[Bug 1268745] Review Request: rubygem-parser - A Ruby parser written in pure Ruby

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745



--- Comment #3 from Roman Joost  ---
There is quite some stuff going in to the gem dir which I wonder is perhaps out
of your control. I also can't see any guidelines in the wiki. The only missing
piece from approving the package is perhaps that it hasn't packaged the latest
version. Do you want to maybe update the bug with the latest version and I go
over it again?

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

[Bug 1268745] Review Request: rubygem-parser - A Ruby parser written in pure Ruby

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745



--- Comment #2 from Roman Joost  ---
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". 104 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/rjoost/tmp/1268745-rubygem-parser/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/share/gems,
 /usr/share/gems/doc
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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

Ruby:
[-]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
 independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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 rubygem-
 parser-doc
[x]: 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.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
   

[Bug 1424963] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-ibus-font - use to change ibus font style.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424963

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||kaiw...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(kaiw...@redhat.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Any updates here?
If not in next 2 weeks then I will close this review.

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

[Bug 1444562] Review Request: nodejs-babel-messages - Collection of debug messages used by Babel

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444562

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
ah I don't remember why I have this set as fedora-review? instead
fedora-review+

Anyway approving the 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 1442275] Review Request: nodejs-babel-runtime - The babel selfContained runtime

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1442275



--- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Can this be closed?

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

[Bug 1443777] Review Request: nodejs-npm-run-path - Get your PATH prepended with locally installed binaries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443777



--- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Can this be closed?

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

[Bug 1448687] Review Request: nodejs-is-obj - Check if a value is an object

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448687

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(jsmith.fedora@gma
   ||il.com)



--- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Can this be closed?

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

[Bug 1327929] Review Request: gimpfx-foundry - Additional plugins for GIMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327929



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimpfx-foundry-2.6.1-5.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1478705] Review Request: deepin-calendar - Calendar for Deepin Desktop Environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478705



--- Comment #3 from Robin Lee  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2)
> So there a small error: it should be "License: GPLv3+" (and not GPLv3).
> It's possible that this is what you had in mind, but it's not immediately
> obvious
> from what you wrote ;)

Yes, that's the point. And the output fedora-review has sufficient information
to get it, though not very obvious. I hope the submitter can get familiar to
fedora-review and licensecheck, so I did not explain further what these tools
have said.

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

[Bug 1460458] Review Request: upm - A high level library for sensors and actuators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460458

Peter Robinson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



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

[Bug 1479073] New: Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073

Bug ID: 1479073
   Summary: Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify
writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: w...@kobold.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://wart.fedorapeople.org/tcl-tclnagios.spec
SRPM URL: https://wart.fedorapeople.org/tcl-tclnagios-1.3-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: A set of library functions to make it easier to write Nagios
plugins in Tcl.
Fedora Account System Username: wart

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

[Bug 1466844] Review Request: modtools - Utilities for creating and managing modules

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-08-07 17:22:12



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
modtools-0.0.1-4.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 1462465] Review Request: cmatrix - A scrolling 'Matrix'-like screen

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner  ---
https://pagure.io/dist-git-requests/issue/36

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

[Bug 426387] Merge reviews to be completed for F9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426387
Bug 426387 depends on bug 226342, which changed state.

Bug 226342 Summary: Merge Review: python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226342

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG



-- 
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 526126] Review Request: python3 - Python 3.x ( backwards incompatible version)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526126
Bug 526126 depends on bug 226342, which changed state.

Bug 226342 Summary: Merge Review: python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226342

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG



-- 
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 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

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1479027




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479027
[Bug 1479027] Review Request: golang-github-golang-image - Go supplementary
image libraries
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1479027] Review Request: golang-github-golang-image - Go supplementary image libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479027

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1426972




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426972
[Bug 1426972] Review Request: hugo - A Fast and Flexible Static Site
Generator built with love in GoLang
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1479027] New: Review Request: golang-github-golang-image - Go supplementary image libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479027

Bug ID: 1479027
   Summary: Review Request: golang-github-golang-image - Go
supplementary image libraries
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: athoscribe...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/golang-github-golang-image.spec
SRPM URL:
https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/golang-github-golang-image-0-0.1.20170514.git426cfd8.fc26.src.rpm
Description: Go supplementary image libraries
Fedora Account System Username: athoscr

Note that the package does not build due to a failing test,

%gotest %{x_import_path}/font/sfnt

 which requires x/text/encoding/charmap EncodeRune method, from commit
65f4f820a7954b82e5c9325e1e088a4fda098f36 on golang.org/x/text.

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

[Bug 1479022] New: Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022

Bug ID: 1479022
   Summary: Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload
libraries for pwning stuff
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jskar...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/preeny/preeny.spec
SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/preeny/preeny-0.1-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: Preeny helps you pwn noobs by making it easier to interact with
services locally. It disables fork(), rand(), and alarm() and, if you want, can
convert a server application to a console one using clever/hackish tricks, and
can even patch binaries.
Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad

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

[Bug 1432993] Review Request: hd-idle - Spin down idle [USB] hard disks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432993

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ra...@electronsweatshop.com
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #13 from Randy Barlow  ---
Looks good!

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

[Bug 1432993] Review Request: hd-idle - Spin down idle [USB] hard disks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432993



--- Comment #12 from Randy Barlow  ---
Created attachment 1310254
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1310254=edit
review-2.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 1465335] Review Request: python-asn1crypto - Fast Python ASN.1 parser and serializer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465335

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2017-08-04 13:36:10 |2017-08-07 13:21:02



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-asn1crypto-0.22.0-4.fc26, python-cryptography-2.0.2-1.fc26,
python-cryptography-vectors-2.0.2-1.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 1478705] Review Request: deepin-calendar - Calendar for Deepin Desktop Environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478705

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
(In reply to Robin Lee from comment #1)
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>  found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 137 files have
>  unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>  /home/cheese/Public/1478705-deepin-calendar/licensecheck.txt

It's one of those cases where fedora-review output MUST be post-processed
by the reviewer. First of all, the submitter does not have the licensecheck.txt
file, so last sentence is not useful to them. You should edit the comment
to clarify what is wrong.

The License field pertains to the *binary* package
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#Does_the_License:_tag_cover_the_SRPM_or_the_binary_RPM.3F].
And GPLv3 is a very strong license, so when multiple sources are mixed, it's
usual for the result to be covered by GPLv3 and the other licenses to be
irrelevant.

In this case the .c and .h files have headers that specify GPLv3+ as the
license.
So there a small error: it should be "License: GPLv3+" (and not GPLv3).
It's possible that this is what you had in mind, but it's not immediately
obvious
from what you wrote ;)

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

[Bug 1443076] Review Request: java-9-openjdk - OpenJDK Runtime Environment in implementation of java 9 specification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076



--- Comment #41 from Severin Gehwolf  ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #40)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #36)
> > Yah. I noted. Already respined: 
> > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21048132
> 
> BuildError: The following noarch package built differently on different
> architectures: java-9-openjdk-javadoc-zip-9.0.0.181-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
> 
> Not sure what do do about this. Make javadoc-zip archful?

Note that aot is x86_64 Linux only. So that might be the reason why this
happens.

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

[Bug 1443076] Review Request: java-9-openjdk - OpenJDK Runtime Environment in implementation of java 9 specification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076



--- Comment #40 from Severin Gehwolf  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #36)
> Yah. I noted. Already respined: 
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21048132

BuildError: The following noarch package built differently on different
architectures: java-9-openjdk-javadoc-zip-9.0.0.181-1.fc26.noarch.rpm

Not sure what do do about this. Make javadoc-zip archful?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #13 from José Matos  ---
I am the reviewer. :-)

And I was happy to see the discussion.

One note, when you update the spec file you should update the release number.
That helps the reviewer (and is present in the guidelines for submission).
Please do not forget that in a next submission.

For the moment I will review the version that you published in comment #10.

I will send the full review either today or tomorrow morning (UTC FWIW). :-)

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

[Bug 1333933] Review Request: ixpdimm_sw - API for development of IXPDIMM management utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333933

Rutvij Karkhanis  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rutvij.g.karkha...@intel.co
   ||m
 Blocks|1270993 |1478977
 Depends On|1478977 |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478977
[Bug 1478977] The maintainer for ixpdimm_sw has left.
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(athoscribeiro@gma |
   |il.com) |



--- Comment #27 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Thanks for the review, Fabio.

I am working on these fixes. To package the newest version, we need we need
golang.org/x/image/webp packaged. I am working on packaging it and I will open
a new reviwew request ASAP!

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

[Bug 1333933] Review Request: ixpdimm_sw - API for development of IXPDIMM management utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333933

Rutvij Karkhanis  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1478977




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478977
[Bug 1478977] The maintainer for ixpdimm_sw has left.
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1477154] Re-Review Request: meta-test-family - a tool to test components of a modular Fedora

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477154

Tomas Tomecek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review-



--- Comment #6 from Tomas Tomecek  ---
Please fix the source tarball url and all rpmlint warnings and errors. review-
in the meantime


Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- 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.
  Note: License file license.rst is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


= 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: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated", "*No copyright* GPL". 119 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tt/t/mtf-review/1477154-meta-
 test-family/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/base-runtime(modularity-testing-
 framework), /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/base-
 runtime/resources/os_release(modularity-testing-framework),
 /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/multios_testing(modularity-
 testing-framework), /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/testing-module
 (modularity-testing-framework),
 /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/memcached(modularity-testing-
 framework), /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/haproxy(modularity-
 testing-framework), /usr/share/moduleframework/examples(modularity-
 testing-framework), /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/nginx
 (modularity-testing-framework), /usr/share/moduleframework/tools
 (modularity-testing-framework), /usr/share/moduleframework/examples
 /testing-module/modulelint(modularity-testing-framework),
 /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/base-runtime/resources/hello-world
 (modularity-testing-framework), /usr/share/moduleframework/examples
 /testing-module/moduleframework(modularity-testing-framework),
 /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/base-
 runtime/resources/installed_packages(modularity-testing-framework),
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/moduleframework(modularity-testing-
 framework), /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/nginx/html_pages
 (modularity-testing-framework), /usr/share/moduleframework/examples
 /base-runtime/resources(modularity-testing-framework),
 /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/template(modularity-testing-
 framework), /usr/share/moduleframework/docs/api(modularity-testing-
 framework),
 /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/multios_testing/moduleframework
 (modularity-testing-framework),
 /usr/share/moduleframework/docs/user_guide(modularity-testing-
 framework), /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/memcached-behave
 (modularity-testing-framework), /usr/share/moduleframework(modularity-
 testing-framework), /usr/share/moduleframework/tools/modulelint
 (modularity-testing-framework), /usr/share/moduleframework/docs
 (modularity-testing-framework), /usr/share/moduleframework/examples
 /memcached-behave/steps(modularity-testing-framework)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[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 contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on 

[Bug 1477154] Re-Review Request: meta-test-family - a tool to test components of a modular Fedora

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477154

Tomas Tomecek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ttome...@redhat.com



--- Comment #5 from Tomas Tomecek  ---
> Avocado is not yet available as python3 package. We are waiting till it is 
> not supported in Python3. Tha't the reason.

That was not my point. My point was if you wanna have a package
meta-test-family which will include only executables and will require
python2-meta-test-family which will contain all python sources.

Review in-progress.

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

[Bug 1327929] Review Request: gimpfx-foundry - Additional plugins for GIMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327929



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimpfx-foundry-2.6.1-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1478705] Review Request: deepin-calendar - Calendar for Deepin Desktop Environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478705



--- Comment #1 from Robin Lee  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
  contains icons.
  Note: icons in deepin-calendar
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 137 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/cheese/Public/1478705-deepin-calendar/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/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for 

[Bug 1336161] Review Request: golang-github-ThomsonReutersEikon-go-ntlm - Native implementation of NTLM for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336161

cl...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cl...@redhat.com



--- Comment #2 from cl...@redhat.com ---
Can this be pushed? Or do you want to hand it over, Igor?

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

[Bug 1434578] Review Request: gtef - GTK+ Text Editor Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434578



--- Comment #8 from c72...@yahoo.de ---
Some initial review comments:
- This BR is not needed: gcc
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

- The last released version of gtef was 2.0.1 before the rename to Tepl.
Please update spec and src.rpm to this version
https://download.gnome.org/sources/gtef/2.0/gtef-2.0.1.tar.xz

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

[Bug 1434578] Review Request: gtef - GTK+ Text Editor Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434578

c72...@yahoo.de changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c72...@yahoo.de
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #7 from c72...@yahoo.de ---
Taking this review

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

[Bug 1443076] Review Request: java-9-openjdk - OpenJDK Runtime Environment in implementation of java 9 specification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076



--- Comment #39 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #35)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #34)
> > > - Some config files are not in conf: It's likely an upstream issue
> > >   as I see them in lib for an upstream build too. Please report a bug.
> > >   $ rpm -Vv java-9-openjdk-headless | grep ' c ' | grep lib/security
> > > .  c
> > > /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.178-1.fc26.x86_64/lib/security/blacklisted.
> > > certs
> > > .  c
> > > /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.178-1.fc26.x86_64/lib/security/default.
> > > policy
> > > 
> > 
> > If the file is not in expected location, jdk will not find it
> > I can move them to conf and link to original location, but as /etc is still
> > in play, then I would rather not touch it.
> > If you insists, I will move them, and link them.
> 
> My point was that we should ask *upstream* whether or not this is
> intentional. It's one of the odd balls. Everything else is in conf upstream
> already. Thus, we should file a bug/ask upstream whether or not this should
> be in conf upstream. That's all that's to do here. Thank you!

explained:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2017-August/019589.html
> 
> > Config files in etc. I really wont to move them. However it will not be an
> > easy task from point of view of multiple installs and copy-jdk-configs.
> > I would like to not block this review on it. I have already started to work
> > on c-j-c to support this, but there is still some longer way to go.
> 
> OK. This should be fine. I'm glad to hear this will be worked on.
> 

Suport for linked resources added:
https://pagure.io/copy_jdk_configs/commits/master

Now it will need hours and hours of testing.

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

[Bug 1450501] Review Request: xmlrunner - a unittest test runner that can save test results to XML files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450501

Peter Robinson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson  ---
APPROVED

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in

The outpu of licensecheck is clearly wrong, the only assumption is makes is
based
on the contents of the LICENSE file which clearly states the LESSER GPL v3:
GPL (v3)

xmlrunner-1.7.7/LICENSE

Unknown or generated

xmlrunner-1.7.7/README.markdown
xmlrunner-1.7.7/release.sh
xmlrunner-1.7.7/setup.cfg
xmlrunner-1.7.7/setup.py
xmlrunner-1.7.7/xmlrunner/__init__.py
xmlrunner-1.7.7/xmlrunner/extra/djangotestrunner.py
xmlrunner-1.7.7/xmlrunner/tests/test_xmlrunner.py
xmlrunner-1.7.7/xmlrunner/version.py
xmlrunner-1.7.7/xmlrunner/xmlrunner.py


[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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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 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:
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[ ]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in 

[Bug 1392457] Review request: python2 - An interpreted, interactive, object-oriented programming language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392457

Petr Viktorin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 CC||pvikt...@redhat.com
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-08-07 07:04:48



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

[Bug 1434578] Review Request: gtef - GTK+ Text Editor Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434578



--- Comment #6 from c72...@yahoo.de ---
"LaTeXila follows the GNOME versions". With the motivation:
It is easier to know with which GNOME version a certain LaTeXila version was
developed against.
https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/LaTeXila/History

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

[Bug 1434578] Review Request: gtef - GTK+ Text Editor Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434578



--- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember  ---
Fedora 26 has GNOME 3.24 and to match this we'll need to put latexila 3.24.x
there which in turn requires gtef.

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

[Bug 1450212] Review Request: pyowm - Python wrapper library for the OpenWeatherMap

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450212

Peter Robinson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Peter Robinson  ---
APPROVED

Only one small thing to note, the following build req should be
python2-setuptools, just fix before you commit.

BuildRequires:python-setuptools

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.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[-]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[ ]: 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.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python3-pyowm , python2-pyowm
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original 

[Bug 1434578] Review Request: gtef - GTK+ Text Editor Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434578



--- Comment #4 from c72...@yahoo.de ---
Additional info:
The requirements for LaTeXila Release 3.25.1 are fulfilled in F26.
e.g. GtkSourceView >= 3.24
Compilation tests with LaTeXila 3.25.1 and Tepl 2.99.2 under F26 have been OK.

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

[Bug 1478705] Review Request: deepin-calendar - Calendar for Deepin Desktop Environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478705

Robin Lee  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||robinlee.s...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|robinlee.s...@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 1469331] Review Request: fedrepo-req - A CLI tool that provides an easy way to submit ticket requests for packaging tasks in Fedora

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469331



--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System  ---
fedrepo-req-0.5.0-1.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-c14c568838

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

[Bug 1466844] Review Request: modtools - Utilities for creating and managing modules

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
modtools-0.0.1-4.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-b35fa30e5d

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

[Bug 1469331] Review Request: fedrepo-req - A CLI tool that provides an easy way to submit ticket requests for packaging tasks in Fedora

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469331



--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System  ---
fedrepo-req-0.5.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2017-2c0c76ddfe

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

[Bug 1469331] Review Request: fedrepo-req - A CLI tool that provides an easy way to submit ticket requests for packaging tasks in Fedora

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469331



--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System  ---
fedrepo-req-0.5.0-1.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-2017-9af646d738

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

[Bug 1421058] Review Request: deepin-metacity - 2D window manager for Deepin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421058



--- Comment #8 from sensor@gmail.com ---
Diff: 
https://github.com/FZUG/repo/commit/23c189b5fed5a5899dc0150a00e581722795a2ef

:) Thanks, it's not your fault.

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

[Bug 1421058] Review Request: deepin-metacity - 2D window manager for Deepin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421058



--- Comment #7 from sensor@gmail.com ---
Diff: 
https://github.com/FZUG/repo/commit/23c189b5fed5a5899dc0150a00e581722795a2ef

:) Thanks, it's not your not fault.

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

[Bug 1476560] Review Request: deepin-desktop-schemas - GSettings deepin desktop-wide schemas

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476560



--- Comment #5 from sensor@gmail.com ---
Diff: 
https://github.com/FZUG/repo/commit/260e289c3ff55635f076bcf3992895a0d338a1c6

Ok, thanks :)  It deleted.

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

[Bug 1478703] Review Request: perl-Exporter-Easy - Takes the drudgery out of Exporting symbols

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478703

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
The standalone and packaged spec files differ. I will use the standalone one
for this review.

URL and Source0 addresses are Ok.
Source0 archive (SHA-256:
d347b2292ffc6332e5bac1aece73796cb75c1eb4a79b1a4de9c54ab08f1c2565) is original.
OK.
Summary verified from README. Ok.

FIX: The description does not end with a full stop. Please add it.

License verified from README, LICENSE, lib/Exporter/Easy.pm,
lib/Exporter/Easiest.pm. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.

All test pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Exporter-Easy.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Exporter-Easy-0.18-1.fc27.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Exporter-Easy-0.18-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Exporter-Easy-0.18-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Aug  7 08:43
/usr/share/doc/perl-Exporter-Easy
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1967 Nov 11  2015
/usr/share/doc/perl-Exporter-Easy/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot18346 Nov 11  2015
/usr/share/doc/perl-Exporter-Easy/LICENSE
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  379 Nov 11  2015
/usr/share/doc/perl-Exporter-Easy/README
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  110 Nov 11  2015
/usr/share/doc/perl-Exporter-Easy/TODO
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1850 Aug  7 08:43
/usr/share/man/man3/Exporter::Easiest.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3943 Aug  7 08:43
/usr/share/man/man3/Exporter::Easy.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Aug  7 08:43
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Exporter
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2979 Nov 11  2015
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Exporter/Easiest.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot12445 Nov 11  2015
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Exporter/Easy.pm
FIX: Package LICENSE file using %license macro.

$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Exporter-Easy-0.18-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
|sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.0)
  1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.6.0
  1 perl(Exporter)
  1 perl(Exporter::Easy)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(vars)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Exporter-Easy-0.18-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
|sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(Exporter::Easiest) = 0.18
  1 perl(Exporter::Easy) = 0.18
  1 perl-Exporter-Easy = 0.18-1.fc27
Binary provides are Ok.

$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Exporter-Easy-0.18-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.

The package builds in F27
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21083327). Ok.

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

Please correct all `FIX' items before building this package.
Resolution: Package APPROVED.

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

[Bug 1474033] Review Request: ucx - Communication library implementing high-performance messaging

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474033



--- Comment #4 from Andrey Maslennikov  ---
Spec URL:
https://gist.github.com/amaslenn/3c847e0bdc063bcbb4b6507b5efbf6b9/raw/708923dcd5342351cda488fa51cf296091abfac1/ucx.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gist.github.com/amaslenn/3c847e0bdc063bcbb4b6507b5efbf6b9/raw/708923dcd5342351cda488fa51cf296091abfac1/ucx-1.2.0-1.el7.src.rpm

Please 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 1478703] Review Request: perl-Exporter-Easy - Takes the drudgery out of Exporting symbols

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478703

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

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System  ---
ara-0.14.0-1.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-ba5ec558e7

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
cvechecker-3.8-1.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-2017-6b44ef74c4

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

[Bug 1469331] Review Request: fedrepo-req - A CLI tool that provides an easy way to submit ticket requests for packaging tasks in Fedora

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469331

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System  ---
fedrepo-req-0.5.0-1.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-ec7e407fff

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

[Bug 1466844] Review Request: modtools - Utilities for creating and managing modules

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
modtools-0.0.1-4.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-cbdf1db196

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