #4 from Jan Chaloupka ---
I don't think you need to make the constraint relative:
Obsoletes: docker-selinux <= %{epoch}:%{version}-28
It should be enough to fix it with some comment what is the docker-selinux
obsoleted by the particular NEVR. E.g.
Obsoletes: docker-selinux <= 2:1.12.4-28
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1176273] Review Request: andy-super-great-park - 2D arcade game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273 --- Comment #31 from MartinKG --- @Jeremy many thanks for your assistance ! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1410150] New: Review Request: golang-github-mitchellh-reflectwalk - Go library for "walking" complex structures, similar to walking a filesystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410150 Bug ID: 1410150 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-mitchellh-reflectwalk - Go library for "walking" complex structures, similar to walking a filesystem Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jchal...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-mitchellh-reflectwalk/golang-github-mitchellh-reflectwalk.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-mitchellh-reflectwalk/golang-github-mitchellh-reflectwalk-0-0.1.giteecf4c7.fc24.src.rpm Description: Go library for "walking" complex structures, similar to walking a filesystem Fedora Account System Username: jchaloup Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17162499 $ rpmlint golang-github-mitchellh-reflectwalk-0-0.1.giteecf4c7.fc24.src.rpm golang-github-mitchellh-reflectwalk-devel-0-0.1.giteecf4c7.fc24.noarch.rpm golang-github-mitchellh-reflectwalk-unit-test-devel-0-0.1.giteecf4c7.fc24.x86_64.rpm golang-github-mitchellh-reflectwalk.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically golang-github-mitchellh-reflectwalk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically golang-github-mitchellh-reflectwalk-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically golang-github-mitchellh-reflectwalk-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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 1410150] Review Request: golang-github-mitchellh-reflectwalk - Go library for "walking" complex structures, similar to walking a filesystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410150 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1348906 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348906 [Bug 1348906] consul-v0.7.2 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1408869] Review Request: python-vine - Promises, promises, promises
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1408869
Jeremy Cline changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jer...@jcline.org
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy Cline ---
Approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3 clause) CC by-sa (v4.0)". 39
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/vagrant/1408869-python-vine/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.6/site-
packages, /usr/lib/python3.6
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python2-vine , python3-vine
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported
[Bug 1408869] Review Request: python-vine - Promises, promises, promises
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1408869 --- Comment #2 from Jeremy Cline --- I neglected to mention in the above comment, but I trust you'll enable tests when python-case lands in the next compose :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1410126] Review Request: pantheon-terminal - The terminal of the 21st century
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410126 --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini --- Fixed (for now), and I reported a bug upstream [0] about the possible license discrepancies. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/decathorpe/fedora-packaging/58fcdbd02efa71afeb11e3f4b81de5f990290dd2/specs/pantheon-terminal/pantheon-terminal.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/decathorpe/staging/fedora-25-x86_64/00495586-pantheon-terminal/pantheon-terminal-0.4.0.3-2.fc25.src.rpm [0]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/pantheon-terminal/+bug/1654006 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1176273] Review Request: andy-super-great-park - 2D arcade game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273 --- Comment #32 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/andy-super-great-park -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1392950] Review Request: qclib - Provides a C API for extraction of system information for Linux on z Systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392950 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/qclib -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1410113] Review Request: perl-Sub-Info - Tool for inspecting Perl subroutines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410113
Athos Ribeiro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Athos Ribeiro ---
fedora-review complains about BuildRequires make and findutils, since those are
already included in the current minimum build environment. Guidelines are vague
on those since "RPM deps may change" and the definition of "basic shell
scripts" is not clear. So I believe those are up to the packager.
BuildRequires ok
binary Requires ok
binary Provides ok
Looks good to me. Approved
=
fedora-review output
=
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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 paral
[Bug 1410126] Review Request: pantheon-terminal - The terminal of the 21st century
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410126 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa --- As that was the only remaining issue, everything looks good. 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 804125] Review Request: rdkit - A toolkit for cheminformatics and machine learning
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804125 Bug 804125 depends on bug 1293160, which changed state. Bug 1293160 Summary: Re-enable building on armv7hl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293160 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409867] Review Request: python2-btchip - 'btchip-python' is a library used to interface with Ledger hardware devices ( Cryptocurrency)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867 Jonny Heggheim 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 1410126] Review Request: pantheon-terminal - The terminal of the 21st century
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410126 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/pantheon-terminal -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1408869] Review Request: python-vine - Promises, promises, promises
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1408869 --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge --- Thank you! I will do. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1408869] Review Request: python-vine - Promises, promises, promises
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1408869 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jer...@jcline.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1404421] Container Review Request: kubernetes - containers for kubernetes master and node packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404421 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/docker/kubernetes -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409884] Review Request: DayJournal - A digital journal that uses plain text files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409884 --- Comment #5 from Brian Exelbierd --- Another update: 1. I fixed the icon file name 2. Also, the upstream finally put the .desktop and icon somewhere we can reference so I fixed that. 3. I am providing name corrected urls based on the new name: Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~bex/DayJournal/dayjournal.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~bex/DayJournal/dayjournal-23.0.6-1.fc24.src.rpm COPR is also updated. Thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1408869] Review Request: python-vine - Promises, promises, promises
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1408869 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-vine -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409867] Review Request: python2-btchip - 'btchip-python' is a library used to interface with Ledger hardware devices ( Cryptocurrency)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867
--- Comment #6 from Jonny Heggheim ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or
generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 22 files have unknown
license.
btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/btchipKeyRecovery.py
btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/msqr.py
btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalization00start.py
btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalization01seed.py
btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalization02security.py
btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalization03config.py
btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalization04finalize.py
btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalizationseedbackup01.py
btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalizationseedbackup02.py
btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalizationseedbackup03.py
btchip-python-0.1.18/btchip/ui/personalizationseedbackup04.py
btchip-python-0.1.18/tests/testMultisigArmory.py
btchip-python-0.1.18/tests/testMultisigArmoryNo2FA.py
btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-00-start.ui
btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-01-seed.ui
btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-02-security.ui
btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-03-config.ui
btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-04-finalize.ui
btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-seedbackup-01.ui
btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-seedbackup-02.ui
btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-seedbackup-03.ui
btchip-python-0.1.18/ui/personalization-seedbackup-04.ui
Please contact upstream to clarify licensing. Best if they put proper license
header and release new version.
[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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package mee
[Bug 1409867] Review Request: python2-btchip - 'btchip-python' is a library used to interface with Ledger hardware devices ( Cryptocurrency)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867 --- Comment #7 from Jonny Heggheim --- Must: * Please contact upstream to clarify licensing. Best if they put proper license header and release new version. Non critical: * Consider removing the python3 code that is commented out. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1176273] Review Request: asgp - 2D arcade game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273 MartinKG changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: asgp - 2D |andy-super-great-park - 2D |arcade game |arcade game | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1176273] Review Request: asgp - 2D arcade game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273 MartinKG changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |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 1176273] Review Request: asgp - 2D arcade game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273 --- Comment #33 from MartinKG --- Hi Jeremy, can we rerequest the package as asgp ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409867] Review Request: python2-btchip - 'btchip-python' is a library used to interface with Ledger hardware devices ( Cryptocurrency)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867 --- Comment #8 from Mike Goodwin --- Thanks Jonny! I've linked them to this review and have asked them to comment to me or the ticket in reply to the questionably-licensed files. Re: the python3 stuff in the spec, i was unsure about if you wanted that there because of what you said about following the new guidelines and potential python3 support in the future for one of your packaged libs. I spoke to btchip and he said they intend on supporting python3 with this library at some point. Still remove? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409867] Review Request: python2-btchip - 'btchip-python' is a library used to interface with Ledger hardware devices ( Cryptocurrency)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867 --- Comment #9 from Jonny Heggheim --- (In reply to Mike Goodwin from comment #8) > Thanks Jonny! I've linked them to this review and have asked them to comment > to me or the ticket in reply to the questionably-licensed files. Great! > Re: the python3 stuff in the spec, i was unsure about if you wanted that > there because of what you said about following the new guidelines and > potential python3 support in the future for one of your packaged libs. I > spoke to btchip and he said they intend on supporting python3 with this > library at some point. > > Still remove? You decide, I would remove them now and add it later when btchip supports python3. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409867] Review Request: python2-btchip - 'btchip-python' is a library used to interface with Ledger hardware devices ( Cryptocurrency)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Jonny Heggheim --- 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 1409867] Review Request: python-btchip - 'btchip-python' is a library used to interface with Ledger hardware devices ( Cryptocurrency)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867 Mike Goodwin changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python2-btchip -|python-btchip - |'btchip-python' is a|'btchip-python' is a |library used to interface |library used to interface |with Ledger hardware|with Ledger hardware |devices (Cryptocurrency)|devices (Cryptocurrency) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1368855] Review Request: radare2 - The reverse engineering framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368855 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lkund...@v3.sk Assignee|ignate...@redhat.com|lkund...@v3.sk --- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel --- Talked to Igor; I'm stealing this review as it's taking too long and Igor's busy. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1176273] Review Request: asgp - 2D arcade game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273 Jeremy Newton changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #34 from Jeremy Newton --- please use asgp, not andy-super-great-park -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1372670] Review Request: driverctl - device driver control utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372670 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(ignatenko@redhat. | |com)| --- Comment #6 from Igor Gnatenko --- Drop scriptlets to update udev rules since it triggers unnecessary calls for udevadm which are not needed (systemd uses something like inotify and does this automagically). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1368855] Review Request: radare2 - The reverse engineering framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368855
--- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel ---
Looks generally good. A few comments inline. Note that the style comments are
in generally merely my opinions, not blockers.
> Name: radare2
> Version:0.10.5
Please update to the 1.1.0 release tarball.
> Release:1%{?dist}
> Summary:The %{name} reverse engineering framework
This looks terrible. Please consider *not* using macro expansion for every
single occurrence of a substring.
> Group: Applications/Engineering
Probably not the right category. Development/Tools is more suitable (or
Development/Debuggers).
> License:LGPLv3
Some parts of the package use a different license; e.g. shlr/grub is apparently
GPLv3+, shlr/qnx is probably GPL+, shlr/zip looks like BSD, etc.
> URL:http://radare.org/
> #URL: https://github.com/radare/radare2
Drop a useless comment please.
> Source0:
> https://github.com/%{gituser}/%{gitname}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{version}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz
> Source1:
> https://github.com/%{gituser}/%{sdbgitname}/archive/%{sdbcommit}/%{sdbgitname}-%{version}-%{sdbshort}.tar.gz
This source is not used at all.
> %description
> The %{name} is a reverse-engineering framework that is multi-architecture,
> multi-platform, and highly scriptable. %{name} provides a hexadecimal
> editor, wrapped I/O, file system support, debugger support, diffing
> between two functions or binaries, and code analysis at opcode,
> basic block, and function levels.
Another couple of useless macro expansions. Please get rid of them.
> %build
> %configure --with-sysmagic --with-syszip --with-syscapstone
You don't enable openssl. Why? (no idea what is it used for)
> CFLAGS="%{optflags} -fPIC -I../include" make %{?_smp_mflags}
> LIBDIR=%{_libdir} PREFIX=%{_prefix} DATADIR=%{DATADIR}
%{DATADIR}?
> %install
> rm -rf %{buildroot}
Cleaning buildroot is not needed anymore.
> NOSUDO=1 make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} LIBDIR=%{_libdir} PREFIX=%{_prefix}
> cp shlr/sdb/src/libsdb.a %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/libsdb.a
No static libraries please; drop this one.
> %files
> %doc AUTHORS.md CONTRIBUTING.md DEVELOPERS.md README.md TODO.md doc/*
> %doc %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}
Drop this one; it's no longer needed or allowed.
> %post -n %{name}-devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %postun -n %{name}-devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
Why? You're not supposed to ship libraries in -devel packages; and you most
likely are 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 1409884] Review Request: DayJournal - A digital journal that uses plain text files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409884 --- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to Brian Exelbierd from comment #5) > Another update: > > 1. I fixed the icon file name > 2. Also, the upstream finally put the .desktop and icon somewhere we can > reference so I fixed that. > 3. I am providing name corrected urls based on the new name: > > Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~bex/DayJournal/dayjournal.spec > > SRPM URL: > https://fedorapeople.org/~bex/DayJournal/dayjournal-23.0.6-1.fc24.src.rpm > > COPR is also updated. > > Thank you. Please remove the configure.patch you have that removes appindicator support. There are desktops in Fedora (notably GNOME and Plasma) that do actually support this, and we do have the library in our repositories. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409884] Review Request: DayJournal - A digital journal that uses plain text files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409884 --- Comment #7 from Brian Exelbierd --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6) > Please remove the configure.patch you have that removes appindicator > support. There are desktops in Fedora (notably GNOME and Plasma) that do > actually support this, and we do have the library in our repositories. Thank you for catching this. I somehow overlooked this library when doing my initial pre-RPM builds and never checked again. I have updated the uploads and the COPR is rebuilding at this moment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409138] Review Request: pixiewps - An offline WPS bruteforce utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409138 --- Comment #11 from Michael Schwendt --- Anything in reply to comment 4? v1.2.2 is from January 2016. This checkout from git master is also v1.2.2 not v1.2, $ grep _VER pixiewps-master/src/version.h #define SHORT_VERSION "1.2" #define LONG_VERSION "1.2.2" but with a few changes compared with the v1.2.2 release, which effectively makes it either a pre-release of the next version or a post-release of 1.2.2: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell integration for Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 Mark Harfouche changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mark.harfou...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Mark Harfouche --- Here is an updated spec file. Unfortunately, something is off with the 32 bit build. I don't really know what to do about it. It creates a file for firefox in /usr/lib64 even on the 32 bit platform. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell integration for Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 --- Comment #5 from Mark Harfouche --- Created attachment 1237368 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1237368&action=edit Chrome gnome shell vr 8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell integration for Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 --- Comment #6 from Mark Harfouche --- https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/hmaarrfk/chrome-gnome-shell/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1392977] Review Request: ocid - OCI-based implementation of Kubernetes Container Runtime Interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392977 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- ocid-0-0.7.git2e6070f.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-2017-b9d15b70db -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1397620] Review Request: nodejs-int64-buffer - 64bit Long Integer on Buffer/Array/ ArrayBuffer in Pure JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397620 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-int64-buffer-0.1.9-1.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-2017-a4ef17a6bb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1371158] Review Request: ebtree - Elastic binary tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371158 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- ebtree-6.0.8-4.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-2017-2ed27ba719 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell integration for Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 Mark Harfouche changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment|0 |1 #1237368 is|| obsolete|| -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell integration for Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 --- Comment #7 from Mark Harfouche --- Created attachment 1237372 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1237372&action=edit v8 for both 32 and 64 bit probably doesn't work for firefox 32bit -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell integration for Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710
--- Comment #8 from Yuri Konotopov ---
(In reply to Mark Harfouche from comment #4)
>
> It creates a file for firefox in /usr/lib64 even on the 32 bit platform.
You could specify CMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR to force library directory and skip
cmake's autodetection:
%cmake . \
-DBUILD_EXTENSION=OFF \
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR=%{_lib}
Also jq is build-time dependency [1] and not needed at runtime. I think
jq-devel is not needed at all.
[1]
https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeShellIntegrationForChrome/Installation#Cmake_installation
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell integration for Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 Mark Harfouche changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment|0 |1 #1237372 is|| obsolete|| --- Comment #9 from Mark Harfouche --- Created attachment 1237374 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1237374&action=edit 8-4 As Yuri Konotopov's comments. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell integration for Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 --- Comment #10 from Mark Harfouche --- 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 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell integration for Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 --- Comment #11 from Mark Harfouche --- Once this gets accepted, I don't see why we should have 1 package for chrome chromium and firefox. It should really be split into 3 with 1 base package (and maybe 1 package that requires all 3 browser extensions). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409867] Review Request: python-btchip - 'btchip-python' is a library used to interface with Ledger hardware devices ( Cryptocurrency)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409867 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-btchip -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409884] Review Request: DayJournal - A digital journal that uses plain text files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409884 --- Comment #8 from Brian Exelbierd --- I've realized I've made an error in my documentation fix patch - I will work on fixing this fix. The short version is that my fix stops the zero-byte files from being installed, but also halts the appropriate files INSTALL and COPYING which I have, upon further re-reading, realized should be installed. This will also fix the install-exec comment above. I'll update this ticket when I work out a solution. The INSTALL file is truly just a stock autoconf INSTALL file, but the COPYING file is the license file and that should be installed, aiui. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1176273] Review Request: asgp - 2D arcade game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273 --- Comment #35 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/asgp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell integration for Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 --- Comment #12 from Mark Harfouche --- Created attachment 1237430 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1237430&action=edit 8-5 different extensions in different packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell integration for Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 --- Comment #13 from Yuri Konotopov --- Mark, python-requests runtime dependency is missing. It was added in v8. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell integration for Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 Mark Harfouche changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment|0 |1 #1237430 is|| obsolete|| -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell integration for Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 --- Comment #14 from Mark Harfouche --- Created attachment 1237443 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1237443&action=edit 8-6 python-requests runtime dependency Thanks Yuri -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - GNOME Shell integration for Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710 Mark Harfouche changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment|0 |1 #1237374 is|| obsolete|| -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1371158] Review Request: ebtree - Elastic binary tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371158 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1371158] Review Request: ebtree - Elastic binary tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371158 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- ebtree-6.0.8-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-4fdc54e965 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1371158] Review Request: ebtree - Elastic binary tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371158 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- ebtree-6.0.8-4.el5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 5. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-7db3c27dd4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1371158] Review Request: ebtree - Elastic binary tree library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371158 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- ebtree-6.0.8-4.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-43aa73acbf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1392977] Review Request: ocid - OCI-based implementation of Kubernetes Container Runtime Interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392977 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- ocid-0-0.7.git2e6070f.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-2017-59e06d79d7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1397620] Review Request: nodejs-int64-buffer - 64bit Long Integer on Buffer/Array/ ArrayBuffer in Pure JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397620 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-int64-buffer-0.1.9-1.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-2017-8a3dfe5d3b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409926] Review Request: scratch-text-editor - The text editor that works
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409926 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- scratch-text-editor-2.3-7.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-2017-bde72325e6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1409882] Review Request: noise - The official elementary music player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409882 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- noise-0.4.0.2-4.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-2017-97f2dedf24 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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
