[Bug 1441728] Review Request: cld2 - Compact Language Detector 2

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #15 from c72...@yahoo.de ---
Thank you very much for your information on versioning of the package.
The spec file has been updated according to your suggestions:

Update cld2.spec file 0-0.7.20150821gitb56fa78

* Sun Jun 04 2017 Wolfgang Stöggl  - 0-0.7.20150821gitb56fa78
- Change version of package from 0.0.0 to 0
- Added date of git commit to 

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_64/00561204-cld2/cld2-0-0.7.20150821gitb56fa78.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 1452644] Review Request: python-mmtf - A decoding library for the macromolecular transmission format (MMTF)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452644



--- Comment #1 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-mmtf/python-mmtf.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-mmtf/python-mmtf-1.0.6-1.fc27.src.rpm

* Sat Jun 03 2017 Dominik Mierzejewski  1.0.6-1
- update to 1.0.6
- drop workarounds for issues fixed upstream

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

[Bug 1449470] Review Request: python3-coverage - Code coverage testing module for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1449470



--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa  ---
- rpmlint issue:
  * python3-coverage.src: W: invalid-license GPL

Please fix the license field so that the license tags are correct.

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

[Bug 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - Support for managing GNOME Shell Extensions through web browsers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710



--- Comment #45 from Devin Henderson  ---
@Stephen,

FYI, it still works in Epiphany (or "Web"), the GNOME web browser. `sudo dnf
install epiphany`.

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

[Bug 1343710] Review Request: chrome-gnome-shell - Support for managing GNOME Shell Extensions through web browsers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343710



--- Comment #44 from Stephen  ---
I'm going to be "that guy" ;) and ask what's happening on this?

GNOME extension management on Fedora has been broken for quite a while now.

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

[Bug 1441813] Review Request: colorful - simple side-view shooter game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441813

Iwicki Artur  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1457949] Review Request: libdxflib - A C++ library for reading and writing DXF files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457949

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #9)
> (In reply to srakitnican from comment #7)
> > I am actually wondering why it depends on Qt at all, I thought it is using
> > it just for the build system.
> 
> Maybe.

This package is approved for me.
You need a sponsor.

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

[Bug 1458247] Review Request: translate-shell - a command-line online translator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458247

Vitaly Zaitsev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #5 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
You should fix this rpmlint warnings:

translate-shell.src:26: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep sed -i
"s|/usr/local|%{buildroot}%{_prefix}|" Makefile
translate-shell.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Thu
Jun 02 2017 Vasiliy N. Glazov  0.9.6.4-2


I think this warnings can be fixed during import to SCM. Review complete.

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

[Bug 1458247] Review Request: translate-shell - a command-line online translator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458247



--- Comment #4 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
Manual checks:

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.

Pass.

[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/vitaly/1458247-translate-
 shell/licensecheck.txt

Pass. But you should ask upstream to add Public Domain preamble to source
files.

[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

Pass.

[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.

Pass.

[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.

Pass.

[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.

Pass. N/a.

[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package

Pass.

[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.

Pass.

[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).

Pass.

[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.

Pass.

[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.

Pass.

[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.

Pass.

[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.

Pass.

[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

Pass.

[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.

Pass.

[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.

Pass. N/a.

[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.

Pass. N/a.

[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files.

Pass.

[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

Pass.

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

[Bug 1458247] Review Request: translate-shell - a command-line online translator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458247



--- Comment #3 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
Automatic check results:

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[ ]: 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: "Unknown or generated". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/vitaly/1458247-translate-
 shell/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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 40960 bytes in 3 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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 on all installed packages.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
---
Checking: 

[Bug 1453005] Review Request: switchboard-plug-pantheon-shell - Switchboard Pantheon Shell plug

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1453005

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa  ---
Package looks good.

PACKAGE APPROVED.

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

[Bug 1453005] Review Request: switchboard-plug-pantheon-shell - Switchboard Pantheon Shell plug

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1453005



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)",
 "Unknown or generated". 223 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1453005-switchboard-plug-
 pantheon-shell/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/rue/LC_MESSAGES,
 /usr/share/locale/ckb/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/ckb,
 /usr/share/locale/rue
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/locale/ckb,
 /usr/share/locale/rue/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/rue,
 /usr/share/locale/ckb/LC_MESSAGES
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 switchboard-plug-pantheon-shell-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations 

[Bug 1449470] Review Request: python3-coverage - Code coverage testing module for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1449470



--- Comment #4 from Aurelien Bompard  ---
Fixed and updated to 4.4.1, thanks.

Spec URL:
https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python3-coverage/python3-coverage.spec
SRPM URL:
https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python3-coverage/python3-coverage-4.4.1-1.el7.centos.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 1449470] Review Request: python3-coverage - Code coverage testing module for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1449470



--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa  ---
> BuildRequires:  python3-pkgversion-macros

This package has been superseded by "python-srpm-macros" and thus doesn't build
in Rawhide anymore. Please replace.

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

[Bug 1449470] Review Request: python3-coverage - Code coverage testing module for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1449470



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
fedora-review failed:

> WARNING: Cannot download url: 
> http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/coverage/coverage-4.4.tar.gz

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

[Bug 1449470] Review Request: python3-coverage - Code coverage testing module for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1449470

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa  ---
Taking this review.

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

[Bug 1435876] Review Request: python-django-picklefield - Pickled object field for Django

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435876

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1458493




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458493
[Bug 1458493] Django missing dependency on pytz
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1435876] Review Request: python-django-picklefield - Pickled object field for Django

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435876



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
This package failed to run through fedora-review. The %check section failed:

Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.swppdB
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd django-picklefield-0.3.2
+ export PYTHONPATH=src:.
+ PYTHONPATH=src:.
+ /usr/bin/python2 /usr/bin/django-admin test --settings test_settings
picklefield
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/django-admin", line 2, in 
from django.core import management
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py",
line 13, in 
from django.core.management.base import (
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py", line
17, in 
from django.db.migrations.exceptions import MigrationSchemaMissing
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/migrations/__init__.py",
line 2, in 
from .operations import *  # NOQA
  File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/migrations/operations/__init__.py",
line 1, in 
from .fields import AddField, AlterField, RemoveField, RenameField
  File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/migrations/operations/fields.py",
line 3, in 
from django.db.models.fields import NOT_PROVIDED
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/__init__.py", line 3,
in 
from django.db.models.aggregates import *  # NOQA
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/aggregates.py", line
5, in 
from django.db.models.expressions import Func, Star
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/models/expressions.py", line
5, in 
from django.db.backends import utils as backend_utils
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/utils.py", line 12,
in 
from django.utils.timezone import utc
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/utils/timezone.py", line 8, in

import pytz
ImportError: No module named pytz
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.swppdB (%check)
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.swppdB (%check)


It looks like the failure is caused by python2-django not pulling in
python2-pytz. The same issue likely exists for python3-django (with
python3-pytz).

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

[Bug 1456244] Review Request: vocal - Powerful, beautiful, and simple podcast client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1456244



--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Thanks for the review! PkgDB request is sent.

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

[Bug 1435876] Review Request: python-django-picklefield - Pickled object field for Django

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435876

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa  ---
Taking this review.

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

[Bug 1435986] Review Request: python-blessed - A thin, practical wrapper around terminal capabilities in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435986

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
Review notes:

- Follows Python packaging guidelines
- Follows extended guidelines for EPEL
- Builds and installs
- No rpmlint issues
- No fedora-review issues

PACKAGE APPROVED.

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

[Bug 1435986] Review Request: python-blessed - A thin, practical wrapper around terminal capabilities in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435986

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa  ---
Taking this review.

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

[Bug 1404883] Review Request: python-aiosmtpd - Asyncio-based SMTP server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404883

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa  ---
Review notes:

- Follows Python packaging guidelines
- Follows extended guidelines for EPEL
- Builds and installs
- No rpmlint issues
- No fedora-review issues

PACKAGE APPROVED.

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

[Bug 1404882] Review Request: python-atpublic - Decorator for populating a Python module's __all__

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404882

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa  ---
Review notes:

- Follows Python packaging guidelines
- Follows extended guidelines for EPEL
- Builds and installs
- No rpmlint issues
- No fedora-review issues

PACKAGE APPROVED.

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

[Bug 1433749] Review Request: vrms-rpm - report of installed nonfree software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433749

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |



--- Comment #14 from Neal Gompa  ---
I have sponsored you into the packager group. Welcome to the Fedora Packagers
group!


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1433749] Review Request: vrms-rpm - report of installed nonfree software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433749

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #13 from Neal Gompa  ---
Make sure that the spec file is vrms-rpm.spec on import into Dist-Git.
Otherwise, looks good to me.

PACKAGE APPROVED.

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

[Bug 1433749] Review Request: vrms-rpm - report of installed nonfree software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433749



--- Comment #12 from Neal Gompa  ---
Package Review
==

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

Issues:
===
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec.
  Note: vrms-rpm-1.2-2.spec should be vrms-rpm.spec
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name


= 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: "CDDL CeCILL-B CC by", "GPL (v3)", "*No copyright* GPL (v3)",
 "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output
 of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1433749-vrms-
 rpm-1.2-2/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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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 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]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

[Bug 1457949] Review Request: libdxflib - A C++ library for reading and writing DXF files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457949



--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to srakitnican from comment #7)
> I am actually wondering why it depends on Qt at all, I thought it is using
> it just for the build system.

Maybe.

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

[Bug 1457396] Review Request: R-BiocParallel - Bioconductor facilities for parallel evaluation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457396

Mattias Ellert  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||mattias.ell...@physics.uu.s
   ||e
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mattias.ell...@physics.uu.s
   ||e
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===

There are a few issues:

[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 The DESCRIPTION file in an R package should not be tagged %doc
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
 The spec file lists texlive-latex in Requires and not in BuildRequires.
 It should be the other way around.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
 The Requires on texlive-latex does not make sense.

But these are minor and can easily be fixed before importing the
package, so there is no need for one more iteration of reviewing.

There are some warnings during the build during the html generation:

Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/BiocParallel/BiocParallel/man/MulticoreParam-class.Rd:233:
missing file link 'makeCluster'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/BiocParallel/BiocParallel/man/SnowParam-class.Rd:272:
missing file link 'makeCluster'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/BiocParallel/BiocParallel/man/bpaggregate.Rd:47: missing
file link 'simplify2array'
Rd warning: /builddir/build/BUILD/BiocParallel/BiocParallel/man/bpmapply.Rd:46:
missing file link 'simplify2array'

Not critical, but if it can be fixed...

Approved.

= 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.
 The DESCRIPTION file states "License: GPL-2 | GPL-3".
 No other license statements found in sources.
[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.
 No license file in sources.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Spec file states "License: GPLv2 or GPLv3".
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 The DESCRIPTION file in an R package should not be tagged %doc
[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.
 The spec file lists texlive-latex in Requires and not in BuildRequires.
 It should be the other way around.
 Otherwise matches the Imports in DESCRIPTION with R-methods added.
 (which looks correct sonce there are 'library(methods)' in the sources)
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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).
 rpmlint complains about the spelling of Bioconductor - this can
 be ignored.
[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.

[Bug 1433749] Review Request: vrms-rpm - report of installed nonfree software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433749



--- Comment #11 from Iwicki Artur  ---
Adjusted the URL and the %find_lang usage as asked.

I've actually tried using %{prefix}, but that didn't work. Didn't think about
trying the underscored version... Fixed. Did not use the %make_build macro, as
that results in a "make" call, whereas the project requires "make build"
(default target just prints some help text).

spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.2-2.spec
srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/vrms-rpm-1.2-2.src.rpm

koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19816977
copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/suve/vrms-rpm/build/561094/

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

[Bug 1404883] Review Request: python-aiosmtpd - Asyncio-based SMTP server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404883



--- Comment #3 from Aurelien Bompard  ---
Done, thanks. I've also updated the package to version 1.0 final.

Spec URL:
https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/aiosmtpd/python-aiosmtpd.spec
SRPM URL:
https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/aiosmtpd/python-aiosmtpd-1.0-1.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 1404882] Review Request: python-atpublic - Decorator for populating a Python module's __all__

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404882



--- Comment #3 from Aurelien Bompard  ---
Fixed, thanks.

Spec URL:
https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/atpublic/python-atpublic.spec
SRPM URL:
https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/atpublic/python-atpublic-0.5-1.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