[Bug 1460076] Review Request: flatk-rpm-macros - Macros for building RPMS for flatpaks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460076
--- Comment #1 from David King ---
Simple stuff, the only blocker being ownership of the /etc/rpm directory, which
should probably just be co-owned by this package. Either that, or Requires rpm
(but that seems a bit silly):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function
You could also add a -p to the install command to preserve the timestamp of the
source file, but that's not required.
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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/rpm
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[-]: 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 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]: 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:
[!]: 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.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %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]
[Bug 1460076] Review Request: flatpak-rpm-macros - Macros for building RPMS for flatpaks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460076 David King changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |flatk-rpm-macros - Macros |flatpak-rpm-macros - |for building RPMS for |Macros for building RPMS |flatpaks|for flatpaks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1460630] New: Review Request: copr-rpmbuild - performs COPR builds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460630 Bug ID: 1460630 Summary: Review Request: copr-rpmbuild - performs COPR builds Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: cl...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://clime.cz/copr-rpmbuild.spec SRPM URL: http://clime.cz/copr-rpmbuild-0.2-1.git.18.e25d2a5.fc25.src.rpm Description: Provides command capable of running COPR build-task definitions. Fedora Account System Username: clime -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1460662] New: Review Request: rubygem-mustermann - A library using patterns like regular expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460662 Bug ID: 1460662 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-mustermann - A library using patterns like regular expressions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jar...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://pagure.io/jaruga_rubygem-mustermann/raw/master/f/rubygem-mustermann.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/jaruga_rubygem-mustermann/raw/master/f/rubygem-mustermann-1.0.0-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: A library using patterns like regular expressions Fedora Account System Username: jaruga Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19993792 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1460081] Review Request: flatpak-runtime-config - Configuration files that live inside the flatpak runtime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460081
--- Comment #1 from David King ---
Directory ownserhip: should probably own /app.
For the GPL, specifying a version and including the license in the sources is
required, I think:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Timestamp preservation during the install process is optional, but easy (add a
-p).
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.
[-]: 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.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /app/etc, /app, /app/etc/ld.so.conf.d,
/app/cache, /app/etc/fonts, /app/etc/fonts/conf.d
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /app/etc, /app,
/app/etc/ld.so.conf.d, /app/cache, /app/etc/fonts,
/app/etc/fonts/conf.d
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[-]: 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 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]: 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:
[!]: 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.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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,
[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214
Jan Chaloupka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jchal...@redhat.com
--- Comment #8 from Jan Chaloupka ---
Could you provide the following header in the spec (some of it is already
there)?
%global provider_prefix github.com/jessfraz/reg
%global import_path %{provider_prefix}
%global commit 94d0af58c1d2afaa5541fe48729002888f370456
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
I have a tooling the parses spec and extracts the macros from go packages. It
helps to check which go projects are packaged in Fedora.
The import path needs to be in the full form, including the 'req'.
Why do you think the debuginfo is not supported? You can use:
go build -ldflags "-B 0x$(head -c20 /dev/urandom|od -An -tx1|tr -d ' \\n')".
Any plans to build it on epel6/7?
Both devel and unit-test-devel subpackages are optional. However, if the devel
package is present, it can be scanned and analysed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1458580] Review Request: php-cilex1 - PHP micro-framework for Command line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458580 --- Comment #6 from Shawn Iwinski --- Fixed issues: https://github.com/siwinski/rpms/commit/83d8acfe345d4fb18b05b6de69d4061aeb46c318 Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/siwinski/rpms/83d8acfe345d4fb18b05b6de69d4061aeb46c318/php-cilex1/php-cilex1.spec SRPM URL: https://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/php-cilex1-1.1.0-2.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 1458580] Review Request: php-cilex1 - PHP micro-framework for Command line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458580 --- Comment #7 from Remi Collet --- [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [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. === 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 1458580] Review Request: php-cilex1 - PHP micro-framework for Command line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458580 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1456203] Review Request: jumpnbump - Cute multiplayer platform game with bunnies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1456203 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2017-06-12 09:04:51 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- jumpnbump-1.60-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1438842] Review Request: matrix-synapse - a Matrix reference homeserver written in Python using Twisted
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438842 --- Comment #12 from Jeremy Cline --- (In reply to Stephen from comment #11) > This is fantastic that this is now in Fedora! Can I get clarification on > whether it will be packaged for F25/F26? > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/matrix-synapse/ is > showing it as approved for both of those releases but there's no apparent > activity for those releases on > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/matrix-synapse > > Thanks :) Hi Stephen, It's been on my to-do list to see what needs to get updated/built in F26/25 for Synapse to be build-able, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. From what I remember, most dependencies were built in F26 so it shouldn't be too much of a challenge. I suspect F25 will be more troublesome, but we'll see. I also need to package a few more dependencies before it can be updated to 0.20 so it may be a few weeks before that happens (even in rawhide). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1460515] Review Request: python3-typed_ast - A fork of Python 2 and 3 ast modules with type comment support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460515 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- Cool, thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1458579] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-fileset - Component for collecting a set of files given dirs and file paths
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458579 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/php-phpdocumentor-fileset -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1458578] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-graphviz - Library meant for generating .dot files for GraphViz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458578 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/php-phpdocumentor-graphviz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1458580] Review Request: php-cilex1 - PHP micro-framework for Command line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458580 --- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/php-cilex1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1458581] Review Request: php-erusev-parsedown - Markdown parser in PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458581 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/php-erusev-parsedown -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1460523] Review Request: php-psr-link - Common interfaces for HTTP links (PSR-13)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460523 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/php-psr-link -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1460515] Review Request: python3-typed_ast - A fork of Python 2 and 3 ast modules with type comment support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460515 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python3-typed_ast -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1460524] Review Request: php-fig-link-util - Common utility implementations for HTTP links
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460524 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/php-fig-link-util -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1428202] Review Request: sirikali - GUI front end to encfs,cryfs, gocryptfs and securefs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428202 --- Comment #7 from Damian Wrobel --- Do you have plans to update the spec file to v1.2.7, so I could continue the 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 1460515] Review Request: python3-typed_ast - A fork of Python 2 and 3 ast modules with type comment support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460515 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1460515] Review Request: python3-typed_ast - A fork of Python 2 and 3 ast modules with type comment support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460515 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- python3-typed_ast-1.0.3-1.fc26 python-typeshed-0.1-0.20170612git.fc26 python3-mypy-0.511-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2ca3f8ca87 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1427085] Review Request: plantumlqeditor - Simple editor for PlantUML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427085 --- Comment #14 from Damian Wrobel --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #13) > Try to unbundle gmock and gtest as well, we've also separate packages of > those both. Sorry, I forgot to mention that. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries > > - What's the state of this? I don't have any plans to work on it. My understanding is: - upstream even doesn't support building tests with qmake, - tests are not "MUST" items, as a result that shouldn't be a blocking for a 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 1438842] Review Request: matrix-synapse - a Matrix reference homeserver written in Python using Twisted
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438842 --- Comment #13 from Jeremy Cline --- Okay, it's built for Fedora 26! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1458441] Review Request: python-scrypt - Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458441 Alfredo Moralejo 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 1458441] Review Request: python-scrypt - Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458441
--- Comment #5 from Alfredo Moralejo ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: 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.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 34 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1458441-python-
scrypt/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python2-scrypt , python3-scrypt , python-scrypt-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version
[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 --- Comment #9 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- 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)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 225 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lsm5/repositories/pkgs/reviews/1432214-reg/licensecheck.txt --- Main source uses the MIT license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. --- I'll okay this given that golang tools are too painful to be built with unbundled libraries and unbundling produces no apparent benefit (IMHO). If anybody disapproves, I welcome them to unbundle deps themselves. [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. [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. --- I see config(noreplace) in /etc/sysconfig/reg-server and /var/lib/reg-server . Is it possible they could be placed in /etc/reg-server instead. Just that I do remember people discouraging the use of /etc/sysconfig/blah in favor of /etc/blah. (I'll post the link to packaging guidelines for this if any exists) [-]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. --- please generate this as per jchaloup's comment above. [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 204800 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Additionally, could you also please post a successful scratch build URL? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1427085] Review Request: plantumlqeditor - Simple editor for PlantUML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427085 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Raphael Groner --- With the assumptions: - gtest and gmock are bundled only to (optionally) execute the tests and do not get built into distributed binaries. - The claimed need to call update-desktop-database by scriptlets seems to be a bug in f-r tool because current guidelines mark it as indeed optional. APPROVED Thanks for your time and this useful 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 1115659] Review Request: bootstrap - A front-end framework for developing projects on the web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115659 --- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean --- Yeah, the dependencies to *build* bootstrap were enormous. I wrote a script (npm2spec[1]) to automate it, but getting through the hundreds of reviews took years. If I included buildtime dependencies to run the tests, there were over 1000 upstream projects that needed to be packaged. Even after I got some of these were approved, maintaining the nest of pinned-version deps between all the nodejs components turned out to be overwhelming. I ended up building my own version of bootstrap and hosting a shared copy on fedoraproject.org (a kind of "local to fedora" CDN) or bundling it with the projects that needed it (this ended up being more common). For resultsdb_frontend, I would recommend pointing to a copy of bootstrap using a URL that administrators can configure. By default, it can point to a CDN, but you can optionally host a local-to-your-site copy of bootstrap and configure resultsdb to request it from there. [1] - https://github.com/ralphbean/npm2spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1115659] Review Request: bootstrap - A front-end framework for developing projects on the web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115659 --- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean --- See this for the dep chain: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=1115659&hide_resolved=0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1460757] New: Review Request: python-json-logger - A python library adding a json log formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460757 Bug ID: 1460757 Summary: Review Request: python-json-logger - A python library adding a json log formatter Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: karlthe...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-json-logger.json SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-json-logger-0.1.7-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: A python library adding a json log formatter Fedora Account System Username: hguemar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1460757] Review Request: python-json-logger - A python library adding a json log formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460757 Haïkel Guémar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1427510 (RDO-PIKE) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427510 [Bug 1427510] Tracker: Blockers and Review requests for new RDO Pike packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1460757] Review Request: python-json-logger - A python library adding a json log formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460757 --- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar --- A dependency to python-daiquiri. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1460759] Review Request: python-daiquiri - Library to configure Python logging easily
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460759 Haïkel Guémar changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: -|python-daiquiri - Library |Library to configure Python |to configure Python logging |logging easily |easily -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1460759] New: Review Request: - Library to configure Python logging easily
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460759 Bug ID: 1460759 Summary: Review Request: - Library to configure Python logging easily Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: karlthe...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-daiquiri.spec SRPM URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-daiquiri-0.1.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Library to configure Python logging easily Fedora Account System Username: hguemar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1460759] Review Request: python-daiquiri - Library to configure Python logging easily
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460759 Haïkel Guémar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1427510 (RDO-PIKE) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427510 [Bug 1427510] Tracker: Blockers and Review requests for new RDO Pike packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1458441] Review Request: python-scrypt - Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458441 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-scrypt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 879740] Review Request: python-evdev - bindings for the linux input handling subsystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879740 gvalkov changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(georgi.t.valkov@g |needinfo- |mail.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 1428202] Review Request: sirikali - GUI front end to encfs,cryfs, gocryptfs and securefs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428202 --- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner --- Thanks for the hint about a new version. Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/util/sirikali.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/util/sirikali-1.2.7-1.20170611git.fc26.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jun 12 2017 Builder - 1.2.7.1.20170611git - new version - use git snapshot to include latest upstream patches - include upstream patch to get full path of su binary - distribute additonal files - drop workaround for duplicated readme files - fix length of line in description -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1428202] Review Request: sirikali - GUI front end to encfs,cryfs, gocryptfs and securefs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428202 --- Comment #9 from Raphael Groner --- Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2007 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1428202] Review Request: sirikali - GUI front end to encfs,cryfs, gocryptfs and securefs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428202 --- Comment #10 from Raphael Groner --- Noticed that we've a package for bundled json. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/json/ https://github.com/mhogomchungu/sirikali/blob/master/src/3rdParty/json/json.hpp I'll update this review ASAP to unbundle json. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438842 --- Comment #14 from Stephen --- Great, thanks :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1452985] Review Request: zef - Perl6 Module Management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452985
--- Comment #16 from Gerd Pokorra ---
It is easier and better to use the perl6 script 'tools/install-dist.pl' to
packaging perl6 modules, I think.
At the URL
-
ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/rakudo-json-tiny/srpm/rakudo-json-tiny-0.20170612git-1.fc25.src.rpm
I uploaded an srpm as example that uses the perl6 program 'install-dist.pl'.
The file is included as Source1 and taken from Radkudo 2017.05 and is the same
in Raduod-Star 2017.05.
I intend to make a new rakudo package that provides the install-dist.pl tool
and store it as %{_libdir}/perl6/bin/mod_inst.pl.
I intent also to add a macro for it:
%perl6_mod_inst/usr/lib64/perl6/bin/mod_inst.pl
The SRPM rakudo-json-tiny uses the macros (rakudo_rpm_version and
erl6_vendor_dir) from the rakudo package that is currently in the testing
state:
$ bodhi rakudo | head -2
No handlers could be found for logger "fedora.client.bodhi"
14 updates found (14 shown)
rakudo-0.2017.04.2-4.fc25enhancement testing 2017-06-09
rakudo-0.2017.04.2-4.fc26enhancement testing 2017-06-09
$
Could the review of the zef package go on? It is at least a nice tool to list
the installed Perl6 modules:
$ zef list --installed
===> Found via /usr/lib64/perl6/site
zef:ver('0.1.14'):auth('github:ugexe')
XML::Writer
===> Found via /usr/lib64/perl6
CORE:ver('6.c'):auth('perl')
===> Found via /usr/lib64/perl6/vendor
JSON::Tiny
$
Is the use of
export QA_SKIP_BUILD_ROOT=1
a reason that the package can not pass the review or does it not matter?
As next I will make builds that use the new macros. For the zef package I like
the %{perl6_site_dir} as destination.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1427341] Review Request: python-gamera - Gamera is a framework for building document analysis applications.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427341 --- Comment #32 from VincentS --- Really ? I don't understand. I just resent it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1427341] Review Request: python-gamera - Gamera is a framework for building document analysis applications.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427341 --- Comment #33 from VincentS --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #31) > (In reply to VincentS from comment #30) > > I'm sorry about no news and thank you for all your work on it, actually I'm > > waiting a response from le...@lists.fedoraproject.org about license. > > > I don't see your e-mail there. I received this answer : Your mail to 'le...@lists.fedoraproject.org' with the subject Fwd: Difficulty about package license Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The message is being held because: The message is not from a list member Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1427341] Review Request: python-gamera - Gamera is a framework for building document analysis applications.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427341 --- Comment #34 from Matthieu Saulnier --- you have to subscribe to the ML first see "Manage subscription" button here https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.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 1452985] Review Request: zef - Perl6 Module Management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452985 --- Comment #17 from Gerd Pokorra --- The new srpm-URL is: - ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/zef/srpm/zef-0.20170520git.1490608-4.fc25.src.rpm ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/zef/spec/zef.spec links to version 4 of the spec file. rawhide scratch build URL: - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20001297 The rpmlint output looks normal: $ rpmlint zef.spec zef.spec: W: no-%build-section 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ $ rpmlint /home/gz016/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/zef-0.20170520git.1490608-4.fc25.x86_64.rpm zef.x86_64: E: no-binary zef.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. $ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214
--- Comment #10 from Adam Miller ---
(In reply to Jan Chaloupka from comment #8)
> Could you provide the following header in the spec (some of it is already
> there)?
>
> %global provider_prefix github.com/jessfraz/reg
> %global import_path %{provider_prefix}
> %global commit 94d0af58c1d2afaa5541fe48729002888f370456
> %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
>
> I have a tooling the parses spec and extracts the macros from go packages.
> It helps to check which go projects are packaged in Fedora.
>
> The import path needs to be in the full form, including the 'req'.
>
> Why do you think the debuginfo is not supported? You can use:
> go build -ldflags "-B 0x$(head -c20 /dev/urandom|od -An -tx1|tr -d ' \\n')".
>
Fixed.
> Any plans to build it on epel6/7?
Yes.
>
> Both devel and unit-test-devel subpackages are optional. However, if the
> devel package is present, it can be scanned and analysed.
devel and unit-test-devel subpackages of what?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 --- Comment #11 from Adam Miller --- (In reply to Lokesh Mandvekar from comment #9) > 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)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)", > "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 225 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/lsm5/repositories/pkgs/reviews/1432214-reg/licensecheck.txt > > --- Main source uses the MIT license. > > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > > --- I'll okay this given that golang tools are too painful to be built with > unbundled libraries and unbundling produces no apparent benefit (IMHO). If > anybody disapproves, I welcome them to unbundle deps themselves. > > [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. > [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > > --- I see config(noreplace) in /etc/sysconfig/reg-server and > /var/lib/reg-server . Is it possible they could be placed in /etc/reg-server > instead. Just that I do remember people discouraging the use of > /etc/sysconfig/blah in favor of /etc/blah. (I'll post the link to packaging > guidelines for this if any exists) > That is true if the configuration file is for the actual service. The configuration values here are fed into the systemd unit. However if this has changed and /etc/sysconfig/ has fallen out of favor for this scenario as well I'll gladly switch it. I was mostly following along with what other prominent software written in golang are doing such as docker and kubernetes. > > [-]: 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. > [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > > --- please generate this as per jchaloup's comment above. > > [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 204800 bytes in 6 files. > [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > > > Additionally, could you also please post a successful scratch build URL? Will do. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1456203] Review Request: jumpnbump - Cute multiplayer platform game with bunnies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1456203 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- jumpnbump-1.60-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1448778] Review Request: cockatrice - A cross-platform virtual tabletop for multiplayer card games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448778 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- cockatrice-2.3.17-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 --- Comment #12 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- (In reply to Adam Miller from comment #11) > (In reply to Lokesh Mandvekar from comment #9) > > 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)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)", > > "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 225 files have > > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > > /home/lsm5/repositories/pkgs/reviews/1432214-reg/licensecheck.txt > > > > --- Main source uses the MIT license. > > > > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > > > > --- I'll okay this given that golang tools are too painful to be built with > > unbundled libraries and unbundling produces no apparent benefit (IMHO). If > > anybody disapproves, I welcome them to unbundle deps themselves. > > > > [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. > > [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > > > > --- I see config(noreplace) in /etc/sysconfig/reg-server and > > /var/lib/reg-server . Is it possible they could be placed in /etc/reg-server > > instead. Just that I do remember people discouraging the use of > > /etc/sysconfig/blah in favor of /etc/blah. (I'll post the link to packaging > > guidelines for this if any exists) > > > > That is true if the configuration file is for the actual service. The > configuration values here are fed into the systemd unit. However if this has > changed and /etc/sysconfig/ has fallen out of favor for this scenario as > well I'll gladly switch it. I was mostly following along with what other > prominent software written in golang are doing such as docker and > kubernetes. You're right as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#.5BInstall.5D and lol at myself for having gotten that mixed up. So, [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target <- that LGTM > > > > [-]: 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. > > [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > > [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > > > > --- please generate this as per jchaloup's comment above. > > > > [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 204800 bytes in 6 files. > > [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > > > > > > Additionally, could you also please post a successful scratch build URL? > > Will do. Also, jchaloup mentioned devel and unit-test-devel, that's if you include the original source code of the reg package in the -devel package. Take a look at the 'docker-devel' and 'docker-unit-test-devel' package for example. (I'm personally not a fan of golang -devel packages, and I think we're now left with 150+ of those packages which will sadly be left unmaintained). So, feel free to not create those since those are optional anyway. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1427341] Review Request: python-gamera - Gamera is a framework for building document analysis applications.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427341 --- Comment #35 from VincentS --- (In reply to Matthieu Saulnier from comment #34) > you have to subscribe to the ML first > > see "Manage subscription" button here > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/ Thank you for your reply Matthieu. I signed up to the list and resent the mail. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1456203] Review Request: jumpnbump - Cute multiplayer platform game with bunnies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1456203 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System --- jumpnbump-1.60-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1448778] Review Request: cockatrice - A cross-platform virtual tabletop for multiplayer card games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448778 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- cockatrice-2.3.17-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 --- Comment #13 from Adam Miller --- Spec URL: https://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/reg.spec SRPM URL: https://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/reg-0.4.1-1.src.rpm scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20002741 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- rpmbuild fails with debuginfo enabled, so debuginfo has been disabled for now. See: https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/jLBnKTZ5Z4s9zFujCHtu5g/ Waiving the debuginfo requirement, which can be fixed at a later date. Specfile conforms to current golang packaging draft and the MUST items have been accounted for. 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 1115659] Review Request: bootstrap - A front-end framework for developing projects on the web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115659 --- Comment #6 from Dan Callaghan --- Yeah, wow... I had a feeling it would be something nightmarish like that. I've had a bit of a taste of it myself from the handful of nodejs packages I'm maintaining. The NPM ecosystem is in quite a sorry state IMHO, this trend towards publishing little four-line functions as their own entire separately-maintained, separately-versioned, separately-licensed "package" is dumb and just makes life painful for everyone... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1115659] Review Request: bootstrap - A front-end framework for developing projects on the web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115659 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Neal Gompa --- Just popping in to say that is a truly hideous dependency chain. I don't know how anyone could stand to deal with that... Has anyone told the nodejs community that they're heading towards bad road? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1115659] Review Request: bootstrap - A front-end framework for developing projects on the web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115659 --- Comment #8 from Dan Callaghan --- I thought the left-pad fiasco would have been a bit of a wake-up call for them, but it seems it wasn't... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1460662] Review Request: rubygem-mustermann - A library using patterns like regular expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460662 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch --- I'll take it for 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
