[Bug 1467129] Review Request: python-pdir2 - Pretty dir() printing with joy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467129



--- Comment #5 from Carl George  ---
Upstream released 0.2.1, which lets me drop two patches.

Spec URL: https://carl.george.computer/review/python-pdir2.spec
SRPM URL: https://carl.george.computer/review/python-pdir2-0.2.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20335807

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

[Bug 1467762] Review Request: btrbk - Tool for creating snapshots and remote backups of btrfs subvolumes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467762

Mike Goodwin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard||Trivial



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

[Bug 1467762] New: Review Request: btrbk - Tool for creating snapshots and remote backups of btrfs subvolumes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467762

Bug ID: 1467762
   Summary: Review Request: btrbk - Tool for creating snapshots
and remote backups of btrfs subvolumes
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@mgoodwin.net
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/xenithorb/fedora-specs/master/btrbk/btrbk.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xenithorb/btrbk/fedora-26-x86_64/00575679-btrbk/btrbk-0.25.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: Tool for creating snapshots and remote backups of btrfs subvolumes
Fedora Account System Username: xenithorb

--- Trivial Info ---

Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20334888


RPMlint explanation: Benign spelling warnings

btrbk.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) btrfs -> barfs
btrbk.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) subvolumes -> sub volumes,
sub-volumes, volumes
btrbk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US btrfs -> barfs
btrbk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subvolumes -> sub
volumes, sub-volumes, volumes
btrbk.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) btrfs -> barfs
btrbk.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) subvolumes -> sub volumes,
sub-volumes, volumes
btrbk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US btrfs -> barfs
btrbk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subvolumes -> sub volumes,
sub-volumes, volumes
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 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 1452958] Review Request: sasutils - Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) Linux utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452958



--- Comment #4 from Stephane Thiell  ---
Hi Terje,

Thanks for your help, much appreciated.

I think that I need to keep:

Provides:   python3-%{name} = %{version}

because the package name is not python3-sasutils (it is not done automatically
in that case).
Note: I primarily want to focus on the CLI tools, hence the name 'sasutils'.
I was thinking of an alternative solution which would be to just remove all
'provides' for pythonX-sasutils in this case.

Duly noted for the man pages.

I made all your other proposed changes and just uploaded updated files:
Spec URL: http://web.stanford.edu/~sthiell/sasutils.spec
SRPM URL: http://web.stanford.edu/~sthiell/sasutils-0.3.4-1.fc24.src.rpm

I triggered a scratch build as you recommended against rawhide. It available
here:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20331379

Please let me know if you see anything else that could be fixed or improved.

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

[Bug 1431743] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-zappy - Block-based compression format implementation in Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431743



--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/golang-github-cznic-zappy

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

[Bug 1467527] Review Request: perl-MooX-Singleton - Turn your Moo class into singleton

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467527



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

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

[Bug 1463092] Review Request: python-vulture - Find Dead Code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463092



--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-vulture

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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] Review Request: copr-rpmbuild - performs COPR builds

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460630



--- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/copr-rpmbuild

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

[Bug 1467371] Review Request: perl-Locale-MO-File - Write and read gettext MO files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467371



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

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

[Bug 1452958] Review Request: sasutils - Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) Linux utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452958



--- Comment #3 from Terje Røsten  ---
One more:

 Summary: Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) Linux utilities

change to Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) utilities

Fedora/RHEL is available for Linux only any way.

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

[Bug 1452958] Review Request: sasutils - Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) Linux utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452958

Terje Røsten  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||terje...@phys.ntnu.no



--- Comment #2 from Terje Røsten  ---
Some quick comments:

 - remove BuildRoot line, it set by rpmbuild
 - use one package per line in buildreq, req (and sort them)
 - remove
%clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}
 - remove %defattr(-,root,root,-) line
 - is

Provides:   python3-%{name} = %{version}

   needed when doing:

%{?python_provide:%python_provide python-sasutils}

  - I prefer to list bin files first in %files
  - can you provide a rawhide scratch build in koji?

Upstream (outside fedora review):
  - add man pages

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

[Bug 1467716] Review Request: reactfx - Reactive event streams for JavaFX

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467716

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1452958] Review Request: sasutils - Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) Linux utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452958



--- Comment #1 from Stephane Thiell  ---
Hi! I just uploaded an improved version.
Spec URL: http://web.stanford.edu/~sthiell/sasutils.spec
SRPM URL: http://web.stanford.edu/~sthiell/sasutils-0.3.4-1.fc24.src.rpm

Changes:
- build against python3 only
- use %python_provide as recommended by the packaging guidelines
- include LICENSE.txt

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

[Bug 1467716] Review Request: reactfx - Reactive event streams for JavaFX

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467716



--- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20327853

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

[Bug 1467716] New: Review Request: reactfx - Reactive event streams for JavaFX

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467716

Bug ID: 1467716
   Summary: Review Request: reactfx - Reactive event streams for
JavaFX
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: heg...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/reactfx.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/reactfx-2.0-1.M5.fc25.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jonny
Description:
ReactFX is an exploration of (functional) reactive programming techniques for
JavaFX. These techniques usually result in more concise code, less side effects
and less inversion of control, all of which improve the readability of code.

Initial inspiration came from the Principles of Reactive Programming course and
the RxJava library. There are, however, important differences from RxJava.

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

[Bug 1382937] Review Request: python-dominate - Dominate is a Python library for HTML documents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382937



--- Comment #10 from David Hannequin  ---
Hi,

I packaged latest version :

Spec URL:
https://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/python-dominate/python-dominate.spec
SRPM URL:
https://hvad.fedorapeople.org/fedora/python-dominate/python-dominate-2.3.1-1.fc25.src.rpm

Best regard

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

[Bug 1422198] Review Request: python-docker - A Python library for the Docker Engine API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422198

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #10 from Alan Pevec  ---
> Since the change is breaking and not compatible the Provides for
> python-docker-py ought to be dropped from the spec before building this:

What exactly is breaking? https://pypi.python.org/pypi/docker links to the same
old docs site https://docker-py.readthedocs.io/ so old APIs should work with
python-docker. Is there evidence to the contrary?

> "If a package supersedes/replaces an existing package without being a
> sufficiently compatible replacement as defined above, use only the
> Obsoletes: line from the above example."

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443577#c8 shows this is not
sufficient, f25 to f26 upgrades will break with file conflicts...

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

[Bug 1464225] Review Request: purple-matrix - Matrix plugin for libpurple

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1464225



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
purple-matrix-0-3.20170530gitbe53d53.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-cdf0c11cc2

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

[Bug 574575] Review Request: log5j - Simple java logging library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574575

Alexander Kurtakov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2017-07-04 13:18:35



--- Comment #18 from Alexander Kurtakov  ---
Nothing will happen here it looks and packaging changed so much it's pointless
to keep it around.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product 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] Review Request: datamash - A statistical, numerical and textual operations tool

[bugzilla]

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

José Matos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jama...@fc.up.pt
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from José Matos  ---
Taking care of the review.

According to fedora-review the package has the following issues:

- Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
  Note: Bundled gnulib but no Provides: bundled(gnulib)
  See:
 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: info
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros

Could you comment/take care of this, please?

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

[Bug 1467322] Review Request: manifest-tool - A command line tool used for creating manifest list objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467322

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl



--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
%global with_bundled is not used anywhere?

> %{!?_licensedir:%global license %doc}
%license is defined everywhere now.

You've got an awful lot of macros that get used at most one time.
%provider_tld, really?

Looks OK, but I know nothing about go.

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

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
I'd prefer to have the python3 subpackage too, unless it's really broken, but
that's you choice.

python2-pagure-dist-git.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Pagure gitolite
plugin for Fedora's dist-git setup.

+ package name is OK
+ license is acceptable for Fedora (GPLv2+)
+ license is specified correctly
+ builds and installs OK
+ provides/requires/build-requires look correct
+ fedora-review finds no issues
+ modern python packaing template is used

Change http to https in Url.

Package is 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 1433617] Review Request: python-proselint - A linter for prose

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433617



--- Comment #5 from Yatin Karel  ---
(In reply to Peter Oliver from comment #4)
> Thanks for looking at this.
> 
> (In reply to Yatin Karel from comment #3)
> > Issues:
> > - python2 subpackage contains Provides python3-*, it should provide python2
> > binary
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> > - %check can be corrected as
> > https://github.com/amperser/proselint/issues/623 is fixed
> >   upstream
> 
> It's fixed in the development branch, but has not yet been released to a
> stable version.
> 
Thanks, hmm it's not there in Tagged release:
https://github.com/amperser/proselint/blob/v0.8.0/MANIFEST.in.

> > - For consistency one BuildRequires/Requires per line.
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> > - Invalid souce URL
> 
> The source URL seems to work for me.  What trouble are you having?
> 

I get 404 Not found for SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mavit/python-proselint/fedora-26-x86_64/00519081-python-proselint/python-proselint-0.8.0-1.fc26.src.rpm

> >   If proselint binary differs in functioning in python2/python3 it would be
> > good you ship
> >   both proselint-2, proselint-3 and symlink proselint with proselint-2 or
> > proselint-3.
> 
> The functionality shouldn't differ, and I don't think anyone will reasonably
> require both.
>
If the functionality not differs, it's Ok to keep one copy of binary. 
> > - Good to use versioned packages if available: python-setuptools -->
> > python2-setuptools,
> >   same is for click, future, six
> 
> There is still no python2-click in Fedora 24, but I have updated the others.
> 
> > - To me it looks the invalid use of Suggests and Recommends, any reason for
> > using them in
> >   spec file.
> 
> What is it about them that looks invalid?  It seems likely to me that anyone
> installing the python module is likely to also want the command-line binary.
> 

What i get from your spec is following: you are creating an extra
package(proselint) that just contains binary for proselint, so users can
install proselint(which requires python3-proselint). Is creating an extra
package really required? If both packages are providing same functionality.
Can't you ship both python2 and python3 with the binary?
Also as per guidelines python packages should be prefixed with python[23]-
If i understood something wrong can you share the purpose in what scenarios
each package would be used for more clearity.
> > - Correct rpmlint errors
> 
> I discuss in comment #1 why I believe these errors are harmless.

Hmm till it's merged upstream, you can add workaround in %prep by removing
shebangs(using sed or anything else you prefer).

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

[Bug 1467651] Review Request: cvechecker - Tool for compare packages installed in your system with CVE database

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467651

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
+ package name is OK
+ license is acceptable for Fedora (GPLv3)
+ license is specified correctly
+ builds and installs OK
+ fedora-review finds no issues
+ %check is present and passes
+ no scriptlets necessary
+ rpmlint has only false positives

> Group:  Applications/System
Not needed
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections].

> %attr(0644,root,root)
You probably don't need those either, unless the build system sets some strange
permissions on those files.

Package is 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 1434410] Review Request: python-compreffor - A CFF table subroutinizer for FontTools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434410

Fabio Valentini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||decatho...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|decatho...@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 1431743] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-zappy - Block-based compression format implementation in Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431743



--- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Thanks for the review, I'll look at your package as soon as I have some time!

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

[Bug 1467677] New: Review Request: gluster-block - A framework for gluster block storage management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467677

Bug ID: 1467677
   Summary: Review Request: gluster-block - A framework for
gluster block storage management
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: nde...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://devos.fedorapeople.org/gluster-block/gluster-block.spec

SRPM URL:
https://devos.fedorapeople.org/gluster-block/gluster-block-0.2.1-1.src.rpm

Koji scratch-build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20323991

Description: gluster-block is a CLI utility, which aims at making gluster
backed block storage creation and maintenance as simple as possible.

Fedora Account System Username: devos

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

[Bug 1465889] Tracking: Deepin Desktop related package review tracker

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465889
Bug 1465889 depends on bug 957411, which changed state.

Bug 957411 Summary: Review Request: deepin-ui - Linux Deepin Graphics Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957411

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX



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

[Bug 957411] Review Request: deepin-ui - Linux Deepin Graphics Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957411
Bug 957411 depends on bug 957409, which changed state.

Bug 957409 Summary: Review Request: deepin-utils - Basic modules needed by most 
Linux Deepin applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957409

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX



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

[Bug 1465889] Tracking: Deepin Desktop related package review tracker

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465889
Bug 1465889 depends on bug 957409, which changed state.

Bug 957409 Summary: Review Request: deepin-utils - Basic modules needed by most 
Linux Deepin applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957409

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX



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

[Bug 957411] Review Request: deepin-ui - Linux Deepin Graphics Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957411

Zamir SUN  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||szts...@gmail.com
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2017-07-04 10:28:25



--- Comment #3 from Zamir SUN  ---
Deepin developer confirmed deepin-ui deepin-utils deepin-nautilus-properties
are obsoleted. So I am closing this request.

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

[Bug 957409] Review Request: deepin-utils - Basic modules needed by most Linux Deepin applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957409

Zamir SUN  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||szts...@gmail.com
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2017-07-04 10:28:06



--- Comment #7 from Zamir SUN  ---
Deepin developer confirmed deepin-ui deepin-utils deepin-nautilus-properties
are obsoleted. So I am closing this request.

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

[Bug 1421051] Review Request: deepin-nautilus-properties - Provide file property dialog for DDE

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421051

Zamir SUN  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||szts...@gmail.com
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2017-07-04 10:27:03



--- Comment #1 from Zamir SUN  ---
Deepin developer confirmed deepin-ui deepin-utils deepin-nautilus-properties
are obsoleted. So I am closing this request.

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

[Bug 1431743] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-zappy - Block-based compression format implementation in Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431743

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #4)
> You're of course right, I missed the additional LICENSE file - is changing
> the %license line to
> 
>   %license LICENSE SNAPPY-GO-LICENSE
> 
> before importing and building sufficient, or do you want an updated .spec
> and SRPM file for the review?

The first is enough.

Package approved!

If you are still up for reviewing one of my packages, I would like to have [1]
reviewed. It is a (very) short python package.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434410

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

[Bug 1465889] Tracking: Deepin Desktop related package review tracker

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465889
Bug 1465889 depends on bug 1421051, which changed state.

Bug 1421051 Summary: Review Request: deepin-nautilus-properties - Provide file 
property dialog for DDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421051

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX



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

[Bug 1467651] Review Request: cvechecker - Tool for compare packages installed in your system with CVE database

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467651



--- Comment #4 from Zamir SUN  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2)
> (It seems that cvechecker likes to run as root. It'd be much better to
> create a dedicated user for it, since downloading stuff as root from the web
> is also a concern, but that's an upstream issue.)
I am not familiar with packaging with dedicated user, so currently I'm not
adding this way. Will work on this later once I figured out how to do 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 1467651] Review Request: cvechecker - Tool for compare packages installed in your system with CVE database

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467651



--- Comment #3 from Zamir SUN  ---
Thanks for the quick response.
SPEC updated in place:
https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/cvechecker/cvechecker.spec
New SRPM:
https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/cvechecker/cvechecker-3.7-2.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 1431743] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-zappy - Block-based compression format implementation in Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431743



--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Thanks for looking at this package!

You're of course right, I missed the additional LICENSE file - is changing the
%license line to

  %license LICENSE SNAPPY-GO-LICENSE

before importing and building sufficient, or do you want an updated .spec and
SRPM file for 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 1431743] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-zappy - Block-based compression format implementation in Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431743



--- Comment #3 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Hi Fabio, as I replied in the devel mailing list review swap request, I am
taking this one.

- Upstream also ships the snappy license text, since it is a fork of it. Is
there any reason you did not ship it? I am not sure if that is a must, but the
BSD license text does mention that one must ship the copyright information on
redistribution (which is the only thing that changes between the two files).

Other than that, the package looks good. I will conclude the review as soon as
you provide some feedback on the license issue.

Package Review
==

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

= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

= 

[Bug 1467651] Review Request: cvechecker - Tool for compare packages installed in your system with CVE database

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467651

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
> %global debug_package %{nil}
Are you sure that's needed? If yes, it deserves a comment in the spec file.

> make
Is parallel build not supported? If it is, use %make_build, otherwise, add a
comment.

> %{__install}
You can just say 'install' — that's both less typing *and* clearer.

> %defattr(-,root,root)
Not needed.

Checking: cvechecker-3.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
  cvechecker-3.7-1.fc27.src.rpm
cvechecker.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/cvechecker
Hm. That's the first time I encounter this. Maybe this will go away if you
create a debug package?

cvechecker.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
cvechecker.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
cvechecker.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
OK.

cvechecker.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{url}
cvechecker.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{_commit}
cvechecker.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{_commit}
Please use %%.

cvechecker.src:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line
14)
Please fix.

2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

Looks all good.

(It seems that cvechecker likes to run as root. It'd be much better to create a
dedicated user for it, since downloading stuff as root from the web is also a
concern, but that's an upstream issue.)

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

[Bug 1259416] Review Request: pipewire - Share cameras and other multimedia streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259416



--- Comment #9 from Wim Taymans  ---
New links for new version, tested with fedpkg mockbuild

https://people.freedesktop.org/~wtay/SPECS/pipewire.spec
https://people.freedesktop.org/~wtay/SRPMS/pipewire-0.1.2-1.fc27.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1062808] Review Request: cvechecker - Command-line utility to scan the system based on CVE data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062808

Zamir SUN  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2017-07-04 08:51:30



--- Comment #8 from Zamir SUN  ---
I'm closing this old request as duplicated of 1467651 per email suggestions
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/LRSRJOLLGLJB5OIE3ZBY3OK4JNBMLIQO/

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1467651 ***

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

[Bug 1467651] Review Request: cvechecker - Tool for compare packages installed in your system with CVE database

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467651

Zamir SUN  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||563471 (FE-SECLAB)
 CC||i...@cicku.me



--- Comment #1 from Zamir SUN  ---
*** Bug 1062808 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563471
[Bug 563471] Tracker: Review Requests for Fedora Security Lab related
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 1467651] New: Review Request: cvechecker - Tool for compare packages installed in your system with CVE database

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467651

Bug ID: 1467651
   Summary: Review Request: cvechecker - Tool for compare packages
installed in your system with CVE database
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: szts...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/cvechecker/cvechecker.spec
SRPM URL:
https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/cvechecker/cvechecker-3.7-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: Tool for compare packages installed in your system with CVE
database
Fedora Account System Username: zsun

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

[Bug 1465396] Review Request: heaptrack - A heap memory profiler for Linux

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465396

Daniel Vrátil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2017-07-04 08:28:28



--- Comment #1 from Daniel Vrátil  ---
Already packaged, I got confused by not finding relevant review request in
bugzilla.

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

[Bug 1460917] Review Request: rpkg - Command-line client tool to DistGit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460917



--- Comment #13 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Well, ok.
But unfortunately I can't build the package now. Please see the following
error.

+ install -d
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rpkg-client-0.5-1.fc27.x86_64/usr/share/bash-completion/completions
+ cp -a rpkg.conf /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rpkg-client-0.5-1.fc27.x86_64/etc/
cp: cannot create regular file
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rpkg-client-0.5-1.fc27.x86_64/etc/': Not a directory
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.KCipS9 (%install)

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

[Bug 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



--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Thanks. Added.

Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-blurb.spec
SRPM URL:
https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-blurb-1.0.0-1.post1.fc26.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1467003] Review Request: libgpiod - C library and tools for interacting with linux GPIO char device

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467003

Guido Aulisi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||guido.aul...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Guido Aulisi  ---
Some informal comments:

According to this guide https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B
you should add BuildRequires: gcc

You could use these macros:

make %{?_smp_mflags} => %make_build
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} => %make_install

The %check section is for running tests, but the docs report that 'make check'
doesn't execute any tests. Instead the user must run them manually with
superuser privileges. The tests work together with the gpio-mockup kernel
module which must be enabled. IMHO it's very difficult to execute such a test
in mock or koji, so I would suggest to remove the %check section, and the
--enable-tests configure option too.

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



--- Comment #1 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
The package should have a runtime requirement on git. Invoking the cli produces
a traceback without it.

 sh-4.4# blurb
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/blurb", line 11, in 
sys.exit(main())
  File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/blurb.py", line 1432, in main
chdir_to_repo_root()
  File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/blurb.py", line 621, in
chdir_to_repo_root
run("git log -r 7f777ed95a19224294949e1b4ce56bbffcb1fe9f")
  File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/blurb.py", line 613, in run
process = subprocess.run(s.split(), stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
stderr=subprocess.PIPE)
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.6/subprocess.py", line 403, in run
with Popen(*popenargs, **kwargs) as process:
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.6/subprocess.py", line 707, in __init__
restore_signals, start_new_session)
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.6/subprocess.py", line 1326, in _execute_child
raise child_exception_type(errno_num, err_msg)
FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: 'git'

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

[Bug 1467527] Review Request: perl-MooX-Singleton - Turn your Moo class into singleton

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467527

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:
f7d7626fffde98f85ec12c1ee26b01f139a42f453ea56c341df194e3210e) is original.
Ok.
Summary verified from lib/MooX/Singleton.pm. Ok.

TODO: The description is not a sentence. I recommend rephrase it like `This is
a Moo role that provides...'

License verified in lib/MooX/Singleton.pm, README, and LICENSE. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.
Test::Script is not used. Ok.
Build-requires are Ok.
All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-MooX-Singleton.spec
../SRPMS/perl-MooX-Singleton-1.20-1.fc27.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-MooX-Singleton-1.20-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-MooX-Singleton-1.20-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jul  4 11:20
/usr/share/doc/perl-MooX-Singleton
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  349 Apr  8  2013
/usr/share/doc/perl-MooX-Singleton/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1152 Apr  8  2013
/usr/share/doc/perl-MooX-Singleton/README
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jul  4 11:20
/usr/share/licenses/perl-MooX-Singleton
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot18422 Apr  8  2013
/usr/share/licenses/perl-MooX-Singleton/LICENSE
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1649 Jul  4 11:20
/usr/share/man/man3/MooX::Singleton.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jul  4 11:20
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/MooX
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1834 Apr  8  2013
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/MooX/Singleton.pm
File layout and permissions are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-MooX-Singleton-1.20-1.fc27.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.0)
  1 perl(Role::Tiny)
  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-Singleton-1.20-1.fc27.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 
  1 perl(MooX::Singleton) = 1.20
  1 perl-MooX-Singleton = 1.20-1.fc27
Binary provides are Ok.

$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/noarch/perl-MooX-Singleton-1.20-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.

Package builds in F27
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20320188). Ok.

The package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.

Please consider fixing the `TODO' item 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 unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1465588] Review Request: xoreos-tools - Tools to help the development of xoreos

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465588



--- Comment #1 from Sandro Mani  ---
Full review below, just some trivial stuff:
- could use %make_build, %make_install
- not needed: rm -rf %{buildroot}
- empty /usr/lib in xoreos-tools-0.0.4-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm 


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]: 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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 30720 bytes in 8 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 uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: 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.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} 

[Bug 1462472] Review Request: qotd - A simple and lightweight Quote of the Day daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462472



--- Comment #1 from Sandro Mani  ---
Full review below. Only some small stuff:
- BR make
- comment why parallel build is disabled, or enable (could use %make_build)
- license GPLv2+
- could update to 0.11.3
- to clarify with upstream? qotd.x86_64: E:
missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/qotdd


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]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)",
 "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output
 of licensecheck in /home/sandro/Desktop/1462472-qotd/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system,
 /usr/lib/systemd
[?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: 

[Bug 1467527] Review Request: perl-MooX-Singleton - Turn your Moo class into singleton

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467527

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 1467371] Review Request: perl-Locale-MO-File - Write and read gettext MO files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467371

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |perl-Locale-MO-File -   |perl-Locale-MO-File - Write
   |Write/read gettext MO files |and read gettext MO files



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

[Bug 1336255] Review Request: vim-wiki - A personal wiki For Vim

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336255

Josef Ridky  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bhubb...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(bhubbard@redhat.c
   ||om)



--- Comment #10 from Josef Ridky  ---
Any update?

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

[Bug 1467371] Review Request: perl-Locale-MO-File - Write/ read gettext MO files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467371

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
URL and Source0 addresses are Ok.
Source archive (SHA-256:
49546da656fc8a2bfe4dd23449e05bee085c7c64f0fbdf55d9b97b071dfe186d) is original.
Ok.

TODO: Replace the `Write/read' with `Write and read' in the summary. It looks
more natural.

Description verified from lib/Locale/MO/File.pm. Ok.
License verified in lib/Locale/MO/File.pm and README. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.

FIX: Build-require `sed' (perl-Locale-MO-File.spec:53).
FIX: Build-require `perl(Config)' (perl-Locale-MO-File.spec:54).
FIX: Build-require `perl-interpreter' instead of `perl' per new guidelines.
FIX: Build-require `perl(MooX::Types::MooseLike::Base)' instead of
`perl(MooX::Types::MooseLike)' (lib/Locale/MO/File.pm:14).

Test::Prereq::Build not used. Ok.
Test::Perl::Critic not used. Ok.
All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Locale-MO-File.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Locale-MO-File-0.06-1.fc27.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Locale-MO-File-0.06-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
perl-Locale-MO-File.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gettext -> get text,
get-text, Georgette
perl-Locale-MO-File.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gettext -> get
text, get-text, Georgette
perl-Locale-MO-File.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gettext -> get
text, get-text, Georgette
perl-Locale-MO-File.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gettext ->
get text, get-text, Georgette
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Locale-MO-File-0.06-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jul  4 09:31
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-MO-File
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  626 Jul  4 09:31
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-MO-File/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  703 Jul  4 09:31
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-MO-File/README
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jul  4 09:31
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-MO-File/example
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2347 Jul  4 09:31
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-MO-File/example/11_little_endian.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2712 Jul  4 09:31
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-MO-File/example/12_little_endian_fh.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3062 Jul  4 09:31
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-MO-File/example/13_little_endian_utf-8.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3511 Jul  4 09:31
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-MO-File/example/14_little_endian_fh_utf-8.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2379 Jul  4 09:31
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-MO-File/example/21_big_endian.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2739 Jul  4 09:31
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-MO-File/example/22_big_endian_fh.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3103 Jul  4 09:31
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-MO-File/example/23_big_endian_utf-8.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3542 Jul  4 09:31
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-MO-File/example/24_big_endian_fh_utf-8.pl
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2867 Jul  4 09:31
/usr/share/man/man3/Locale::MO::File.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jul  4 09:31
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Locale
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jul  4 09:31
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Locale/MO
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot16041 Apr 26  2015
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Locale/MO/File.pm
File layout and permissions are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Locale-MO-File-0.06-1.fc27.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.0)
  1 perl(Carp)
  1 perl(charnames)
  1 perl(Const::Fast)
  1 perl(Encode)
  1 perl(English)
  1 perl(IO::File)
  1 perl(Moo) >= 1.003001
  1 perl(MooX::StrictConstructor)
  1 perl(MooX::Types::MooseLike::Base)
  1 perl(namespace::autoclean)
  1 perl(Params::Validate)
  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-Locale-MO-File-0.06-1.fc27.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(Locale::MO::File) = 0.06
  1 perl-Locale-MO-File = 0.06-1.fc27
Binary provides are Ok.

$ resolvedeps f27-build
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Locale-MO-File-0.06-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.

Package builds in F27
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20319260). Ok.

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

[Bug 1365805] Review Request: python-django-graphos - Django app to provide a JS agnostic way to work with charts.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365805

Ondrej Gajdusek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ogajd...@redhat.com



--- Comment #3 from Ondrej Gajdusek  ---
Hello, I am also interested in this.

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

[Bug 1463092] Review Request: python-vulture - Find Dead Code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463092

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  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 1463092] Review Request: python-vulture - Find Dead Code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463092



--- Comment #6 from Matthias Runge  ---
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". 19 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/mrunge/review/1463092-python-vulture/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-vulture , python3-vulture
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section 

[Bug 1467371] Review Request: perl-Locale-MO-File - Write/ read gettext MO files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467371

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 1467527] New: Review Request: perl-MooX-Singleton - Turn your Moo class into singleton

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467527

Bug ID: 1467527
   Summary: Review Request: perl-MooX-Singleton - Turn your Moo
class into singleton
   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-Singleton/perl-MooX-Singleton.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-MooX-Singleton/perl-MooX-Singleton-1.20-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
Role::Tiny role that provides "instance" method turning your object into
singleton.

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 1467253] Review Request: perl-Image-Sane - Perl extension for the SANE (Scanner Access Now Easy) Project

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467253

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Image-Sane-0.12-1.fc27
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-07-04 02:55:23



--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar  ---
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 1432983] Review Request: camotics - Open-Source Simulation & Computer Aided Machining - A 3-axis CNC GCode simulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432983

Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from Lubomir Rintel  ---
Thanks. This looks cool now!

APPROVED

I've also sponsored you into the packager group. You should have gotten the
welcome e-mail by now. You can go ahead and request a repository for the
package in pkgdb, import and build it. Thank you!

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

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

[bugzilla]

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

Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||lkund...@v3.sk



--- Comment #11 from Lubomir Rintel  ---
I've now sponsored Samuel into the packager group. Please go ahead, import and
build the package.

Thank you both!

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