[Bug 1445923] Review Request: streameye - Simple MJPEG streamer for Linux

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445923

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
 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 1438090] Review Request: GetIt - Application to send HTTP requests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438090

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Hm, what happened here?

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

[Bug 1451298] Review Request: vertex-theme - Vertex is a theme for GTK 3, GTK 2, Gnome-Shell and Cinnamon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451298

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
> Requires:   filesystem
Not needed, it's implied (as Jan said above).

Sorry to be such a stickler for this, ... but ... the %description is still
terribly indented. Why can't you just press alt-q in emacs (or the equivalent
in your editor of choice) to wrap the text automatically?

OK, the package is good.

> Can you tell me what do I need to do now, in order to proceed?

I'll sponsor you. Please review some other packages (two or three). See the
second part of my comment #c3 (but note that I pasted the wrong bug number
there, #1421506 is a tough review for a compiler, so not something for a first
review). Pick something from
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html that you interests you,
once you get the packager bit you can finalize the review.


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 1421506] Review Request: smlnj - Standard ML of New Jersey

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421506



--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Maybe you should offer a review swap on fedora-devel? This seems to be a pretty
tough review, so people need extra motivation ;)

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

[Bug 1421506] Review Request: smlnj - Standard ML of New Jersey

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421506

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
 Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)  |



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Ah, the DEAD-REVIEW flag got carried over from the other bug. Sorry for that.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449
[Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter
response should be blocking this 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 1449328] Review Request: zfp - Library for compressed numerical arrays with high throughput R/ W random access

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1449328

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Those files have very generic names:
/usr/include/bitstream.h
/usr/include/cache.h
/usr/include/memory.h
In fact, glibc has memory.h, so this package would break stuff.
Dunno, ideally upstream would move all header files to /usr/include/zfp/
(except for /usr/include/zfp.h).

There are tests, you could run them in %check.

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

[Bug 1462465] Review Request: cmatrix - A scrolling 'Matrix'-like screen

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462465

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 #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
> Suggests:console-setup
Doesn't this duplicate functionality provided by kbd and
systemd-vconsole-setup? Are you sure it's still useful?

> Suggests:aterm
> Suggests:xterm
Both of those are very old, and work badly on hidpi screens. Are they better
than the default terminal emulators?

Braces around the %post and %postun scriptlets are unneeded.

+ package name is OK
+ license is acceptable (GPLv2+)
+ license is specified correctly
+ builds and installs and runs OK
+ scriptlets are sane
+ provides/requires/buildrequires look OK

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 1468949] Review Request: python3-greenlet - Lightweight in-process concurrent programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468949



--- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python3-greenlet

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

[Bug 1468949] Review Request: python3-greenlet - Lightweight in-process concurrent programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468949



--- Comment #9 from Michel Alexandre Salim  ---
Thanks Dominik! Will do.

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

[Bug 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



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
manifest-tool-0.6.0-3.gita28af2b.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-2017-38e46e1e68

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

[Bug 1426962] Review Request: nodejs-net-browserify-alt - A port of the net module for the browser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426962

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-net-browserify-alt-1.1.0-1.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-2017-3c658315da

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

[Bug 1471294] New: Review Request: c-icap - HTTP proxy ICAP server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471294

Bug ID: 1471294
   Summary: Review Request: c-icap - HTTP proxy ICAP server
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: or...@cora.nwra.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/c-icap.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/c-icap-0.5.2-1.fc26.src.rpm

Description:
c-icap is an implementation of an ICAP server. It can be used with HTTP
proxies that support the ICAP protocol to implement content adaptation and
filtering services.

Most of the commercial HTTP proxies must support the ICAP protocol. The open
source Squid 3.x proxy server supports it.

Fedora Account System Username: orion

c-icap.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups /usr/bin/c-icap
- need to ping upstream about this

c-icap.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/c-icap.magic.default
c-icap.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/c-icap.conf.default
c-icap.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/c-icap 0775L
- These are intentional

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

[Bug 1468949] Review Request: python3-greenlet - Lightweight in-process concurrent programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468949

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #8 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
The package looks good now. I have one final nitpick which you can fix when
importing: you have the

%global modname greenlet

macro, but you don't use it in %prep:

%setup -q -n greenlet-%{version}

or in %files:
%files -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-greenlet
%license LICENSE LICENSE.PSF
%doc AUTHORS NEWS README.rst
%doc doc/greenlet.txt benchmarks
%{python3_sitearch}/greenlet.cpython-%{python3_version_nodots}m.so
%{python3_sitearch}/greenlet-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info

%files -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-greenlet-devel
%license LICENSE LICENSE.PSF
%doc AUTHORS NEWS README.rst
%{_includedir}/python%{python3_version}m/greenlet

Please use the macro consistently or drop it. Anyway, the 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 1420931] Review Request: tripleo-repos - repo management tool for tripleo

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1420931



--- Comment #5 from Ben Nemec  ---
The initial RDO import has merged: https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/6882/

I've updated the spec and srpm based on the changes requested in that review:
https://fedorapeople.org/~bnemec/tripleo-repos.spec
https://fedorapeople.org/~bnemec/tripleo-repos-0.0.1.dev26-9.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphsLib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757



--- Comment #8 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Hi Fabio,

Thanks for the revoew. Sorry for not running rpmlint before submitting the
package for review.

I am applying a patch to remove the shebangs, as suggested. I also opened a PR
upstream to remove them, which was already merged [1]

Elliot, thanks for the link! Again, if you guys think I should for some reason,
I would not oppose to change the URLs to fetch sources from pypi (although I
always see packagers with conflicting opinions here for python packages).

Here are the new sources:

Spec URL: https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/python-glyphsLib.spec
SRPM URL:
https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/python-glyphsLib-1.7.5-2.fc25.src.rpm

This is the rpmlint output now [2]

[1] https://github.com/googlei18n/glyphsLib/pull/198


[2]
python2-glyphsLib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glyphs ->
glyph, glyph s
python3-glyphsLib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glyphs ->
glyph, glyph s
python3-glyphsLib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glyphs2ufo
python-glyphsLib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glyphs -> glyph,
glyph s
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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 1376635] Review Request: ostrichriders - Knights flying on ostriches compete against other riders

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376635



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
ostrichriders-0.6.4-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0de7a42c6d

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

[Bug 1376635] Review Request: ostrichriders - Knights flying on ostriches compete against other riders

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376635

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 1426972] Review Request: hugo - A Fast and Flexible Static Site Generator built with love in GoLang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426972



--- Comment #17 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Thanks Jan, for updating the packages!!!

Dusty,

There is a last failing test due to problems with converting the markdown files
to html. I am still trying to track what is missing here (probably another
dependency in the wrong version), any help is welcome at this point :)

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



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
manifest-tool-0.6.0-3.gita28af2b.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-b093304055

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

[Bug 1468830] Review Request: abbayedesmorts-gpl - Platform game set in 13th century

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468830



--- Comment #11 from Andrea Musuruane  ---
(In reply to Iwicki Artur from comment #10)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #9)
> > It's a specific request for games:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games/Packaging
> Oh, I haven't seen that before. Actually, now that I read it, I probably
> have to fix one of my packages. Thanks!

Actually the Games Packaging Guidelines should be amended. They were written a
long before the Group tag was dropped. Games Packaging Guidelines must not
conflict with Fedora Packaging Guidelines.

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

[Bug 1426972] Review Request: hugo - A Fast and Flexible Static Site Generator built with love in GoLang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426972



--- Comment #16 from Dusty Mabe  ---
Not signing up to do the review but would like to point out that this doesn't
build in koji right now (maybe you already knew that since you mentioned
failing tests).

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20528635

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

[Bug 1426193] Review Request: ara - Ansible Run Analysis, Record and visualize Ansible Playbook runs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426193



--- Comment #34 from Dusty Mabe  ---
so we have passed review and now just need this in dist-git and built?

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
manifest-tool-0.6.0-4.gita28af2b.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-bef4cbcf4b

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-vulture-0.14-3.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 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 #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-cznic-zappy-0-0.1.20160723.git2533cb5.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 1468830] Review Request: abbayedesmorts-gpl - Platform game set in 13th century

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468830



--- Comment #10 from Iwicki Artur  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #9)
> It's a specific request for games:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games/Packaging
Oh, I haven't seen that before. Actually, now that I read it, I probably have
to fix one of my packages. Thanks!

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

[Bug 1470447] Review Request: php-robrichards-xmlseclibs3 - A PHP library for XML Security (version 3)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470447



--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/php-robrichards-xmlseclibs3

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

[Bug 1376635] Review Request: ostrichriders - Knights flying on ostriches compete against other riders

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376635



--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/ostrichriders

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-cznic-zappy-0-0.1.20160723.git2533cb5.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 1465884] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-lex - Support for (f) lex-like tool on .l source files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465884



--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini  ---
koji scratch build on rawhide (minus currently failing golang builds on ppc64,
which should get fixed / be fixed already):
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20526094

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

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

Zdenek Dohnal  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(dkas...@redhat.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #26 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
Package Review
==

ISSUES
==
- no owner of /usr/share/fonts
- misspelling (spec file l.235 - it -> if)
- too long descriptions in several subpackages
- maybe issue - fonts seems to be still not recognized as fonts (I cannot see
them by fontforge)
- maybe issue - messages during install process (previous comment)

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: "AGPL (v3)", "*No copyright* AGPL (v3)", "Unknown or
 generated". 70 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/zdohnal/repo_upstream/urw-base35-fonts/review-
 urw-base35-fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fonts
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[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.
[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]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[!]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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
   

[Bug 1465881] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-lexer - Run time generator of action less scanners written in Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465881



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-cznic-lexer-0-0.1.20141211.git52ae786.fc26 has been submitted as
an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-102c0b9625

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

[Bug 1465881] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-lexer - Run time generator of action less scanners written in Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465881

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 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #25 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
Issue when installing package (in Fedora 26) - IMO there shouldn't be any
messages:

$ sudo dnf -y install *.rpm
Last metadata expiration check: 0:08:41 ago on Fri 14 Jul 2017 05:44:47 PM
CEST.
Dependencies resolved.

 Package  Arch   Version RepositorySize

Installing:
 urw-base35-c059-fontsnoarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 667 k
 urw-base35-d05l-fontsnoarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline  50 k
 urw-base35-fonts noarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 6.9 k
 replacing  urw-fonts.noarch 3:2.4-23.fc26
 urw-base35-fonts-common  noarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline  19 k
 urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts  noarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 613 k
 urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fontsnoarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 630 k
 urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts noarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 508 k
 urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts  noarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 499 k
 urw-base35-p052-fontsnoarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 725 k
 urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts noarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline  39 k
 urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts noarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 637 k
 urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts  noarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 483 k
 urw-base35-z003-fontsnoarch 20160926-1.fc26 @commandline 197 k

Transaction Summary

Install  13 Packages

Total size: 5.0 M
Installed size: 7.6 M
Running transaction check
Transaction check succeeded.
Running transaction test
Transaction test succeeded.
Running transaction
  Preparing:1/1 
  Installing   : urw-base35-fonts-common-20160926-1.fc26.noarch1/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-c059-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch  2/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-c059-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch  2/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-d05l-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch  3/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-d05l-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch  3/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.no4/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.no4/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noar5/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noar5/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarc6/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarc6/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts-20160926-1.fc27/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts-20160926-1.fc27/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-p052-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch  8/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-p052-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch  8/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts-20160926-1.fc9/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts-20160926-1.fc9/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarc   10/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarc   10/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch   11/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch   11/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-z003-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch 12/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-z003-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch 12/14 
  Installing   : urw-base35-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch  13/14 
  Obsoleting   : urw-fonts-3:2.4-23.fc26.noarch   14/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-fonts-3:2.4-23.fc26.noarch   14/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-c059-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch 14/14
<< Mentioned Issue>>
Unknown Type 1 weight "Bold Italic"
Couldn't determine weight for P052-BoldItalic.t1
Unknown Type 1 weight "Oblique"
Couldn't determine weight for NimbusSans-Oblique.t1
No protocol specified
xset:  unable to open display ":0"
<>
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-d05l-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch 14/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.no   14/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noar   14/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarc   14/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts-20160926-1.fc2   14/14 
  Running scriptlet: urw-base35-p052-fonts-20160926-1.fc26.noarch 14/14 
  Running scriptlet: 

[Bug 1468830] Review Request: abbayedesmorts-gpl - Platform game set in 13th century

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468830



--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Iwicki Artur from comment #8)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7)
> 
> > - Spec file group: 'Group: Amusements/Games' missing
> The packaging guidelines say the Group: tag should not be used.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

It's a specific request for games:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games/Packaging

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

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840

Zdenek Dohnal  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(zdoh...@redhat.co |
   |m)  |



--- Comment #24 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
Output of rpmlint tests: 

- too long description in several packages

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.src.rpm 
urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking
urw-base35-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) distributable ->
distributed, distributive, attributable
urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10
seconds)
urw-base35-fonts.src: W: no-%build-section
urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking-url
http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/fonts/urw-base35-20160926.zip (timeout
10 seconds)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) distributable ->
distributed, distributive, attributable
urw-base35-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10
seconds)
urw-base35-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-c059-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout
10 seconds)
urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-d05l-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This package
contains D05L font family, which is part of Level 2 Core Font Set.
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-fonts-common-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-fonts-common.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-fonts-common.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-fonts-common.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains Nimbus Mono PS font family, which is part of Level 2 Core Font
Set.
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url
https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains Nimbus Roman font family, which is part of Level 2 Core Font
Set.
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains Nimbus Sans font family, which is part of Level 2 Core Font
Set.
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint -v urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains Nimbus Sans Narrow font family, which is part of Level 2 Core
Font Set.

[Bug 1376635] Review Request: ostrichriders - Knights flying on ostriches compete against other riders

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376635



--- Comment #7 from Andrea Musuruane  ---
Dennis, can you go on with the process and make an SCM admin request?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process

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

[Bug 1468665] Review Request: gsettings-qt - QML bindings for GSettings

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468665



--- Comment #4 from Robin Lee  ---
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/qt5
 The devel subpackage should require qt5-qtbase-devel%{?isa}

[!]: The commented line of SOURCE0 should be removed

[!]: The comment of downloading source should be removed.

[!]: Macros in comment:
 # %global _qt5_qmldir %{_qt5_archdatadir}/qml

[!]: %{_qt5_qmldir}/GSettings.1.0/ should go to the base package.
 That means for the whole directory tree of %{_qt5_qmldir}/GSettings.1.0/

[!]: The Release: tag is still bad, follow:
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#More_complex_versioning
 It should be something like: 0.0.20170714bzr83%{?dist}

[!]: 'QT' should be 'Qt'.

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

[Bug 1431745] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-lldb - Low-level database engine implementation in Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431745



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-cznic-lldb-1.1.0-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-64d943080f

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

[Bug 1433757] Review Request: python-glyphsLib - A bridge from Glyphs source files to UFOs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433757



--- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Package Review
==

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


=   ISSUES   =

__init__.py and __main__.py contain a python shebang (in the case of
python3-glyphsLib, even the wrong one) - see rpmlint output. You might want to
patch those two files to remove the shebangs in those two files.

(It seems the %python_provide macro is doing case-insentive stuff, but
there's nothing we can do about that (see Provides lists below).)

Besides the one issue I pointed out, the package looks good.


= 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]: 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.
[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.
[-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: 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.
[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 

[Bug 1468665] Review Request: gsettings-qt - QML bindings for GSettings

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468665



--- Comment #3 from Zamir SUN  ---
Thanks for the review

SPEC URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/gsettings-qt/gsettings-qt.spec
Updated
SRPM URL:
https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/gsettings-qt/gsettings-qt-0-0.r83.fc25.src.rpm

> [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> Note: No known owner of /usr/include/qt5/QGSettings
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/qt5/QGSettings,
> /usr/include/qt5
I did not see this when I run fedora-review on my machine. I tried to fix it
but not sure if it is fixed on your end or not.
> [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
I have justification in the SPEC file as comment. Not sure why this fails.
> [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
Commented in the SPEC already. This will always fail in parallel make. So I
write a comment in SPEC and use make 

> [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
> architectures.
Failed on big endian machines. Excluded the two arch in spec now.
> [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
> Note: Mock build failed
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
Again, unfortunately mock build passed on my machine. And RPM lint do not
complain any hidden file. Not sure why this happens, or how can I reproduce
this.

Others should already fixed.

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

[Bug 1428202] Review Request: sirikali - GUI front end to encfs,cryfs, gocryptfs and securefs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428202

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(dwrobel@ertelnet.
   ||rybnik.pl)



--- Comment #12 from Raphael Groner  ---
Damiam, are you still interested in continueing with this review? If yes,
please set fedora-review flag.

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

[Bug 1471156] New: Review Request: berry - Modern and light image viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471156

Bug ID: 1471156
   Summary: Review Request: berry - Modern and light image viewer
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mgans...@online.de
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/berry.spec
SRPM URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/berry-1.0.0-1.fc26.src.rpm

Description: %description
Berry is a modern and new image viewer which is focusing on User interface.
Berry is trying to provide an easy to use and touch screen compatible user
interface.
Fedora Account System Username: martinkg

%changelog
* Fri Jul 14 2017 Martin Gansser  - 1.0.0-1
- Initial release

rpmlint -i -v berry.spec /home/martin/rpmbuild/SRPMS/berry-1.0.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
/home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/berry-1.0.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
/home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/berry-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
berry.spec: I: checking
berry.spec: I: checking-url
http://aseman.co/downloads/berry/1/berry-1.0.0-src.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
berry.src: I: checking
berry.src: I: checking-url http://aseman.co/en/ (timeout 10 seconds)
berry.src: I: checking-url
http://aseman.co/downloads/berry/1/berry-1.0.0-src.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
berry.x86_64: I: checking
berry.x86_64: I: checking-url http://aseman.co/en/ (timeout 10 seconds)
berry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary berry
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

berry-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
berry-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://aseman.co/en/ (timeout 10
seconds)
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

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

[Bug 1470580] Review Request: rubygem-factory_girl - Framework and DSL for defining and using model instance factories

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470580

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||rubygem-factory_girl-4.8.0-
   ||1.fc27
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-07-14 09:40:23



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



--- Comment #10 from Hannes Frederic Sowa  ---
Sorry for the late reply. I was on the road for some time.

(In reply to Dave Love from comment #9)
> Of course you can use the changes.  I don't think it's necessary to
> attribute changes from a review, and they're not copyright-significant.
> 
> Have you seen the discussion on fedora-devel about un-versioned bundled
> provides?

I just added your patch to the spec file and refreshed the source rpm as well
the spec file in its initial location.

Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~hsowa/datamash.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~hsowa/datamash-1.1.1-1.fc25.src.rpm

F26: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20521975
F25: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20521994
EPEL7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20522005
rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20522110

I couldn't figure out which target is for epel6. :/

What do you think?

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

[Bug 756780] Review Request: xosd - On-screen display library for X

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756780



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
xosd-2.2.14-24.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-203bf9e58e

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

[Bug 756780] Review Request: xosd - On-screen display library for X

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756780

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||h...@galaxy.forbanna.net



--- Comment #11 from Petr Pisar  ---
*** Bug 1471023 has been marked as a duplicate of this 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 1431743] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-zappy - Block-based compression format implementation in Go

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-cznic-zappy-0-0.1.20160723.git2533cb5.fc26 has been pushed to the
Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it
in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1467995] Review Request: python-slackclient - Slack Developer Kit for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467995

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-07-14 09:23:10



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-slackclient-1.0.6-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1470980] Review Request: python-abclient - Python client library for EISOO AnyBackup API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470980



--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-abclient

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

[Bug 1451298] Review Request: vertex-theme - Vertex is a theme for GTK 3, GTK 2, Gnome-Shell and Cinnamon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451298



--- Comment #9 from Thanos Apostolou  ---
Spec URL:
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/thanosapostolou/vertex-theme/vertex-theme.git/plain/vertex-theme.spec

SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/thanosapostolou/vertex-theme/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00579400-vertex-theme/vertex-theme-20170128-5.fc27.src.rpm

Sorry for delay, I was quite busy the last month. I changed the
--prefix=%{_prefix} and I added my name to changelog. Can you tell me what do I
need to do now, in order to proceed?

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

[Bug 1268360] Review Request: rubygem-simple_oauth - Simply builds and verifies OAuth headers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268360



--- Comment #19 from Pavel Valena  ---
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #18)
> The dist tag doesn't really matter, since the SRPM will be imported into
> dist-git at the end. What matters if the package builds/works in Rawhide,
> that is why it is good practice to attach link to the Koji scratch build to
> prove it.

True.

But I do my own scratch-builds and mock-builds for every review so I do not
mind look at any attached anyway. From my POV it's good to know that packager
builds and tests the package on Rawhide and not on F26.

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

[Bug 1468830] Review Request: abbayedesmorts-gpl - Platform game set in 13th century

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468830



--- Comment #8 from Iwicki Artur  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7)

> - Spec file group: 'Group: Amusements/Games' missing
The packaging guidelines say the Group: tag should not be used.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

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



--- Comment #10 from Stephen Gallagher  ---
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 1471056] New: Review Request: postsrsd - Sender Rewriting Scheme (SRS ) daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471056

Bug ID: 1471056
   Summary: Review Request: postsrsd - Sender Rewriting Scheme
(SRS) daemon
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: d...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://gitlab.com/osas/osas-infra-team-rpm-pkg/blob/master/postsrsd/postsrsd.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/duck/osas-infra-team-rpm-repo/epel-7-x86_64/00573099-postsrsd/postsrsd-1.4_a77bf99-2.el7.centos.src.rpm
Description: PostSRSd is used to mitigate strict SPF settings (like done by Red
Hat) in order to allow forwarding from a custom domain. For example
myn...@example.com aliases to exam...@redhat.com would fail. PostSRSd rewrites
addresses similarly to mailing-lists softwares to allow this.
Fedora Account System Username: duck


Quack,

This package is not present in the distribution ans no other ticket was found.

The package builds well and works well too. Also despite the fact the last
build failed on Copr, the previous one worked fine and the spec file did not
change between the two (just added documentation in the repo), so there is most
probably a bug on Copr's side.

This software relies on a modified version of libsrs2
(http://www.libsrs2.org/download.html) which is unmaintained since 2014. I did
not reach out postsrsd upstream yet. Having a new maintainer for libsrs2 and
building postsrsd with it would be much better but that's a lot of work outside
the scope of this package.

Regards.

\_o<

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

[Bug 1468830] Review Request: abbayedesmorts-gpl - Platform game set in 13th century

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468830



--- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande  ---
- Linker flags are not honored (see '$ rpm --eval %__global_ldflags')

- Spec file group: 'Group: Amusements/Games' missing

-  tags do not provide licenses like that in the SPEC file.

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.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "*No copyright* GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 60 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/sagitter/1468830-abbayedesmorts-gpl/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 235520 bytes in 10 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
 desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 abbayedesmorts-gpl-debuginfo
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 

[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 #9 from Nick Clifton  ---
(In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #8)

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

Doh!  Sorry about that.  This should now be fixed.

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 1470980] Review Request: python-abclient - Python client library for EISOO AnyBackup API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470980

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge  ---
looks good now, 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 1470980] Review Request: python-abclient - Python client library for EISOO AnyBackup API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470980



--- Comment #3 from Chandan Kumar  ---
Hello Matthias,

Thanks for the review.
Here is the updated
SPEC: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-abclient.spec
SRPM:
https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-abclient-0.2.3-2.fc26.src.rpm
Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20517592

Thanks,

Chandan Kumar

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

[Bug 1470980] Review Request: python-abclient - Python client library for EISOO AnyBackup API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470980

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@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 1470980] Review Request: python-abclient - Python client library for EISOO AnyBackup API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470980

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||mru...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
 (v2.0)". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
 in /home/mrunge/review/1470980-python-abclient/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: 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.
[!]: 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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-abclient , python3-abclient
[?]: 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
 

[Bug 1268360] Review Request: rubygem-simple_oauth - Simply builds and verifies OAuth headers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268360



--- Comment #18 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Pavel Valena from comment #16)
> (In reply to Ilya Gradina from comment #14)
> > Thx, for review.
> > 
> > I have a few questions.
> > 
> > 1. "Use Fedora 27 dist tag to create srpm"
> >   - Why can not I use 26?
> 
> Fedora 27 is current rawhide version. Previously 26 was correct, but now
> it's currently release so it's eligible for updates only AFAIK.

The dist tag doesn't really matter, since the SRPM will be imported into
dist-git at the end. What matters if the package builds/works in Rawhide, that
is why it is good practice to attach link to the Koji scratch build to prove
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 1470580] Review Request: rubygem-factory_girl - Framework and DSL for defining and using model instance factories

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470580

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
   ||/show_bug.cgi?id=640627



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

[Bug 640627] Review Request: rubygem-factory_girl - Framework and DSL for defining and using model instance factories

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640627

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
   ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1470580



-- 
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 1470580] Review Request: rubygem-factory_girl - Framework and DSL for defining and using model instance factories

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470580



--- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Pavel Valena from comment #1)
> Package Review
> ==
>  - Will you be unretiring the package in two commits? The first one being
> spec file checkout to 533041868174e19827d4a7374333f20e4b0f377d.

I am not sure about this yet. It depends how the repository will look. I might
do just `fedpkd import` at the end.

>  - Is there any reason for inclusion of `cucumber.yml`?

Good question. But I keep the file as I keep gemfiles, Rakefile, etc. But will
reconsider this prior import.

>  - I'd recommend you to use %{gem_name} in `%exclude
> %{gem_instdir}/factory_girl.gemspec`

I am not big fan of this. It does not provide any benefit to use the macro on
this place. If the package was renamed in the future, this would be the
smallest change ...


Thx 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 1470980] Review Request: python-abclient - Python client library for EISOO AnyBackup API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470980

Jeremy Liu  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||liujion...@163.com



--- Comment #1 from Jeremy Liu  ---
Thank you, Chandan

We need this installed as dependency by OpenStack karbor, and we need this
landed
for this patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/480806/

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

[Bug 1421413] Review Request: sysusage - System monitoring based on perl, rrdtool, and sysstat

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421413



--- Comment #10 from Marek Cermak  ---
Thanks, Frank, for quick response and Jaroslav, for addressing another issues
and additional comments. 

(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #2)
> (In reply to Marek Cermak from comment #1)
> > - Consider putting content of Web App into /usr/share/%{name} instead of
> > /var/www/
> >
> Probably OK, bug 1028722.

Checked the bug 1028722 /var/www is considered acceptable, no need to change
it.


(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #4)
> (In reply to Marek Cermak from comment #1)
> >   file /etc/cron.d is not owned by any package
> 
> False positive, the package requires crontabs which requires /etc/cron.d,
> which is provided by cronie, i.e. the dependency is fulfilled.

I've checked the /etc/cron* , it is indeed false positive. 


(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #3)
> Also I think the license tag should be GPLv3+, not GPLv3.

Agreed, it would be wiser to specify GPLv3+ in the license tag since
licensecheck states the 6 files to be GPLv3 or later.

(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #7)
> (In reply to Marek Cermak from comment #1)
> > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> >  Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
> >  sysusage-common , sysusage-httpd , sysusage-rsysusage
> 
> False positive, noarch packages, no %{?_isa} is needed.

Right. I beat the gun there.

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

[Bug 1470980] New: Review Request: python-abclient - Python client library for EISOO AnyBackup API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470980

Bug ID: 1470980
   Summary: Review Request: python-abclient - Python client
library for EISOO AnyBackup API
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: chkumar...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-abclient.spec
SRPM URL:
https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-abclient-0.2.3-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: Abclient is a python library for EISOO AnyBackup APIs. It is a
client 
library for EISOO AnyBackup APIs. It allows openstack karbor to 
create backups for databases and file systems.
Fedora Account System Username: chandankumar
successful Scratch Build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20516105

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

[Bug 1308488] Review Request: mediaconch - Most relevant technical and tag data for video and audio files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308488



--- Comment #8 from Vasiliy Glazov  ---
Spec URL:
http://raw.githubusercontent.com/RussianFedora/mediaconch/master/mediaconch.spec
SRPM URL:
http://koji.russianfedora.pro/kojifiles/work/tasks/3661/53661/mediaconch-17.06-1.fc27.src.rpm

Updated to 17.06.

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

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465889
Bug 1465889 depends on bug 1468861, which changed state.

Bug 1468861 Summary: Review Request: dtksettings - DtkSettings is a powerful 
tool to generate config from json
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468861

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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

[Bug 1421047] Review Request: deepin-tool-kit - Base development tool of all C++/ Qt Developer work on Deepin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421047
Bug 1421047 depends on bug 1468861, which changed state.

Bug 1468861 Summary: Review Request: dtksettings - DtkSettings is a powerful 
tool to generate config from json
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468861

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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

[Bug 1468861] Review Request: dtksettings - DtkSettings is a powerful tool to generate config from json

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468861

Felix Yan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-07-14 03:15:43



--- Comment #13 from Felix Yan  ---
Thanks 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 1321449] Review Request: python-sshtunnel - SSH tunnels to remote server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321449

Marek Cermak  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



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