[Bug 1157996] Review Request: kanboard - Simple visual task board
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157996 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added CC||magjo...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(magjo...@gmail.co ||m) --- Comment #13 from William Moreno --- Any update? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1245255] Review Request: netspy2ban - GUI Networking Tool and Fail2ban Controller
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245255 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(ftsiadimos@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #11 from William Moreno --- Any update 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 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kusumi.tomoh...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(kusumi.tomohiro@g ||mail.com) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1348932] Review Request: bash-git-prompt - An informative and fancy bash prompt for Git users
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348932
--- Comment #6 from William Moreno ---
Please remove this:
%clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}
Sorry for the very late feedback, do you still want to go ahead to get this
package in Fedora?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added CC||williamjmore...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from William Moreno --- Hello I can take care of this review if you still want to become a Fedora packager. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1519906] Review Request: CodeReview - Application to perform code review on local Git repositories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519906 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added CC||williamjmore...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|williamjmore...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from William Moreno --- Hello and thanks for the interest to help with Fedora packaging. Quick check of previus steps to become a packager: Are suscrived at less to the devel-announce and packaging mainling list? Do you have a proper profile in the Fedora Wiki? A self introduction to devel is always nice to see. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1520922] Review Request: extractpdfmark - Extract page mode and named destinations as PDFmark from PDF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520922 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added CC||williamjmore...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|williamjmore...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from William Moreno --- Hello and thanks for the interest to help with Fedora packaging. Quick check of previus steps to become a packager: Are suscrived at less to the devel-announce and packaging mainling list? Do you have a proper profile in the Fedora Wiki? A self introduction to devel is always nice to see. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1065745] Review Request: lltag - tag music files comfortably
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065745 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added CC||williamjmore...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|williamjmore...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #13 from William Moreno --- Hello I can sponsor you as packager if you still want to go ahead with 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 1508324] Review Request: php-icewind-searchdav - A sabre/ dav plugin to implement rfc5323 SEARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508324
William Moreno changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from William Moreno ---
Package Review
==
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
attached diff).
See: (this test has no URL)
No bloquer here but the SPEC url not match the SPEC in the source rpm, please
update this to aprove it.
= 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint
---
Checking: php-icewind-searchdav-0.3.1-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
php-icewind-searchdav-0.3.1-1.fc28.src.rpm
php-icewind-searchdav.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sabre -> saber,
Sabre, sabra
php-icewind-searchdav.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dav -> adv, dab,
av
php-icewind-searchdav.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sabre ->
saber, Sabre, sabra
php-icewind-searchdav.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dav ->
adv, dab, av
php-icewind-searchdav.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autoload
-> auto load, auto-load, tautology
php-icewind-searchdav.noarch: W: invalid-license AGPL
php-icewind-searchdav.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sabre -> saber,
Sabre, sabra
php-icewind-searchdav.src: W: spellin
[Bug 1508332] Review Request: php-icewind-smb2 - php wrapper for smbclient and libsmbclient-php
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508332
William Moreno changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from William Moreno ---
Package Review
==
Not bloquers here, package aproved
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package 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
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: php-icewind-smb2-2.0.3-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
php-icewind-smb2-2.0.3-1.fc28.src.rpm
php-icewind-smb2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) smbclient ->
clientele
php-icewind-smb2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libsmbclient ->
clientele
php-icewind-smb2.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C php wrapper for smbclient
and libsmbclient-php
php-icewind-smb2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US smbclient ->
clientele
php-icewind-smb2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsmbclient
-> clientele
php-icewind-smb2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> API,
pi, ape
php-icewind-smb2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autoload ->
auto load, auto-load, tautology
php-icewind-smb2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) smbclient -> clientele
php-icewind-smb2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libsmbclient ->
clientele
php-icewind-smb2.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C php wrapper for smbclient
and libsmbclient-php
php-icewind-smb2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US smbclient ->
clientele
php-icewind-smb2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsmbclient
[Bug 1526675] Review Request: bench - Command-line benchmark tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526675 --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23718400 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526675] New: Review Request: bench - Command-line benchmark tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526675 Bug ID: 1526675 Summary: Review Request: bench - Command-line benchmark tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//bench.spec SRPM URL: http://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//bench-1.0.7-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Think of this as a more powerful alternative to the 'time' command. Use this command-line tool to benchmark a command using Haskell's 'criterion' library. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526662] Review Request: python3-dns - DNS toolkit for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526662 --- Comment #3 from Avram Lubkin --- Spec is the same, SRPM is https://aviso.fedorapeople.org/python3-dns-1.15.0-5.el7.centos.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526662] Review Request: python3-dns - DNS toolkit for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526662 --- Comment #2 from Avram Lubkin --- Sorry, need to update the SRPM/SPEC, please wait before evaluating -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526429] Review Request: electron-cash - A lightweight Bitcoin Cash client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526429
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Not needed for Fedora > 24:
%post
/usr/bin/update-desktop-database &> /dev/null || :
%postun
/usr/bin/update-desktop-database &> /dev/null || :
- appdata shall now be installed in %{_datadir}/metainfo/:
install -Dpm 644 %{SOURCE3}
%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/metainfo/%{name}.appdata.xml
Check:
%check
appstream-util validate-relax --nonet
%{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/metainfo/*.appdata.xml
And in %files:
%{_datadir}/metainfo/%{name}.appdata.xml
- License "and BSD" → What parts of the code is BSD? Add a comment explaining
the license breakdown.
- Be a bit more specific in %files:
%{python3_sitelib}/electroncash*
%{python3_sitelib}/Electron_Cash-3.0-py?.?.egg-info
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.
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[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]: 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 3 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
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
[Bug 1526208] Review Request: ghc-criterion - Robust, reliable performance measurement and analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526208 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-criterion -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526662] Review Request: python3-dns - DNS toolkit for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526662 --- Comment #1 from Avram Lubkin --- This is to support a Python 3 package for EPEL 7 since the srpm name can't match the RHEL srpm name. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526662] New: Review Request: python3-dns - DNS toolkit for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526662 Bug ID: 1526662 Summary: Review Request: python3-dns - DNS toolkit for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: av...@rockhopper.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-dns/raw/epel7/f/python-dns.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5097/23715097/python3-dns-1.12.0GIT99fd864-1.el7.src.rpm Description: dnspython is a DNS toolkit for Python. It supports almost all record types. It can be used for queries, zone transfers, and dynamic updates. It supports TSIG authenticated messages and EDNS0. Fedora Account System Username: aviso -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1036130] Review request: plv8 - javascript language extension for postgresql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036130
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #32 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Not a review, but:
- Not needed:
%defattr(-,root,root)
- make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build
- make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_install
- Not used anymore:
Group:Applications/Databases
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526200] Review Request: python-tinycss2 - Low-level CSS parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526200 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- 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 1526208] Review Request: ghc-criterion - Robust, reliable performance measurement and analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526208 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- 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 1526214] Review Request: gawk-errno - Errno library for gawk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526214
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[X]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[X]: Package contains no static executables.
[X]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "FSF All Permissive", "Unknown or
generated". 60 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gawk-errno/review-gawk-
errno/licensecheck.txt
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[X]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[8]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[8]: 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.
[8]: 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.
[8]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gawk-
errn
[Bug 1526200] Review Request: python-tinycss2 - Low-level CSS parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526200 --- Comment #2 from Felix Schwarz --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - If you remove the test code, also remove the bytecode produced: good catch :-) > - Be more specific in %files: ok. updated spec/src.rpm (hopefully I did catch everything – quite late here): https://fschwarz.fedorapeople.org/2017/python-tinycss2-0.6.1-2/python-tinycss2.spec https://fschwarz.fedorapeople.org/2017/python-tinycss2-0.6.1-2/python-tinycss2-0.6.1-2.fc27.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1508075] Review Request: golang-github-robertkrimen-otto - A JavaScript interpreter in Golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508075 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-robertkrimen-otto. You may commit to the branch "f27" in about 10 minutes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526208] Review Request: ghc-criterion - Robust, reliable performance measurement and analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526208 --- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- Updated. Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/ghc-criterion.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/ghc-criterion-1.2.6.0-2.fc26.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526208] Review Request: ghc-criterion - Robust, reliable performance measurement and analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526208 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Builds in mock - No rpmlint error Issues: === - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1382400 bytes in 68 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1508068] Review Request: golang-gopkg-readline - Pure golang implementation for GNU-Readline kind library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508068 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-gopkg-readline. You may commit to the branch "f27" in about 10 minutes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1525984] Review Request: python-ruamel-std-pathlib - An improvement over the standard pathlib module and pathlib2 package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1525984 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ruamel-std-pathlib -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1508066] Review Request: golang-github-chzyer-test - Golang test utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508066 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-chzyer-test. You may commit to the branch "f27" in about 10 minutes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1036130] Review request: plv8 - javascript language extension for postgresql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036130 --- Comment #31 from Pavel Raiskup --- I started from bug 1274417 (where pkajaba ended, inspired by pgrpms, thanks!): https://github.com/praiskup/plv8-pkg/blob/master/plv8.spec Build is on [1], but I doubt it works (linking issues expected [2]). I'll have a closer look soon. %v8_arches requested on [3]. [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23714224 [2] https://github.com/plv8/plv8/pull/247#partial-pull-merging [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1526522 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1430476] Review Request: python-xmlrunner - unittest-based test runner with Ant/ JUnit like XML reporting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1430476 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- My bad, I didn't notice this bug. 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 1520572] Review Request: perl-Authen-DecHpwd - DEC VMS password hashing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520572 --- Comment #4 from Sandro Mani --- Looks good as far as I can see, but I need perl-Data-Integer to finish 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 1526200] Review Request: python-tinycss2 - Low-level CSS parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526200
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- If you remove the test code, also remove the bytecode produced:
python3-tinycss2.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/tinycss2/__pycache__/test.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc
python3-tinycss2.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/tinycss2/__pycache__/test.cpython-36.pyc
- Be more specific in %files:
%files -n %{py2_prefix}-%{srcname}
%license LICENSE
%doc CHANGES README.rst
%{python2_sitelib}/%{srcname}/
%{python2_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info/
%if %{with python3}
%files -n %{py3_prefix}-%{srcname}
%license LICENSE
%doc CHANGES README.rst
%{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}/
%{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info/
%endif # with python3
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
(unspecified)". 40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-tinycss2/review-
python-tinycss2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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.
[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
= SHOUL
[Bug 1526132] Review Request: nodejs-immutable - Immutable Data Collections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526132 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- SPEC and SRPM are 404. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1523909] Review Request: kernel-tools - Assortment of tools for the Linux kernel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1523909
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
>> Generic:
>> [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
>
>I'm not sure why this was a failure?
Because it detects "make" without %{?_smp_mflags} (or %make_build), which it
the recommended method unless parallel make makes the build fail.
> Most of these are problems with the package itself. I'd rather fix those up
> later.
At least fix the man pages and bash completion file:
> kernel-tools.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
> /usr/share/man/man8/turbostat.8.gz
> kernel-tools.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
> /usr/share/man/man8/x86_energy_perf_policy.8.gz
> perf.x86_64: E: executable-sourced-script /etc/bash_completion.d/perf 755
Here's a simple patch to fix it:
diff -up linux-4.14/tools/perf/Makefile.perf.fix_executable_perm
linux-4.14/tools/perf/Makefile.perf
--- linux-4.14/tools/perf/Makefile.perf.fix_executable_perm2017-11-12
19:46:13.0 +0100
+++ linux-4.14/tools/perf/Makefile.perf2017-12-15 21:52:16.638189892 +0100
@@ -765,7 +765,7 @@ ifndef NO_LIBPYTHON
endif
$(call QUIET_INSTALL, perf_completion-script) \
$(INSTALL) -d -m 755
'$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(sysconfdir_SQ)/bash_completion.d'; \
-$(INSTALL) perf-completion.sh
'$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(sysconfdir_SQ)/bash_completion.d/perf'
+$(INSTALL) -m 644 perf-completion.sh
'$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(sysconfdir_SQ)/bash_completion.d/perf'
$(call QUIET_INSTALL, perf-tip) \
$(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(tip_instdir_SQ)'; \
$(INSTALL) Documentation/tips.txt -t '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(tip_instdir_SQ)'
diff -up linux-4.14/tools/power/x86/turbostat/Makefile.fix_executable_perm
linux-4.14/tools/power/x86/turbostat/Makefile
--- linux-4.14/tools/power/x86/turbostat/Makefile.fix_executable_perm
2017-11-12 19:46:13.0 +0100
+++ linux-4.14/tools/power/x86/turbostat/Makefile2017-12-15
20:47:32.123941300 +0100
@@ -25,4 +25,4 @@ install : turbostat
install -d $(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/bin
install $(BUILD_OUTPUT)/turbostat $(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/bin/turbostat
install -d $(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/share/man/man8
-install turbostat.8 $(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/share/man/man8
+install -m 644 turbostat.8 $(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/share/man/man8
diff -up
linux-4.14/tools/power/x86/x86_energy_perf_policy/Makefile.fix_executable_perm
linux-4.14/tools/power/x86/x86_energy_perf_policy/Makefile
---
linux-4.14/tools/power/x86/x86_energy_perf_policy/Makefile.fix_executable_perm
2017-11-12 19:46:13.0 +0100
+++ linux-4.14/tools/power/x86/x86_energy_perf_policy/Makefile2017-12-15
20:48:10.671831448 +0100
@@ -24,5 +24,5 @@ install : x86_energy_perf_policy
install -d $(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/bin
install $(BUILD_OUTPUT)/x86_energy_perf_policy
$(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/bin/x86_energy_perf_policy
install -d $(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/share/man/man8
-install x86_energy_perf_policy.8 $(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/share/man/man8
+install -m 644 x86_energy_perf_policy.8 $(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/share/man/man8
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1508075] Review Request: golang-github-robertkrimen-otto - A JavaScript interpreter in Golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508075 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|zebo...@gmail.com |jsmith.fed...@gmail.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 1508068] Review Request: golang-gopkg-readline - Pure golang implementation for GNU-Readline kind library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508068 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- You need to assign the bug to yourself when you review them otherwise fedrepo-req is not happy. Thanks for the reviews. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1508066] Review Request: golang-github-chzyer-test - Golang test utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508066 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|zebo...@gmail.com |jsmith.fed...@gmail.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 1525984] Review Request: python-ruamel-std-pathlib - An improvement over the standard pathlib module and pathlib2 package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1525984 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- All ok, 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 1525984] Review Request: python-ruamel-std-pathlib - An improvement over the standard pathlib module and pathlib2 package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1525984 --- Comment #5 from Jared Smith --- Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/python-ruamel-std-pathlib/python-ruamel-std-pathlib.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/python-ruamel-std-pathlib/python-ruamel-std-pathlib-0.6.3-3.fc28.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1523909] Review Request: kernel-tools - Assortment of tools for the Linux kernel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1523909
--- Comment #6 from Laura Abbott ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
> (In reply to Laura Abbott from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
> >
> > > - Group: is not used anymore in Fedora. See:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
> > >
> >
> > Done
>
> You still have Group: fields in the subpackages.
>
Done
>
> - You shouldn't use both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Choose one on
> another.
>
Done, used the standard %{buildroot} macro
> - You should have a dependency to python2-devel or python3-devel, not
> python-devel.
>
Done
> - perl-Carp → perl(Carp)
>
Done
> - perl → perl-interpreter
>
Done
> - Notice the typo:
>
> %{?systemd_requres}
> BuildRequires: systemd
>
> → %{?systemd_requires}.
>
Done
> - You should own the following directories:
>
> [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/traceevent, /usr/share/perf-core
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/traceevent,
> /usr/share/perf-core,
>
> You should probably fix your %files like this:
>
> %files -n perf
> %{_bindir}/perf
> %dir %{_libdir}/traceevent
> %{_libdir}/traceevent/plugins/
> %{_libexecdir}/perf-core/
> %{_datadir}/perf-core/
>
Done
> - Use global instead of %define which is deprecated
>
Done (mostly a holdover from the kernel which needs to be fixed up)
> - You're missing the URL: field in the header
>
Done
> - Plenty of files are marked executable when they shouldn't be:
>
> kernel-tools.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
> /usr/share/man/man8/turbostat.8.gz
> kernel-tools.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
> /usr/share/man/man8/x86_energy_perf_policy.8.gz
> perf.x86_64: E: executable-sourced-script /etc/bash_completion.d/perf 755
>
> All of these should probably not be marked as executables:
>
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/perl/Perf-Trace-Util/lib/Perf/Trace/Context.pm
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/perl/Perf-Trace-Util/lib/Perf/Trace/Core.pm
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/perl/Perf-Trace-Util/lib/Perf/Trace/Util.pm
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/perl/check-perf-trace.pl
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/perl/failed-syscalls.pl
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/Perf-Trace-Util/lib/Perf/Trace/Core.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/Perf-Trace-Util/lib/Perf/Trace/
> EventClass.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/Perf-Trace-Util/lib/Perf/Trace/
> SchedGui.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/Perf-Trace-Util/lib/Perf/Trace/Util.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/check-perf-trace.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/compaction-times.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/event_analyzing_sample.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/export-to-postgresql.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/export-to-sqlite.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/failed-syscalls-by-pid.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/futex-contention.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/intel-pt-events.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/net_dropmonitor.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/netdev-times.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/sctop.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/stackcollapse.py
> perf.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/stat-cpi.py /usr/bin/env python
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/syscall-counts-by-pid.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/scripts/python/syscall-counts.py
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/tests/attr/README
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/tests/attr/base-record
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/tests/attr/base-stat
> perf.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/libexec/perf-core/tests/attr/test-record-C0
> perf.x86_64: E: script-with
[Bug 1516328] Review Request: rubygem-guard-compat - Tools for developing Guard compatible plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1516328 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-guard-compat -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1517000] Review Request: rubygem-notiffany - Notifier library ( extracted from Guard project)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1517000 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-notiffany -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526091] Package Review: add python-sushy to Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526091 Nate Potter changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nathaniel.pot...@intel.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 1526091] Package Review: add python-sushy to Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526091 --- Comment #1 from Nate Potter --- Up to date spec and srpm: Spec: https://github.com/ntpttr/sushy-fedora/blob/master/python-sushy.spec SRPM: https://github.com/ntpttr/sushy-fedora/blob/master/python-sushy-1.2.0-1.fc27.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1525984] Review Request: python-ruamel-std-pathlib - An improvement over the standard pathlib module and pathlib2 package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1525984
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
> As for the %py2_install/%py3_install macros, I attempted to use those
> originally, but they failed with the following error:
>
> + /usr/bin/python2 setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root
> /home/jsmith/Build/BUILDROOT/python-ruamel-std-pathlib-0.6.3-2.fc28.x86_64
> error: you have to install with "pip install ."
> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.qH8GI7 (%install)
>
> I'd appreciate any help figuring out why that's failing. (I'm no expert at
> setup.py, but it appears that it throws that message if the
> "--single-version-externally-managed" isn't passed in.)
>
I tried %py2_install/%py3_install in my initial review too to see why you
didn't use them and had the same error, but now reading the source code, it
appears you can use an environment variable to bypass the check:
%install
RUAMEL_NO_PIP_INSTALL_CHECK=1 %py2_install
%if %{with python3}
RUAMEL_NO_PIP_INSTALL_CHECK=1 %py3_install
%endif
- Be more specific in %files:
%files -n python2-%{pname}
%license LICENSE
%doc README.rst
%{python2_sitelib}/ruamel/
%{python2_sitelib}/ruamel.std.pathlib-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info/
%{python2_sitelib}/ruamel.std.pathlib-%{version}-py?.?-nspkg.pth
%if %{with python3}
%files -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pname}
%license LICENSE
%doc README.rst
%{python3_sitelib}/ruamel/
%{python3_sitelib}/ruamel.std.pathlib-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info/
%{python3_sitelib}/ruamel.std.pathlib-%{version}-py?.?-nspkg.pth
%endif
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1520569] Review Request: perl-Crypt-UnixCrypt_XS - Perl xs interface for a portable traditional crypt function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520569 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Crypt-UnixCrypt_XS. You may commit to the branch "f27" in about 10 minutes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526018] Review Request: bolt - Thunderbolt system daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526018 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bolt. You may commit to the branch "f27" in about 10 minutes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1520569] Review Request: perl-Crypt-UnixCrypt_XS - Perl xs interface for a portable traditional crypt function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520569
Sandro Mani changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Sandro Mani ---
All good, approved.
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.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: 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
Perl:
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.
= 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.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildr
[Bug 1525570] Review Request: python-pew - Tool to manage multiple virtualenvs written in pure python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1525570 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||boche...@daitauha.fr, ||mhron...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok --- (This happened to me as well sometimes, please don't forget to check next time Michal.) What I see: * Michal's package is newer version, runs tests, has LICENSE file. * Mathieu's package has better name for an app, doesn't do the not necessary subpackages dance. (But it IMO wrongly provides python-pew and doesn't use prescribed python_provide macro). I suggest the best way would be to merge what's better in both and make both Michal and Mathieu the maintainers (possibly with Python SIG). Would that work for both of you? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1520569] Review Request: perl-Crypt-UnixCrypt_XS - Perl xs interface for a portable traditional crypt function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520569
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #4)
> Is %{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/* actually required? I've never seen it used
> before.
>
It's the default of cpanspec, didn't cause any issue with my previous perl
approved packages.
> As far as I see
>
> Requires: perl(Exporter)
> Requires: perl(XSLoader)
>
> don't need to be explicitly specified since they are correctly picked up by
> perl-generators.
>
> Rest looks good.
Fixed:
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/f40ee52/perl-Crypt-UnixCrypt_XS.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/ravada/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00688032-perl-Crypt-UnixCrypt_XS/perl-Crypt-UnixCrypt_XS-0.11-1.fc28.src.rpm
SPEC diff:
https://github.com/eclipseo/packaging/commit/f40ee5284c45c5f82978238e8c5eea3b2740ba0f#diff-067baa564667abca482cba81b6e45f2b
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1036130] Review request: plv8 - javascript language extension for postgresql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036130 --- Comment #30 from Devrim GÜNDÜZ --- Hi, I think the community spec file is in a good shape, and can be adjusted for Fedora pretty easily: https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=pgrpms.git;a=blob;f=rpm/redhat/master/plv8/master/plv8.spec;h=5802e15d9966f7c051d4bc976a22d7da351ec225;hb=HEAD Regards, Devrim -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1520569] Review Request: perl-Crypt-UnixCrypt_XS - Perl xs interface for a portable traditional crypt function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520569
--- Comment #4 from Sandro Mani ---
Is %{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/* actually required? I've never seen it used
before.
As far as I see
Requires: perl(Exporter)
Requires: perl(XSLoader)
don't need to be explicitly specified since they are correctly picked up by
perl-generators.
Rest 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 1526071] Review Request: nodejs-call-delayed - Like setTimeout, but with arguments reversed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526071 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2017-12-15 11:27:22 --- Comment #6 from Jared Smith --- In rawhide, closing 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 1508075] Review Request: golang-github-robertkrimen-otto - A JavaScript interpreter in Golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508075
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith ---
Package is approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 141 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jsmith/Documents/Personal/Reviews/1508075-golang-github-
robertkrimen-otto/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/gocode/src,
/usr/share/gocode, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com
[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.
[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.
[-]: 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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[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).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang-
github-robertkrimen-otto-devel , golang-github-robertkrimen-otto-unit-
test-devel
[x]: 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
transla
[Bug 1487067] Review Request: Botan, a C++11 crypto and TLS library, version 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487067 --- Comment #15 from Benjamin Kircher --- FWIW, packages updated to new upstream 2.3.0 release. New/updated files: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bkircher/botan2-fedora/master/botan2.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/bkircher/botan2-fedora/raw/master/botan2-2.3.0-1.fc27.src.rpm New Copr builds are also available: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/bkircher/botan2/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1525984] Review Request: python-ruamel-std-pathlib - An improvement over the standard pathlib module and pathlib2 package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1525984 --- Comment #3 from Jared Smith --- The only version of EPEL I'm really interested in at this point is EPEL 7, so I was following the proposed EPEL 7 python packaging guidelines at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts:Python3EPEL, with more explanation at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3 As for the %py2_install/%py3_install macros, I attempted to use those originally, but they failed with the following error: + /usr/bin/python2 setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root /home/jsmith/Build/BUILDROOT/python-ruamel-std-pathlib-0.6.3-2.fc28.x86_64 error: you have to install with "pip install ." error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.qH8GI7 (%install) I'd appreciate any help figuring out why that's failing. (I'm no expert at setup.py, but it appears that it throws that message if the "--single-version-externally-managed" isn't passed in.) Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/python-ruamel-std-pathlib/python-ruamel-std-pathlib.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/python-ruamel-std-pathlib/python-ruamel-std-pathlib-0.6.3-2.fc28.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1514274] Review Request: twitter-twemoji-fonts - Twitter Emoji for everyone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1514274 --- Comment #12 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to Peng Wu from comment #8) > (In reply to Jeremy Bicha from comment #7) > > Why don't you package nototools separately? You are using an embedded copy > > of nototools to build google-noto-emoji-fonts and emojitwo-fonts (in COPR, > > not yet in Fedora). > > > The problem is that nototools can't by installed when we package, > the upstream didn't tell when the tools can be installed. > > If we package nototools separately, it will only install > some symbolic links of the scripts and can't run when we package it. That sounds like the upstream build system is broken. If this is the case, we should fix 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 1514208] Review Request: ghc-gi-ggit - Libgit2-glib bindings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1514208 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-gi-ggit-1.0.1-2.fc27 ghc-gi-ostree-1.0.5-2.fc27 ghc-gi-gio-2.0.14-2.fc27 ghc-gi-gobject-2.0.15-2.fc27 ghc-gi-glib-2.0.15-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-45a416515a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1514208] Review Request: ghc-gi-ggit - Libgit2-glib bindings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1514208 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526071] Review Request: nodejs-call-delayed - Like setTimeout, but with arguments reversed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526071 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs-call-delayed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526480] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtcharts - Qt5 for Windows - QtCharts component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526480 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1236286 CC||bugzi...@terrortux.de --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mani --- *** Bug 1526387 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1236286 [Bug 1236286] QSerialPort part of Qt is missing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526479] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtserialport - Qt5 for Windows - Qt Serial Port component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526479 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugzi...@terrortux.de --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mani --- *** Bug 1236286 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 1526481] New: Review Request: mingw-twaindsm - TWAIN Data Source Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526481 Bug ID: 1526481 Summary: Review Request: mingw-twaindsm - TWAIN Data Source Manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-twaindsm.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-twaindsm-2.4.0-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: TWAIN Data Source Manager Fedora Account System Username: smani -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526480] New: Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtcharts - Qt5 for Windows - QtCharts component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526480 Bug ID: 1526480 Summary: Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtcharts - Qt5 for Windows - QtCharts component Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-qt5-qtcharts.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-qt5-qtcharts-5.9.3-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Qt5 for Windows - QtCharts component Fedora Account System Username: smani -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526479] New: Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtserialport - Qt5 for Windows - Qt Serial Port component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526479 Bug ID: 1526479 Summary: Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtserialport - Qt5 for Windows - Qt Serial Port component Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-qt5-qtserialport.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-qt5-qtserialport-5.9.3-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Qt5 for Windows - Qt Serial Port component Fedora Account System Username: smani -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526071] Review Request: nodejs-call-delayed - Like setTimeout, but with arguments reversed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526071 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Jared Smith --- Requested package in ticket https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/3558 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1036130] Review request: plv8 - javascript language extension for postgresql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036130 Pavel Raiskup changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|pkaj...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #29 from Pavel Raiskup --- (In reply to John Griffiths from comment #28) > Any progress one this? I think upstream moved forward a bit. Pavel Kajaba is not in team anymore, so let's find some other maintainer. 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 1526429] Review Request: electron-cash - A lightweight Bitcoin Cash client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526429 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |electron-cash - A |electron-cash - A |lightweight Bitcoin Client |lightweight Bitcoin Cash ||client -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526429] Review Request: electron-cash - A lightweight Bitcoin Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526429 --- Comment #2 from Jonny Heggheim --- Updated spec file to include Cash in summary + fixed date/version in changelog -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526429] Review Request: electron-cash - A lightweight Bitcoin Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526429 --- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim --- Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23703367 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526429] New: Review Request: electron-cash - A lightweight Bitcoin Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526429 Bug ID: 1526429 Summary: Review Request: electron-cash - A lightweight Bitcoin Client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: heg...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/electron-cash.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/electron-cash-3.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jonny Description: Electron Cash is an easy to use Bitcoin Cash client. It protects you from losing coins in a backup mistake or computer failure, because your wallet can be recovered from a secret phrase that you can write on paper or learn by heart. There is no waiting time when you start the client, because it does not download the Bitcoin block chain. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1522917] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Loops - Perl module for looping constructs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1522917 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Algorithm-Loops-1.032-1.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-f5d200ddd4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1525706] Review Request: enchant2 - An Enchanting Spell Checking Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1525706 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- enchant2-2.2.0-2.fc27, mingw-enchant2-2.2.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-36fc2c0fb9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1525707] Review Request: mingw-enchant2 - MinGW Windows enchant2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1525707 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- enchant2-2.2.0-2.fc27, mingw-enchant2-2.2.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-36fc2c0fb9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1522917] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Loops - Perl module for looping constructs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1522917 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Algorithm-Loops-1.032-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-a9b144da91 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1525860] Review Request: naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts - Nanum Gothic Coding family of Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1525860 --- Comment #2 from Peng Wu --- Please review it again, thanks! Spec URL: https://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts/naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts/naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts/naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts/naver-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts-2.000-9.fc27.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526018] Review Request: bolt - Thunderbolt system daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526018 Yanko Kaneti changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|yan...@declera.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Yanko Kaneti --- Name is sensible and doesn't conflict Files don't conflict License matches source Builds in mock 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
