[Bug 1444562] Review Request: nodejs-babel-messages - Collection of debug messages used by Babel

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444562

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review+  |fedora-review?



--- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/parag/1444562-nodejs-babel-messages/licensecheck.txt
[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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
 Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on 

[Bug 1444562] Review Request: nodejs-babel-messages - Collection of debug messages used by Babel

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444562

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Ah I am so sorry. Wrongly pasted nodejs-babel-runtime review text here. Please
ignore above comment. I will post review of this package in below comment.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1442275] Review Request: nodejs-babel-runtime - The babel selfContained runtime

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1442275

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Package Review
==

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


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

=>> Since I updated mock from updates-testing on my Fedora 26 system this issue
is going on. Package is always failing to get installed in mock.

I can also see the real failure here in mock installation. The reason is this
  - nothing provides npm(regenerator-runtime) >= 0.10.0 needed by
nodejs-babel-runtime-6.23.0-1.fc26.noarch

Can you work with nodejs-regenerator owner to fix this or %nodejs_fixdep in
this package?


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 242 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/parag/1442275-nodejs-babel-runtime/licensecheck.txt
[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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
 Note: Package 

[Bug 1444562] Review Request: nodejs-babel-messages - Collection of debug messages used by Babel

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444562



--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Package Review
==

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


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

=>> Since I updated mock from updates-testing on my Fedora 26 system this issue
is going on. Package is always failing to get installed in mock.

I can also see the real failure here in mock installation. The reason is this
  - nothing provides npm(regenerator-runtime) >= 0.10.0 needed by
nodejs-babel-runtime-6.23.0-1.fc26.noarch

Can you work with nodejs-regenerator owner to fix this or %nodejs_fixdep in
this package?


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 242 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/parag/1442275-nodejs-babel-runtime/licensecheck.txt
[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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
 Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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 

[Bug 1448778] Review Request: cockatrice - A cross-platform virtual tabletop for multiplayer card games

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448778



--- Comment #6 from Link Dupont  ---
- Removed ctest from %check
- Split out translations into langpacks
- Updated the License tag and rebuilt the SRPM

Spec URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/linkdupont/public_git/cockatrice.git/plain/cockatrice.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~linkdupont/srpms/cockatrice-2.3.17-3.fc25.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1448660] Review Request: nodejs-is-text-path - Check if a filepath is a text file

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448660
Bug 1448660 depends on bug 1448658, which changed state.

Bug 1448658 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-text-extensions - List of text file 
extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448658

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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

[Bug 1448658] Review Request: nodejs-text-extensions - List of text file extensions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448658

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-05-24 23:03:29



--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith  ---
In rawhide, closing bug

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

[Bug 1448859] Review Request: nodejs-conventional-commits-parser - Parse raw conventional commits

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448859
Bug 1448859 depends on bug 1448660, which changed state.

Bug 1448660 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-is-text-path - Check if a filepath 
is a text file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448660

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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

[Bug 1448660] Review Request: nodejs-is-text-path - Check if a filepath is a text file

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448660

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-05-24 23:02:49



--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith  ---
In rawhide, closing bug

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

[Bug 1448658] Review Request: nodejs-text-extensions - List of text file extensions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448658



--- Comment #2 from Dennis Gilmore  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nodejs-text-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 1448876] Review Request: nodejs-get-pkg-repo - Get normalized repository from package json data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448876

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-05-24 19:16:35



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1448859] Review Request: nodejs-conventional-commits-parser - Parse raw conventional commits

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448859
Bug 1448859 depends on bug 1364232, which changed state.

Bug 1364232 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-meow - CLI app helper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364232

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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

[Bug 1448876] Review Request: nodejs-get-pkg-repo - Get normalized repository from package json data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448876
Bug 1448876 depends on bug 1364232, which changed state.

Bug 1364232 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-meow - CLI app helper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364232

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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

[Bug 1364232] Review Request: nodejs-meow - CLI app helper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364232

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-05-24 19:15:13



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1444560] Review Request: nodejs-regenerator-runtime - Runtime for Regenerator-compiled generator and async functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444560

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2017-05-24 18:46:42



--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith  ---
I'm perfectly fine with it being a subpackage of regenerator.  Sorry for the
noise.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1444561] Review Request: nodejs-babel-code-frame - Generate errors that contain a code frame that point to source locations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444561



--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith  ---
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #1)
> Can you please package npm(babel-runtime)? I will be happy to review it.

Sure -- it's at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1442275

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1446005] Review Request: tikzit - Diagram editor for pgf/TikZ

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1446005



--- Comment #3 from W. Michael Petullo  ---
Strange. On my Fedora 25 computer gnustep-config's gnustep-make package is
required by gnustep-base-devel which is in turn a BuildRequires. The package
also builds for me in mock for Fedora 25.

Any idea what is different for 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 1422683] Review Request: dahdi-tools - Tools for Digium Asterisk Hardware Device Interface drivers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #11 from Tom Hughes  ---
If that's come from upstream then I guess we should go with it - presumably it
will be included in a future release anyway.

So on that basis I think we can approve this.

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

[Bug 1422683] Review Request: dahdi-tools - Tools for Digium Asterisk Hardware Device Interface drivers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683



--- Comment #10 from Jared Smith  ---
I've gone ahead and added a Requires for systemd-udev, just to be explicit.

I've added a BuildRequires on perl-generators as well.

As for the systemd unit file -- yes, it's horrendous.  I'm simply using the
systemd unit file that one of the Digium engineers provided -- even he admits
it was a quick and dirty rewrite of the init script in systemd form.  I haven't
really taken any time to try to improve it, but I'm open to suggestions (or
patches) on how to make it better.


Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/dahdi-tools/dahdi-tools.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/dahdi-tools/dahdi-tools-2.11.1-3.fc27.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1451456] Review Request: compat-tidy - Compatibility utility and library to clean up and pretty print HTML /XHTML/XML

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451456



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
compat-tidy-0.99.0-37.20091203.el7 libopkele-2.0.4-9.el7
mod_auth_openid-0.8-2.el7 psi-plus-0.16-0.22.20141205git440.el7
tidy-5.4.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-c0b04702c2

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1441828] Review Request: nuvolaplayer - Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441828

mgans...@alice.de  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |nuvolaplayer- Cloud Music   |nuvolaplayer - Cloud Music
   |Integration for your Linux  |Integration for your Linux
   |Desktop |Desktop



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1441828] Review Request: nuvolaplayer- Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441828



--- Comment #41 from mgans...@alice.de  ---
Hi Vit,
many thanks for your review !
polish changes are welcome.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1422683] Review Request: dahdi-tools - Tools for Digium Asterisk Hardware Device Interface drivers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683



--- Comment #9 from Tom Hughes  ---
Do we need a systemd-udev require? or do we just assume that is present?

Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl I believe we need BRs on
perl-generators and possibly on perl?

The systemd unit is obviously horrendous... I assume it's mostly just copying
the logic from the old init script but I wonder if it wouldn't be better to put
all that in a script where it would be more readable. I mean I think half of it
likely shouldn't be there at all really but that might be too big a change for
a legacy package like this.

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

[Bug 1422683] Review Request: dahdi-tools - Tools for Digium Asterisk Hardware Device Interface drivers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683



--- Comment #8 from Tom Hughes  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- 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.
  Note: License file astribank_license.c is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/dahdi-tools
  See:
 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)", "Unknown
 or generated", "*No copyright* GPL", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No
 copyright* CC0 (v8)", "Perl", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1)", "LGPL
 (v2.1)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2)
 (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2)". 213 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1422683-dahdi-
 tools/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev,
 /usr/lib/udev/rules.d
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package 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.

[Bug 1422683] Review Request: dahdi-tools - Tools for Digium Asterisk Hardware Device Interface drivers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1422683] Review Request: dahdi-tools - Tools for Digium Asterisk Hardware Device Interface drivers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683

Tom Hughes  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 1422683] Review Request: dahdi-tools - Tools for Digium Asterisk Hardware Device Interface drivers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1422683] Review Request: dahdi-tools - Tools for Digium Asterisk Hardware Device Interface drivers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683



--- Comment #7 from Jared Smith  ---
My most sincere apologies for the latency on this issue... I've been wholly
consumed with work (12+ hours per day) and some pressing personal/family issues
that have consumed the "free" time I typically use for contributing to projects
like Asterisk and Fedora. 


(In reply to Leif Madsen from comment #1)
> - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
>   are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
>   Note: These BR are not needed: coreutils gcc sed make findutils
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

Fixed in latest version listed below.

> - 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.
>   Note: License file astribank_license.c is not marked as %license
>   See:
>   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

This is a false positive -- astribank_license.c is not an actual license file.

It looks like Leif dropped himself off from doing the review -- would anyone
else like to pick it up and finish the review so that we can un-retire this
package?

Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/dahdi-tools/dahdi-tools.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/dahdi-tools/dahdi-tools-2.11.1-2.fc27.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1430364] Review Request: argbash - Bash argument parsing code generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1430364

Stephen Gallagher  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(james.hogarth@gma
   ||il.com)



--- Comment #7 from Stephen Gallagher  ---
Spec URL:
https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/argbash/argbash-2.4.0-0.1.spec
SRPM URL:
https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/argbash/argbash-2.4.0-0.1.fc26.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1430364] Review Request: argbash - Bash argument parsing code generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1430364



--- Comment #6 from Stephen Gallagher  ---
(In reply to Matthew Smith from comment #5)
> Apologies, here is my updated (unofficial) review.
> 
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> 
> Issues:
> ===
> - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
>   are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
>   Note: These BR are not needed: coreutils make bash
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
> 

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2 says:

"you should not assume any other packages are present as RPM dependencies and
anything brought into the buildroot by the build system may change over time."

I'm not sure which old list you were looking at, but these days it's generally
considered to be better if we explicitly include anything we know that we rely
upon. Redundancy is less of a problem than missing something.

> = 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.
> [!]: Latest version is packaged.

Well, 2.3.0 was the latest when I initially submitted this :)

I'll update to 2.4.0 with my next pass.

> 
> Rpmlint
> ---
> Checking: argbash-2.3.0-0.1.fc27.noarch.rpm
>   argbash-2.3.0-0.1.fc27.src.rpm
> argbash.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> argbash.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary argbash
> argbash.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary argbash-1to2
> argbash.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary argbash-init

Upstream has no manpages.

> argbash.src:48: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/argbash/
> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
> 

Fixed.

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

[Bug 1438842] Review Request: matrix-synapse - a Matrix reference homeserver written in Python using Twisted

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438842



--- Comment #7 from Sayan Chowdhury  ---
(In reply to Randy Barlow from comment #6)
> One more thing needs to be fixed for approval:
> 
> The macro used for /var/lib is still incorrect. It is currently
> %{_localstatedir}/lib, when it should be %{_sharedstatedir}.
+1

> 
> Optional: The summary section still uses "homeserver" instead of "home
> server".
matrix uses the term "homeserver" instead of "home server".

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

[Bug 1438842] Review Request: matrix-synapse - a Matrix reference homeserver written in Python using Twisted

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438842



--- Comment #6 from Randy Barlow  ---
One more thing needs to be fixed for approval:

The macro used for /var/lib is still incorrect. It is currently
%{_localstatedir}/lib, when it should be %{_sharedstatedir}.

Optional: The summary section still uses "homeserver" instead of "home server".

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

[Bug 1443076] Review Request: java-9-openjdk - OpenJDK Runtime Environment in implementation of java 9 specification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076



--- Comment #17 from Severin Gehwolf  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #12)
> (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #11)
> > (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #3)
> > >  * unlike java-1.8.0-openjdk bundled NSS is used
> > 
> > Can we actually do this? I don't think so. Otherwise why would we remove
> > that code from source in the generate-source-tarball script for JDK 8?
> > Actually comparing ./jdk/src/jdk.crypto.ec/share/native/libsunec/impl from
> > JDK 9 and ./jdk/src/share/native/sun/security/ec/impl from JDK 8 yields no
> > difference for me.
> 
> Tahts surprising. I did not do work on that. That means that all patches
> form 8 are upstreamed, and it is default choice in OJDK (see the make
> call)

I don't understand what you are saying. Can you clarify what "That" in "That
means ..." is?

Originally you've said that bundled NSS is being used. That's for EC support,
right? However, I believe we cannot use a source tarball with the internal NSS
fork of openjdk included, can we? Wouldn't we need to go down a similar path as
with openjdk 8. Remove internal NSS fork from sources, use system NSS. Or,
alternatively, don't support EC.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1443076] Review Request: java-9-openjdk - OpenJDK Runtime Environment in implementation of java 9 specification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076



--- Comment #16 from Mikolaj Izdebski  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #13)
> - No %config files under /usr.
>   Note: %config(noreplace)
>  
> /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.163-2.fc26.x86_64/lib/security/default.
> policy%config(noreplace)
> ...
>  
> /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.163-2.fc26.x86_64/lib/accessibility.
> properties
>   See:
>   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files
>   Perhaps symlink config files from
> /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.163-2.fc26.x86_64/conf to
> /etc/java-9-openjdk/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.163-2.fc26.x86_64/
> 
> Well.. why? i dont see a reason for this change.  java config files are
> quite specific, and always lied in java_home.
> 
> Every config file we ever moved outised was casuing some not expected
> behavior (cacerts, etc/java).
> 
> To symlink, seems like just bending over knee to make guideliens happy.
> 
> If you isnists, I will do as you advice. But I really think it is
> unnecessary work which will help nothing.

There are several valid reasons for keeping config files in /etc:
 - /usr may be read-only, but users should be allowed to edit config files
 - /usr may be shared between many machines, may use different Java config
 - if config is in /etc then you need to back up only this directory, /usr is
supposed to be restorable from package contents

From FHS: "/usr is shareable, read-only data. That means that /usr should be
shareable between various FHS-compliant hosts and must not be written to. Any
information that is host-specific or varies with time is stored elsewhere". So
yes, config files definitely don't belong in /usr

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1443076] Review Request: java-9-openjdk - OpenJDK Runtime Environment in implementation of java 9 specification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076



--- Comment #15 from jiri vanek  ---
>  accessibility.properties seems to come from the spec. Would accessibility 
> still work if placed in conf/accessibility.properties?
> - /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.163-2.fc26.x86_64 
> lib/accessibility.properties
>  Should probably move to conf directory since the new layout has an explicit 
> directory for configuration files. Not sure if there will be changes needed 
> in the accessibility bridge (java-atk-wrapper).

I dont know. Accessibility is painful. I doubt it even works with 9. But
probably worhty of moving. 

Will fix.


> Some directories are not owned by the package, but should be:
>  /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.163-2.fc26.x86_64/conf/management,
>  /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.163-2.fc26.x86_64/lib/security,
>  /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.163-2.fc26.x86_64/conf,
>  /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.163-2.fc26.x86_64/conf/security

Hmm.. Will be fixed.

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

[Bug 1443076] Review Request: java-9-openjdk - OpenJDK Runtime Environment in implementation of java 9 specification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076



--- Comment #14 from jiri vanek  ---
> - Shenandoah GC not yet supported. You mentioned that it'll be included once 
> review completes.
>   Consider this a TODO list item :)
>   $ java -XX:+UseShenandoahGC -version
>   Unrecognized VM option 'UseShenandoahGC'
>   Error: Could not create the Java Virtual Machine.
>   Error: A fatal exception has occurred. Program will exit.
>   $ java -version
>   openjdk version "9-ea"
>   OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 9-ea+163)
>   OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 9-ea+163, mixed mode)

Yup, I hope to do so. Please dont insists on it. Stability of shenandoah in
jdk9 is currently discussed issue.

> - Latest available snapshot should be packaged.
>   Latest EA build is: jdk-9+170. See: http://jdk.java.net/9/

Yes, in next iteration I will update. Tahnx!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1443076] Review Request: java-9-openjdk - OpenJDK Runtime Environment in implementation of java 9 specification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076



--- Comment #13 from jiri vanek  ---
- No %config files under /usr.
  Note: %config(noreplace)
 
/usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.163-2.fc26.x86_64/lib/security/default.policy%config(noreplace)
...
 
/usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.163-2.fc26.x86_64/lib/accessibility.properties
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files
  Perhaps symlink config files from
/usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.163-2.fc26.x86_64/conf to
/etc/java-9-openjdk/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.163-2.fc26.x86_64/

Well.. why? i dont see a reason for this change.  java config files are quite
specific, and always lied in java_home.

Every config file we ever moved outised was casuing some not expected behavior
(cacerts, etc/java).

To symlink, seems like just bending over knee to make guideliens happy.

If you isnists, I will do as you advice. But I really think it is unnecessary
work which will help nothing.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1443076] Review Request: java-9-openjdk - OpenJDK Runtime Environment in implementation of java 9 specification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076



--- Comment #12 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #11)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #3)
> >  * unlike java-1.8.0-openjdk bundled NSS is used
> 
> Can we actually do this? I don't think so. Otherwise why would we remove
> that code from source in the generate-source-tarball script for JDK 8?
> Actually comparing ./jdk/src/jdk.crypto.ec/share/native/libsunec/impl from
> JDK 9 and ./jdk/src/share/native/sun/security/ec/impl from JDK 8 yields no
> difference for me.

Tahts surprising. I did not do work on that. That means that all patches form 8
are upstreamed, and it is default choice in OJDK (see the make call)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #17 from Andrew J. Schorr  ---
I updated the URL in the spec file to say https instead of http. I uploaded a
new tarball, spec file, and source rpm.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1451456] Review Request: compat-tidy - Compatibility utility and library to clean up and pretty print HTML /XHTML/XML

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451456



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
psi-plus-0.16-0.22.20141205git440.el7 mod_auth_openid-0.8-2.el7
libopkele-2.0.4-9.el7 compat-tidy-0.99.0-35.20091203.el7 tidy-5.4.0-1.el7 has
been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-c0b04702c2

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1451456] Review Request: compat-tidy - Compatibility utility and library to clean up and pretty print HTML /XHTML/XML

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451456

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1421605] Container Review Request: nginx - Platform for running nginx or building nginx-based application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421605

Honza Horak  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(hho...@redhat.com |
   |)   |



--- Comment #8 from Honza Horak  ---
It's not, I've removed it.

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

[Bug 1441828] Review Request: nuvolaplayer- Cloud Music Integration for your Linux Desktop

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441828

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #40 from Vít Ondruch  ---
There is still some polish which could be applied, but nothing major to block
this any longer => 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 1453084] Review Request: fedora-workstation-backgrounds - Desktop backgrounds for Fedora Workstation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1453084

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter  ---
looks good now,

sources:
a9a55f6eaea744cbe7d1c93aa599e4f4  fedora-workstation-backgrounds-1.1.tar.gz


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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #16 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
(In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #15)
> (In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #13)
> > Okay, so for some reason the SHA256 hashes still don't match for the package
> > I have downloaded and the package fedore-review has downloaded.
> > 
> > However, doing manual check on both of these sources, I get the same result:
> > 271ea0d473fc921db65cbc38e74e3bde42a095a38dbac0207e199dfda705 
> > gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz
> > 
> > This looks like some issue of fedora-review package.
> 
> It can be caused by the fact that the source URL points to a multi-level
> redirection to the actual URL containing the data:
> 
> $ curl -svo/dev/null
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz -L
> 2>&1 | grep Location
> < Location:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz
> < Location:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz/
> download
> < Location:
> https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/gawkextlib/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.
> gz?r==1495634539_mirror=master
> < Location:
> https://master.dl.sourceforge.net/project/gawkextlib/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz

Hmm, but still that should contain the same package, right? Looks like,
according to Andrew, it was just outdated... :)

> I am not sure if fedora-review follows these redirects while checking
> hashes.  Anyway, it is a good practice to use https:// source URL where
> possible.

Yes, I agree. We should make the use of https:// where possible. :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1453084] Review Request: fedora-workstation-backgrounds - Desktop backgrounds for Fedora Workstation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1453084



--- Comment #3 from Ryan Lerch  ---
Thanks for the review!

here is the new SPEC and SRPM

https://ryanlerch.fedorapeople.org/fedora-workstation-backgrounds-1.1-1.fc26.src.rpm

https://ryanlerch.fedorapeople.org/fedora-workstation-backgrounds.spec

All three issues should be fixed in those.

cheers,
ryanlerch

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #15 from Kamil Dudka  ---
(In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #13)
> Okay, so for some reason the SHA256 hashes still don't match for the package
> I have downloaded and the package fedore-review has downloaded.
> 
> However, doing manual check on both of these sources, I get the same result:
> 271ea0d473fc921db65cbc38e74e3bde42a095a38dbac0207e199dfda705 
> gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz
> 
> This looks like some issue of fedora-review package.

It can be caused by the fact that the source URL points to a multi-level
redirection to the actual URL containing the data:

$ curl -svo/dev/null
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz -L
2>&1 | grep Location
< Location:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz
< Location:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz/download
< Location:
https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/gawkextlib/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz?r==1495634539_mirror=master
< Location:
https://master.dl.sourceforge.net/project/gawkextlib/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz

I am not sure if fedora-review follows these redirects while checking hashes. 
Anyway, it is a good practice to use https:// source URL where possible.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #14 from Andrew J. Schorr  ---
I guess this is probably due to changes in the spec file over time. I just
uploaded a new version of:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz

I believe that this should match the tarball inside of:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gawkextlib/files/rpms/gawkextlib-1.0.2-1.fc25.src.rpm

I hope that helps.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1441728] Review Request: cld2 - Compact Language Detector 2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441728



--- Comment #11 from c72...@yahoo.de ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/c72578/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/cld2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/c72578/cld2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00556214-cld2/cld2-0.0.0-0.5.gitb56fa78.fc27.src.rpm

* Wed May 24 2017 Wolfgang Stöggl  - 0.0.0-0.5.gitb56fa78
- Use license macro for LICENSE
- Add doc README.md

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1448661] Review Request: brotli - Lossless compression algorithm

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448661

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 1448661] Review Request: brotli - Lossless compression algorithm

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448661



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
brotli-0.6.0-4.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7299929ef6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1451138] Review Request: libomp - default OpenMP runtime used by clang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451138



--- Comment #5 from Satish Balay  ---
(In reply to Tom Stellard from comment #4)
> (In reply to Satish Balay from comment #3)

> clang-4.0 will depend
> on libomp-4.0, so when you  install clang-4.0 you will get the correct
> libomp.

Ok. This is good.

> I guess if you want to mix and match versions like this, you will
> need to manually specify the libomp header/library paths when building clang.

I don't want to mix versions - my concern was - rpm/dnf should prevent mixing
of versions. [if clang depends on libomp - then presumably rpm/dnf will prevent
mixing of versions].

> 
> > Also should libomp package be built with clang - and not gcc?
> 
> I think it is preferred that packages are built with the system compiler
> unless there is a compelling reason no to you.  What would be the reason to
> build with clang?  Also this would create a circular dependency: clang ->
> libomp -> clang.

ok.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1451456] Review Request: compat-tidy - Compatibility utility and library to clean up and pretty print HTML /XHTML/XML

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451456



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/compat-tidy

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1453084] Review Request: fedora-workstation-backgrounds - Desktop backgrounds for Fedora Workstation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1453084



--- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter  ---
naming: ok

1. sources: NOT ok

$ spectool -g *.spec
Getting
https://releases.pagure.org/fedora-design/fedora-workstation-backgrounds-1.0.tar.gz
...
curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found

It appears Source0 should be instead:

Source0:
https://releases.pagure.org/fedora-design/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

after fixing that, another problem,

2. unverifiable sources
md5sum in src.rpm:
5312e48f37c9f7e221ee8b59f4bd5d56  fedora-workstation-backgrounds-1.0.tar.gz
md5sum from downloaded source:
a2b0dc0613b1090888e48eaf5c83ce5b  fedora-workstation-backgrounds-1.0.tar.gz

3. licensing
I'm not super familiar with CC enough to confidently determine if all the
combined licenses ends up with an aggregate
License: CC-BY-SA
as currently specified in the .spec. I'd feel better if they were all
explicitly listed to be on the safe side, so use something like:
License: CC-BY-SA and CC-BY and CC0 


otherwise, the form and content of the package is relatively simple and clean. 
Fix items 1-3, and I'll approve this.

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

[Bug 1450633] Review request: keepassxc - Cross-platform password manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450633



--- Comment #29 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Having said that, I will fix this in git.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1450633] Review request: keepassxc - Cross-platform password manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450633



--- Comment #28 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #27)
> > %posttrans
> > gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
> > desktop-file-validate %{_datadir}/applications/keepassxc.desktop &> 
> > /dev/null || :
> 
> That desktop-file-validate call isn't acceptable like that. You are supposed
> to validate .desktop files once when building the binary package. Not in
> %posttrans and then ignoring output and any errors.

Well, the spec file uses desktop-file-install in %install.
Desktop-file-validate is not necessary here at all since -file-install is
already used.

If desktop-file-validate is the only one used, then, of course, it should be in
%install.

From the guidelines,

... one MUST run desktop-file-install (in %install) OR desktop-file-validate
(in %check or %install) ...

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1451456] Review Request: compat-tidy - Compatibility utility and library to clean up and pretty print HTML /XHTML/XML

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451456

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 QA Contact|fed...@famillecollet.com|extras...@fedoraproject.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 1453084] Review Request: fedora-workstation-backgrounds - Desktop backgrounds for Fedora Workstation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1453084

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter  ---
I can review this

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

[Bug 1451456] Review Request: compat-tidy - Compatibility utility and library to clean up and pretty print HTML /XHTML/XML

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451456

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com



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

[Bug 1448778] Review Request: cockatrice - A cross-platform virtual tabletop for multiplayer card games

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448778



--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande  ---

Package Review
==

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

- License analysis from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448778#c1
  is missing.

- Diff spec file in url and in SRPM.
  Update SPEC file and rebuild the SRPM.

- Consider splitting off language files in separated 'langpacks' packages.
  See
 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_do_we_need_to_use_.25find_lang.3F
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Langpacks

- No tests executed:


  + ctest -V -j3
UpdateCTestConfiguration  from
:/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILD/Cockatrice-2017-05-05-Release-2.3.17/DartConfiguration.tcl
UpdateCTestConfiguration  from
:/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILD/Cockatrice-2017-05-05-Release-2.3.17/DartConfiguration.tcl
Test project /home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILD/Cockatrice-2017-05-05-Release-2.3.17
Constructing a list of tests
Updating test list for fixtures
Added 0 tests to meet fixture requirements
Checking test dependency graph...
Checking test dependency graph end
No tests were found!!!


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3 clause)",
 "LGPL (v2.1)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD
 (2 clause)", "GPL (v2)". 971 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in
 /home/sagitter/1448778-cockatrice/licensecheck.txt
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in cockatrice
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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]: 

[Bug 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #13 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
Okay, so for some reason the SHA256 hashes still don't match for the package I
have downloaded and the package fedore-review has downloaded.

However, doing manual check on both of these sources, I get the same result:
271ea0d473fc921db65cbc38e74e3bde42a095a38dbac0207e199dfda705 
gawkextlib-1.0.2.tar.gz

This looks like some issue of fedora-review 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 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

Mario Torre  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||neug...@redhat.com



--- Comment #48 from Mario Torre  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #46)
> It looks like most the the license issues is from the web mobule that we do
> not package.

I gave a look at the package, it seems a very good start, good work!

> The fxpackager module is licensed BSD

I think the module is also GPLv2+Classpath, there are only few bits in the
Makefile that have no license header, the tool incorrectly deduces them to be
CDDL, but the license for the project applies there.

The webcore stuff is LGPLv2 or later, it's compatible with the GPLv2 but I
understand we don't ship those, so we may want to consider to remove the
sources we don't build/need.

The javascript stuff is more tricky, since it's Apache. Again, if we don't use
those, we may want to remove this code from the source bundles.

That said, I don't think it makes that much of a difference, those are simply
bundled libraries, not part of the JavaFX codebase. I will need to ask for
advice here, but I doubt this is a real issue.

My hope is that we will be able to compile the web stuff too at some point,
that's a really nice feature of JavaFX but we can't use it in the packaged
version.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1359412] Review Request: gawkextlib - library providing support functions for gawk extension libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359412



--- Comment #12 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
Sorry for the delay, I was struggling to run fedora-review tool because of BZ
#1350930. Anyway, I made it to work, so here are the rest of necessary
formalities...

rpmlint result (specfile):
==
> Checking: gawkextlib-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rmplint result (*.rpm):
===
> gawkextlib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML, ml, x 
> ml
->> The %description is mentioning the exact package 'gawk-xml' [OK]

> gawkextlib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pgsql -> SQL
->> The %description is mentioning the exact package 'gawk-pgsql' [OK]

> gawkextlib.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libgawkextlib.so.0.0.0 
> exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
->> Shared library calls exit(3) - this is something that should be either
fixed or explained if this is safe to do so. [WARNING]

> gawkextlib.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
> gawkextlib.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
->> This is "feature" of fedora-rawhide builds. [OK]

> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

rpmlint result (*-devel.rpm):
=
> gawkextlib-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
->> The header file is in correct location. The other file is symlink, which is
non-binary, but this is correct. [OK]

> gawkextlib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
->> Andrew already mentioned the lack of documentation in upstream ATM, but the
header file itself should be commented sufficiently. [OK]

> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

===
fedora-review results:
===
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
  /home/dkaspar/Downloads/reviews/review-gawkextlib/diff.txt
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL

>> Andrew most likely modified the package again after I donwloaded it and ran 
>> the fedora-review on it. I've checked the *.src.rpm and its sane. [OK]


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "FSF All Permissive", "Unknown or
 generated". 31 files have unknown license.
> The whole project is licensed under GPLv3+. Some files use FSF copyright note 
> stating that re-licensing to GPL is allowed, and therefore used.

[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 gawkextlib-debuginfo
> We are not genereating debuginfo manually, mock does it now automatically. 
> This is most likely bug either of mock or fedora-review package. [OK]

[x]: Reviewer 

[Bug 1421605] Container Review Request: nginx - Platform for running nginx or building nginx-based application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421605

Pavel Zhukov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(hho...@redhat.com
   ||)



--- Comment #7 from Pavel Zhukov  ---
bin/usage contains this:

DISTRO=`cat /etc/*-release | grep ^ID= | grep -Po '".*?"' | tr -d '"'`
NAMESPACE=centos
[[ $DISTRO =~ rhel* ]] && NAMESPACE=rhscl

Is it relevant to fedora anyhow?

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

[Bug 1450633] Review request: keepassxc - Cross-platform password manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450633



--- Comment #27 from Michael Schwendt  ---
> %posttrans
> gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
> desktop-file-validate %{_datadir}/applications/keepassxc.desktop &> /dev/null 
> || :

That desktop-file-validate call isn't acceptable like that. You are supposed to
validate .desktop files once when building the binary package. Not in
%posttrans and then ignoring output and any errors.

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

[Bug 1430364] Review Request: argbash - Bash argument parsing code generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1430364



--- Comment #5 from Matthew Smith  ---
Apologies, here is my updated (unofficial) review.

Package Review
==

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

Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: coreutils make bash
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2


= 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 (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (unspecified)". 106 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/matt/1430364-argbash/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[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.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run 

[Bug 1400427] Review Request: tasksh - Shell command that wraps Taskwarrior commands

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400427



--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
Igor - just a ping to remind you that this package has been approved and you
can go ahead and commit to SCM :)

Cheers!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1368911] Review Request: python-mpd2 - It is a Python library which provides a client interface for MPD

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368911

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com



--- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
Heya,

This is blocking another update. 

Kushal - would you have time for this in the near future? Otherwise either
Parag or I can package it up and the other can review it for the time being and
then we can all co-maintain it? :)

Cheers!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1451138] Review Request: libomp - default OpenMP runtime used by clang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451138



--- Comment #4 from Tom Stellard  ---
(In reply to Satish Balay from comment #3)
> Thanks!
> 
> One more issue:
> 
> I have:
> 
> clang-3.9.1-2.fc26.x86_64
> 
> However I'm able to install libomp-4.0.0 with it. [so the include dirs
> between the 2 packages don't match]
> 
> /usr/lib64/clang/3.9.1/include/ vs /usr/lib64/clang/4.0.0/include/omp.h
> 
> [I can grab and install llvm-4.0 and clang-4.0 packages manually but]
> perhaps there should be some rpm dependency info that should prevent these
> versions from being out-of-sync?
> 

I'm not sure what to do about the version mismatch.  clang-4.0 will depend on
libomp-4.0, so when you  install clang-4.0 you will get the correct libomp.  I
guess if you want to mix and match versions like this, you will need to
manually specify the libomp header/library paths when building clang.

> Also should libomp package be built with clang - and not gcc?

I think it is preferred that packages are built with the system compiler unless
there is a compelling reason no to you.  What would be the reason to build with
clang?  Also this would create a circular dependency: clang -> libomp -> clang.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1432955] Review Request: lld - The LLVM linker

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432955

Tom Stellard  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-05-24 05:54:06



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #9 from Luke Hinds  ---
Hi Richard,

I have some updates:

- %license COPYRIGHT

done

- The exabgp package depends on  /usr/bin/perl

This is from two perl scripts which are examples of what can be used for
monitoring routes. Neither require modules outside of the standard set included
in perl. The main library will work fine without perl in place, as you rightly
noted around python being the main lang. So no Requires or BuildRequires
needed.

-  exabgp.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/etc/exabgp/examples/api-announcement.run 644 /usr/bin/env python

I spoke with a developer on IRC and they said that these do not need to be
executionable, as they are only there as examples for people to reference of
use if it suits their needs.

- exabgp.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/exabgp/examples/api-api.conf

Same again as the above, examples for users to reference..the recommendation
would be to copy them out and then amend, but most folks write their own.

- wrong-script-interpreter /etc/exabgp/examples/api-multisession.run
/usr/bin/env python

Upstream prefers not to change it to a fixed path, and instead use env for
python virtualenv use (I figure you already knew this from being a python man,
so that's why you omitted mentioning).

So the only others now are:

- spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/exabgp.1.gz
- manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/exabgp.1.gz 3: warning: macro `OS'
not defined
- exabgp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exabgp-healthcheck

I guess the above can be waived as they are warnings and not errors?

Original links have been refreshed. Latest review.txt here:
https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/mV-hAsjKX8pNkdvL-lYNe15M1UNdIGYhyRLivL9gydE=
 

p.s. thanks for time walking this through with me.

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

[Bug 1440704] Review Request: cpprest - C++ REST SDK

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440704



--- Comment #12 from c72...@yahoo.de ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/c72578/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/cpprest.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/c72578/cpprest/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00556075-cpprest/cpprest-2.9.1-10.fc27.src.rpm

* Wed May 24 2017 Wolfgang Stöggl  - 2.9.1-10
- Apply cpprest-2.9.1-openssl-1.1.patch anyway, remove the condition
  fedora > 25, which is not needed

* Tue May 23 2017 Wolfgang Stöggl  - 2.9.1-9
- Rebuild using websocketpp-0.7.0-5.fc26 for F26 and rawhide
- Rename patch file including version of cpprest
- Set license to MIT. This is the license of C++ REST SDK (license.txt).
  Websocket++ is a separate Fedora package (websocketpp-devel) and its 
  license is handled there.
- Use BuildRequires: pkgconfig(openssl) instead of openssl-devel

* Thu May 18 2017 Wolfgang Stöggl  - 2.9.1-8
- Rebuild for testing websocketpp-0.7.0-4.fc26

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1421605] Container Review Request: nginx - Platform for running nginx or building nginx-based application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421605

Honza Horak  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(hho...@redhat.com |
   |)   |



--- Comment #6 from Honza Horak  ---
Should be fixed now, thanks!

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

[Bug 1451134] Review Request: lightdm-autologin-greeter - Autologin greeter using LightDM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451134



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
lightdm-autologin-greeter-1.0-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7
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-EPEL-2017-ef27585979

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1378160] Review Request: jitterentropy-rngd - RNGD based on CPU Jitter RNG

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378160

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|NOTABUG |---



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
jitterentropy-rngd-1.0.6-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2017-c3ffa1ee0e

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1448661] Review Request: brotli - Lossless compression algorithm

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448661

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
brotli-0.6.0-3.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-2017-7299929ef6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1451134] Review Request: lightdm-autologin-greeter - Autologin greeter using LightDM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451134



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
lightdm-autologin-greeter-1.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0d0ec741d4

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1451134] Review Request: lightdm-autologin-greeter - Autologin greeter using LightDM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451134

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
lightdm-autologin-greeter-1.0-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0b7393a69e

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