[Bug 1462412] Review Request: tworld - a puzzle game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462412

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
tworld-1.3.2-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-79cd34e5e0

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
reg-0.4.1-5.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-263decc3c1

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

[Bug 1466960] Review Request: - < short summary here>

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466960

Hannes Frederic Sowa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|han...@stressinduktion.org



--- Comment #1 from Hannes Frederic Sowa  ---
Sorry for the invalid submission, please disregard.

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

[Bug 1466960] New: Review Request: - < short summary here>

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466960

Bug ID: 1466960
   Summary: Review Request:  - 
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: han...@stressinduktion.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~hsowa/datamash.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~hsowa/datamash-1.1.1-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: GNU datamash is a command-line program which performs basic
numeric,textual and statistical operations on input textual data files.
Fedora Account System Username: stressinduktion

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

[Bug 1466961] New: Review Request: datamash - A statistical, numerical and textual operations tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466961

Bug ID: 1466961
   Summary: Review Request: datamash - A statistical, numerical
and textual operations tool
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: han...@stressinduktion.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~hsowa/datamash.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~hsowa/datamash-1.1.1-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: GNU datamash is a command-line program which performs basic
numeric,textual and statistical operations on input textual data files.
Fedora Account System Username: stressinduktion

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460524



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-fig-link-util-1.0.0-1.fc25, php-psr-link-1.0.0-1.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 1460523] Review Request: php-psr-link - Common interfaces for HTTP links (PSR-13)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460523



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-fig-link-util-1.0.0-1.fc25, php-psr-link-1.0.0-1.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 1460524] Review Request: php-fig-link-util - Common utility implementations for HTTP links

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460524



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-fig-link-util-1.0.0-1.fc24, php-psr-link-1.0.0-1.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 1460523] Review Request: php-psr-link - Common interfaces for HTTP links (PSR-13)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460523



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-fig-link-util-1.0.0-1.fc24, php-psr-link-1.0.0-1.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 1466271] Review Request: perl-Mail-Box-POP3 - Handle POP3 folders as client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466271

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Mail-Box-POP3-3.002-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-38158c570b

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

[Bug 1466685] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-websupport - Sphinx API for Web Apps

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466685

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-sphinxcontrib-websupport-1.0.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-801d89e00c

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

[Bug 1409654] Review Request: python-pydocstyle - Python docstring style checker

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409654

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pydocstyle-2.0.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2b1a47a1ae

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

[Bug 1465817] Review Request: perl-Mail-Box-IMAP4 - Handle IMAP4 folders as client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465817

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Mail-Box-IMAP4-3.002-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-d90a2aeeba

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
reg-0.4.1-5.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3d65fc4670

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

[Bug 1463492] Review Request: koko - container connector

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463492



--- Comment #3 from s1061...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Dan Williams from comment #2)
> At least I'm happy if I'm eligeable to sponsor, it's been a while so I can't
> recall whether I'm a sponsor or not.  If i'm not, please disregard...

Thank you for your volunteer, Dan!

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

[Bug 1451407] Review Request: annobin - a gcc plugin to record extra information in compiled files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451407

Stephen Gallagher  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(ni...@redhat.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 1451407] Review Request: annobin - a gcc plugin to record extra information in compiled files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451407



--- Comment #8 from Stephen Gallagher  ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #7)
> Hi Stephan,
> 
>   Thanks for the second review.  I have uploaded a revised annobin.spec file
> with the License tag corrected as you indicated.
> 
>   The scripts (built-by, check-abi and hardended) are real tools that are
> intended to be run by users.  (Well users of the annobin-plugin package,
> which in practice will only be developers and distributors).  What they
> actually do is process the information that the annobin plugin inserts into
> compiled binaries.  So the built-by script for example extract the
> information about the compiler used, whilst the hardended script checks that
> all of the appropriate hardening options have been enabled, and so on.
> 
>   Finally all of the "unknown/generated" results in the licensecheck.txt
> file are suitable for being covered by the project license.
> 


https://nickc.fedorapeople.org/annobin.spec still shows the wrong License:
field.

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

[Bug 1466928] New: Review Request: pagure-dist-git - Pagure gitolite plugin for Fedora's dist-git setup.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466928

Bug ID: 1466928
   Summary: Review Request: pagure-dist-git - Pagure gitolite
plugin for Fedora's dist-git setup.
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: rb...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//pagure-dist-git.spec
SRPM URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//pagure-dist-git-0.1-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description:
Since 3.0 pagure offers a way to customize the creation and compilation the
of the gitolite configuration file.

This project hosts the logic to generate gitolite's configuration file for
dist-git which has a different access model than regular projects on pagure
(for example, forced pushed is forbidden).

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

[Bug 1466928] Review Request: pagure-dist-git - Pagure gitolite plugin for Fedora's dist-git setup.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466928



--- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20268167

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

[Bug 1465443] Review Request: php-endroid-qrcode - Endroid QR Code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465443

Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
Minor nitpick: Your changelog has 1.5.1 in it, not 1.9.3. ;) 

I don't see any blockers here, so this package is APPROVED. 

Please fix the version in changelog before building. 

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 301 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/kevin/1465443-php-endroid-qrcode/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
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, 

[Bug 1465443] Review Request: php-endroid-qrcode - Endroid QR Code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465443

Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ke...@scrye.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@scrye.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
I'll go ahead and review this. Look for a full review in a bit...

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

[Bug 1458243] Review Request: abrt-addon-python3 - catching and analyzing Python 3 exceptions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458243

Miroslav Suchý  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 1458243] Review Request: abrt-addon-python3 - catching and analyzing Python 3 exceptions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458243

Miroslav Suchý  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(mhabrnal@redhat.c |
   |om) |



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

[Bug 1458243] Review Request: abrt-addon-python3 - catching and analyzing Python 3 exceptions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458243



--- Comment #10 from Miroslav Suchý  ---
Found 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 1458243] Review Request: abrt-addon-python3 - catching and analyzing Python 3 exceptions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458243

Miroslav Suchý  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mhabr...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(mhabrnal@redhat.c
   ||om)



--- Comment #9 from Miroslav Suchý  ---
What is you fedora account system login?

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

[Bug 1458243] Review Request: abrt-addon-python3 - catching and analyzing Python 3 exceptions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458243

Miroslav Suchý  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #8 from Miroslav Suchý  ---
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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
Waiver: this is just to be on pair with EL5 version. All patches are in
upstream already.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
 Note: %define requiring justification: %define libreport_ver
 2.1.11-35, %define satyr_ver 0.13-10, %define __scm_apply_git(qp:m:)
 %{__git} am --exclude tests/testsuite.at
Again this is to be on pair with EL5 

[Bug 1464194] Review Request: Framework dependency package for supporting ixpdimm_sw which installs the CLI , CIM and the I18N frameworks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1464194

Dan Williams  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(rutvij.g.karkhani
   ||s...@intel.com)



--- Comment #2 from Dan Williams  ---
Is there a corresponding ixdimm_sw srpm with the updated dependency so I can
review the integration?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458581



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-erusev-parsedown-1.6.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 1431637] Review Request: python-fypp - Fortran preprocessor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431637



--- Comment #4 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
Hm, I cannot reproduce your test failures either locally or in koji:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20266422
[...]
Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.AW67YH
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd fypp-2.0.1
+ test/runtests.sh /usr/bin/python3
Testing with interpreter '/usr/bin/python3'
.
--
Ran 377 tests in 0.281s
OK
All test runs finished successfully
+ exit 0
[...]

Anyway, small update:
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-fypp/python-fypp.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-fypp/python-fypp-2.0-2.fc25.src.rpm

* Fri Jun 30 2017 Dominik Mierzejewski  2.0.1-2
- update upstream URL (bitbucket URL redirects to github)

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

[Bug 1431637] Review Request: python-fypp - Fortran preprocessor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431637



--- Comment #3 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
Thanks for the review and sorry for delayed response. I'll take a look at the
failures and talk to upstream if I can't fix them myself.

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

[Bug 1451407] Review Request: annobin - a gcc plugin to record extra information in compiled files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451407

Nick Clifton  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #7 from Nick Clifton  ---
Hi Stephan,

  Thanks for the second review.  I have uploaded a revised annobin.spec file
with the License tag corrected as you indicated.

  The scripts (built-by, check-abi and hardended) are real tools that are
intended to be run by users.  (Well users of the annobin-plugin package, which
in practice will only be developers and distributors).  What they actually do
is process the information that the annobin plugin inserts into compiled
binaries.  So the built-by script for example extract the information about the
compiler used, whilst the hardended script checks that all of the appropriate
hardening options have been enabled, and so on.

  Finally all of the "unknown/generated" results in the licensecheck.txt file
are suitable for being covered by the project license.

Cheers
  Nick

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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: rakudo-zef - Perl6 Module Management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452985



--- Comment #20 from Gerd Pokorra  ---
- get the sources from the Perl6 directory of CPAN

The spec file corresponds to the 'Fedora Packaging Guidelines for Perl 6
Modules'

- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl6?rd=Packaging/Perl6

The new srpm-URL is:

- ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/zef/srpm/rakudo-zef-0.1.15-1.fc25.src.rpm


- ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/zef/spec/rakudo-zef.spec links to version
3 of the rakudo-zef spec file.


Successful scratch builds are at:

F25
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20262875

F26
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20264274

F27
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20262886



The rakudo-zef package could be installed from the scratch build

> wget 
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2877/20262877/rakudo-zef-0.1.15-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
> dnf install rakudo-zef-0.1.15-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm

and works fine:

> zef list --installed
===> Found via /usr/lib64/perl6
CORE:ver('6.c'):auth('perl')
===> Found via /usr/lib64/perl6/vendor
zef:ver('0.1.15'):auth('github:ugexe')
>

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

[Bug 1463492] Review Request: koko - container connector

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463492



--- Comment #2 from Dan Williams  ---
At least I'm happy if I'm eligeable to sponsor, it's been a while so I can't
recall whether I'm a sponsor or not.  If i'm not, please disregard...

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

[Bug 1463492] Review Request: koko - container connector

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463492

Dan Williams  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||d...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Dan Williams  ---
I would be happy to sponsor Tomo and this 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 1466844] Review Request: modtools - Utilities for creating and managing modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466844

dhodo...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|phra...@redhat.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 1466844] New: Review Request: modtools - Utilities for creating and managing modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466844

Bug ID: 1466844
   Summary: Review Request: modtools - Utilities for creating and
managing modules
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: dhodo...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://dhodovsk.fedorapeople.org/modtools.spec
SRPM URL: https://dhodovsk.fedorapeople.org/modtools-0.0.1-1.src.rpm
Description: Modtools now provides tools generating openshift templates
from module Dockerfiles and creating modulemd files
from package names (intended api of module).
Fedora Account System Username: dhodovsk

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

[Bug 1466271] Review Request: perl-Mail-Box-POP3 - Handle POP3 folders as client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466271

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1466271] Review Request: perl-Mail-Box-POP3 - Handle POP3 folders as client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466271



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Mail-Box-POP3-3.002-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-38158c570b

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

[Bug 1466523] Review Request: python-blurb - Command-line tool to manage CPython Misc/NEWS.d entries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466523

Charalampos Stratakis  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cstra...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1466337] Review Request: perl-MooX-Locale-Passthrough - Provide API used in translator modules without translating

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466337

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-MooX-Locale-Passthroug
   ||h-0.001-1.fc27
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-06-30 09:10:16



--- Comment #3 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
Thank you for the review and the repository.

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

[Bug 1466685] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-websupport - Sphinx API for Web Apps

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466685

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1466685] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-websupport - Sphinx API for Web Apps

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466685



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-sphinxcontrib-websupport-1.0.1-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-801d89e00c

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

[Bug 1411984] Neofetch - a CLI system information tool written in Bash

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411984

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #22 from Ben Rosser  ---
In general the package looks very good! I have one blocking issue and a couple
of comments/pointers.

I am not a sponsor, but I can review the package, at which point you can file
a ticket at https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors and ask for a sponsor. A
sponsor
will almost certainly ask you to do some reviews of other packages though
before
actually sponsoring you.

Package Review
==

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

Issues
==

- As per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Configuration_files,
you must mark any configuration files with %config or %config(noreplace). I see
that there's an /etc/neofetch/config installed by the package; this should
be marked as configuration. (Probably %config(noreplace)).

Comments (non-blocking)
===

- Your justification for using Recommends is fine but outdated; modern dnf
_does_ install Recommends these days (but allows their removal without removing
the main package, and also this behavior can be configured).

- It certainly doesn't hurt, but you probably don't strictly need to condition
on bash >= 3. Even RHEL5 has a bash at least this new. :)

- The "wrong-script-interpreter" rpmlint messages are complaining because of
the use of #!/usr/bin/env bash rather than just #!/bin/bash. Someting like
this in %prep will fix this:

sed 's,/usr/bin/env bash,%{_bindir}/bash,g' -i neofetch
sed 's,/usr/bin/env bash,%{_bindir}/bash,g' -i config/config

- Does the config file need a shebang? I assume it doesn't, since it appears
neofetch simply sources the config to load it
(https://github.com/dylanaraps/neofetch/blob/master/neofetch#L3604). If you
remove it in %prep you can eliminate the other rpmlint error too.

= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 131 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1411984-neofetch/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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 

[Bug 1466787] New: Review Request: perl-MooX-StrictConstructor - Make your Moo-based object constructors blow up on unknown attributes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466787

Bug ID: 1466787
   Summary: Review Request: perl-MooX-StrictConstructor - Make
your Moo-based object constructors blow up on unknown
attributes
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jples...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-MooX-StrictConstructor/perl-MooX-StrictConstructor.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-MooX-StrictConstructor/perl-MooX-StrictConstructor-0.008-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
Simply loading this module makes your constructors "strict". If your
constructor is called with an attribute init argument that your class does
not declare, then it dies. This is a great way to catch small typos.

Fedora Account System Username: jples...@redhat.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 1409654] Review Request: python-pydocstyle - Python docstring style checker

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409654



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pydocstyle-2.0.0-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2b1a47a1ae

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

[Bug 1466747] Review Request: perl-Test-HexDifferences - Test binary as hexadecimal string

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466747

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
URL and Source0 addresses are Ok.
Source0 archive (SHA-256:
c9cc863f8c88b251a8cf80c7f30ec77b71a350a64179e72fc02bbbac12c952d9) is original.
Ok
Summary verified from lib/Test/HexDifferences.pm. Ok.

FIX: The description is poor. I recommend something like "This is a Perl module
for testing equivalence of binary data."

License verified from lib/Test/HexDifferences/HexDump.pm and
lib/Test/HexDifferences.pm and README. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.
Test::Prereq::Build not used. Ok.
Test::Perl::Critic not helpful. Ok.
All test pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Test-HexDifferences.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Test-HexDifferences-1.000-1.fc27.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-HexDifferences-1.000-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
perl-Test-HexDifferences.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/perl-Test-HexDifferences/Changes
perl-Test-HexDifferences.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/perl-Test-HexDifferences/README
perl-Test-HexDifferences.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/doc/perl-Test-HexDifferences/example/01_eq_or_dump_diff.t perl -T
perl-Test-HexDifferences.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/perl-Test-HexDifferences/example/01_eq_or_dump_diff.t
perl-Test-HexDifferences.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/doc/perl-Test-HexDifferences/example/02_dumped_eq_dump_or_diff.t
perl -T
perl-Test-HexDifferences.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/perl-Test-HexDifferences/example/02_dumped_eq_dump_or_diff.t
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings.

FIX: Normalize end-of-lines in README and Changes.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-HexDifferences-1.000-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 30 14:42
/usr/share/doc/perl-Test-HexDifferences
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1164 Jul  5  2015
/usr/share/doc/perl-Test-HexDifferences/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  635 Jul  5  2015
/usr/share/doc/perl-Test-HexDifferences/README
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jul  5  2015
/usr/share/doc/perl-Test-HexDifferences/example
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2317 Jul  5  2015
/usr/share/doc/perl-Test-HexDifferences/example/01_eq_or_dump_diff.t
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2643 Jul  5  2015
/usr/share/doc/perl-Test-HexDifferences/example/02_dumped_eq_dump_or_diff.t
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2065 Jun 30 14:42
/usr/share/man/man3/Test::HexDifferences.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2599 Jun 30 14:42
/usr/share/man/man3/Test::HexDifferences::HexDump.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 30 14:42
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Test
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 30 14:42
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Test/HexDifferences
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 5690 Jul  5  2015
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Test/HexDifferences.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot10990 Mar 22  2014
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Test/HexDifferences/HexDump.pm
File layout and permissions are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-HexDifferences-1.000-1.fc27.noarch.rpm | sort -f |
uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.0)
  1 perl(Hash::Util)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(Sub::Exporter)
  1 perl(Test::Builder::Module) >= 0.99
  1 perl(Test::HexDifferences::HexDump)
  1 perl(Text::Diff)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -q --provides -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-HexDifferences-1.000-1.fc27.noarch.rpm | sort -f |
uniq -c
  1 perl(Test::HexDifferences) = 1.000
  1 perl(Test::HexDifferences::HexDump) = 0.008
  1 perl-Test-HexDifferences = 1.000-1.fc27
Binary provides are Ok.

$ resolvedeps rawhide
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-HexDifferences-1.000-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.

The package builds in F27
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20263551). Ok.

Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.

Please correct the `FIX' items before building this package.
Resolution: 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 

[Bug 1409654] Review Request: python-pydocstyle - Python docstring style checker

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409654

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1466747] Review Request: perl-Test-HexDifferences - Test binary as hexadecimal string

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466747

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ppi...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1466685] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-websupport - Sphinx API for Web Apps

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466685



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-sphinxcontrib-websupport

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

[Bug 1411984] Neofetch - a CLI system information tool written in Bash

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411984



--- Comment #21 from Kees de Jong  ---
Just ran the fedora-review tool myself and fixed these minor errors already:
neofetch.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Neofetch
neofetch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ascii -> ASCII
neofetch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US distro -> bistro,
district

Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AquaL1te/neofetch/master/neofetch.spec
Spec diff:
https://github.com/AquaL1te/neofetch/commit/9eeb72eaaae1be8824f2d694b93e49fdc5beafbf
Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20262958
SRPM:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2959/20262959/neofetch-3.2.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
FAS username: keesdejong

Looking for 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 1466337] Review Request: perl-MooX-Locale-Passthrough - Provide API used in translator modules without translating

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466337



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-MooX-Locale-Passthrough

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

[Bug 1466271] Review Request: perl-Mail-Box-POP3 - Handle POP3 folders as client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466271



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Mail-Box-POP3

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

[Bug 1466685] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-websupport - Sphinx API for Web Apps

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466685

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1426928




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426928
[Bug 1426928] python-sphinx-1.6.2 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1466747] New: Review Request: perl-Test-HexDifferences - Test binary as hexadecimal string

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466747

Bug ID: 1466747
   Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-HexDifferences - Test binary
as hexadecimal string
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jples...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test-HexDifferences/perl-Test-HexDifferences.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test-HexDifferences/perl-Test-HexDifferences-1.000-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description:
There are some special cases for testing binary data.

Fedora Account System Username: jples...@redhat.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 1466685] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-websupport - Sphinx API for Web Apps

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466685

Chandan Kumar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Chandan Kumar  ---
Hello Javier,

Thanks for putting package review.

The Package looks fine. There are 3 warning in rpmlint.
Just one nit: convert sphinxcontribwebuspport to Sphinx contrib-webuspport.
Please do it while pushing the package to dist-git.

Rest is ok.
Package is APPROVED.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated",
 "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 71 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/chkumar246/asguard/fedora
 /review-python-sphinxcontrib-websupport/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/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sphinxcontrib
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.6/site-
 packages/sphinxcontrib, /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages,
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sphinxcontrib, /usr/lib/python3.6
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[!]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[!]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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 

[Bug 1411984] Neofetch - a CLI system information tool written in Bash

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411984



--- Comment #20 from Kees de Jong  ---
(In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #19)
> I quickly glanced over the spec and didn't see any obvious problems, but
> could you please provide a link to the latest SRPM as well, and also point
> at a plaintext version of the spec (i.e.
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AquaL1te/neofetch/master/neofetch.spec)?
> 
> This will make it easier to run the automated fedora-review tool over this
> package.

Thank you.

Bumped the version of Neofetch to 3.2.0 (latest as of now).
Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AquaL1te/neofetch/master/neofetch.spec
Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20262006
SRPM:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2006/20262006/neofetch-3.2.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
FAS username: keesdejong

Looking for 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 1411984] Neofetch - a CLI system information tool written in Bash

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411984

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rosser@gmail.com



--- Comment #19 from Ben Rosser  ---
I quickly glanced over the spec and didn't see any obvious problems, but could
you please provide a link to the latest SRPM as well, and also point at a
plaintext version of the spec (i.e.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AquaL1te/neofetch/master/neofetch.spec)?

This will make it easier to run the automated fedora-review tool over this
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 1466685] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-websupport - Sphinx API for Web Apps

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466685

Chandan Kumar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1466685] New: Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-websupport - Sphinx API for Web Apps

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466685

Bug ID: 1466685
   Summary: Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-websupport -
Sphinx API for Web Apps
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jp...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinxcontrib-websupport/python-sphinxcontrib-websupport.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinxcontrib-websupport/python-sphinxcontrib-websupport-1.0.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description:
sphinxcontribwebuspport provides a Python API to easily integrate Sphinx
documentation into your Web application.

Fedora Account System Username: jpena

Koji scratch build available at
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20260332

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

[Bug 1466685] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-websupport - Sphinx API for Web Apps

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466685

Javier Peña  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 1466271] Review Request: perl-Mail-Box-POP3 - Handle POP3 folders as client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466271

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
URL and Source0 addresses are Ok.
Source0 archive (SHA-256:
6381322ec44cf28e2ef693a86fed4cc2d706edd28d073c5d90cb0a5137459cb6) is original.
Ok.
Summary verified from lib/Mail/Box/POP3.pod. Ok.
Description verified from lib/Mail/Box/POP3.pod. Ok.
License verified in lib/Mail/Box/POP3.pod, lib/Mail/Box/POP3/Message.pod,
lib/Mail/Box/POP3s.pod, and lib/Mail/Transport/POP3.pod. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.

FIX: Do not build-require `perl(Mail::Reporter)'. It's not used.
FIX: Build-require `perl(IO::Socket::INET)' (lib/Mail/Transport/POP3.pm:260).

TODO: IO::Socket::INET does not support IPv6. Please patch the code to use
IO::Socket::IP instead.

All test pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Mail-Box-POP3.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Mail-Box-POP3-3.001-1.fc27.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Mail-Box-POP3-3.001-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
perl-Mail-Box-POP3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US focusses ->
focuses, focused, cusses
perl-Mail-Box-POP3.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US focusses ->
focuses, focused, cusses
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
FIX: Correct the misspelling.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Mail-Box-POP3-3.001-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 30 09:45
/usr/share/doc/perl-Mail-Box-POP3
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  281 Feb  2 16:07
/usr/share/doc/perl-Mail-Box-POP3/ChangeLog
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  811 Feb  2 16:07
/usr/share/doc/perl-Mail-Box-POP3/README
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 8313 Jun 30 09:45
/usr/share/man/man3/Mail::Box::POP3.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 6055 Jun 30 09:45
/usr/share/man/man3/Mail::Box::POP3::Message.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 6641 Jun 30 09:45
/usr/share/man/man3/Mail::Box::POP3s.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 6276 Jun 30 09:45
/usr/share/man/man3/Mail::Transport::POP3.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 30 09:45
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 30 09:45
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Box
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 30 09:45
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Box/POP3
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 5116 Feb  2 16:07
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Box/POP3.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot19832 Feb  2 16:07
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Box/POP3.pod
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1808 Feb  2 16:07
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Box/POP3/Message.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot16411 Feb  2 16:07
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Box/POP3/Message.pod
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1572 Feb  2 16:07
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Box/POP3/Test.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  648 Feb  2 16:07
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Box/POP3s.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot15698 Feb  2 16:07
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Box/POP3s.pod
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 30 09:45
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Transport
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 9381 Feb  2 16:07
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Transport/POP3.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot13090 Feb  2 16:07
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail/Transport/POP3.pod
File layout and permissions are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Mail-Box-POP3-3.001-1.fc27.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.0)
  1 perl(base)
  1 perl(Carp)
  1 perl(Digest::MD5)
  1 perl(Exporter)
  1 perl(File::Basename)
  1 perl(File::Spec)
  1 perl(IO::Socket)
  1 perl(List::Util)
  1 perl(Mail::Box::FastScalar) >= 3
  1 perl(Mail::Box::Net) >= 3
  1 perl(Mail::Box::Net::Message)
  1 perl(Mail::Box::Parser::Perl) >= 3
  1 perl(Mail::Box::POP3)
  1 perl(Mail::Box::POP3::Message)
  1 perl(Mail::Transport::POP3)
  1 perl(Mail::Transport::Receive) >= 3
  1 perl(Socket)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(vars)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
FIX: Run-require `perl(IO::Socket::SSL)' and `perl(IO::Socket::INET)'
(lib/Mail/Transport/POP3.pm:260).

$ rpm -q --provides -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Mail-Box-POP3-3.001-1.fc27.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(Mail::Box::POP3) = 3.001
  1 

[Bug 1466271] Review Request: perl-Mail-Box-POP3 - Handle POP3 folders as client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466271

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ppi...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1466337] Review Request: perl-MooX-Locale-Passthrough - Provide API used in translator modules without translating

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466337

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
URL and Source0 addresses are Ok.
Source0 archive (SHA-256:
7a05827e52ab5a1dde2ea5c712927b1e58c8d251664d966627adf9dd30ec0512) is original.
Ok.
Summary verified from lib/MooX/Locale/Passthrough.pm. Ok.
Description verified from lib/MooX/Locale/Passthrough.pm. Ok.
License verified from README.md and lib/MooX/Locale/Passthrough.pm. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.
Build-time dependencies are Ok.
All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-MooX-Locale-Passthrough.spec
../SRPMS/perl-MooX-Locale-Passthrough-0.001-1.fc27.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-MooX-Locale-Passthrough-0.001-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q -lv -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-MooX-Locale-Passthrough-0.001-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 30 09:08
/usr/share/doc/perl-MooX-Locale-Passthrough
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  122 May 31 11:43
/usr/share/doc/perl-MooX-Locale-Passthrough/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2331 May 30 18:34
/usr/share/doc/perl-MooX-Locale-Passthrough/README.md
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2097 Jun 30 09:08
/usr/share/man/man3/MooX::Locale::Passthrough.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 30 09:08
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/MooX
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 30 09:08
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/MooX/Locale
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2435 May 30 18:32
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/MooX/Locale/Passthrough.pm
File layout and permissions are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-MooX-Locale-Passthrough-0.001-1.fc27.noarch.rpm | sort -f |
uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.0)
  1 perl(Carp)
  1 perl(Moo::Role) >= 1.003
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -q --provides -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-MooX-Locale-Passthrough-0.001-1.fc27.noarch.rpm | sort -f |
uniq -c
  1 perl(MooX::Locale::Passthrough) = 0.001
  1 perl-MooX-Locale-Passthrough = 0.001-1.fc27
Binary provides are Ok.

$ resolvedeps rawhide
../RPMS/noarch/perl-MooX-Locale-Passthrough-0.001-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.

Package builds in F27
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20259108). Ok.

Package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.
Resolution: 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 1465817] Review Request: perl-Mail-Box-IMAP4 - Handle IMAP4 folders as client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465817



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Mail-Box-IMAP4-3.002-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-d90a2aeeba

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

[Bug 1465817] Review Request: perl-Mail-Box-IMAP4 - Handle IMAP4 folders as client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465817

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1466337] Review Request: perl-MooX-Locale-Passthrough - Provide API used in translator modules without translating

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466337

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ppi...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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