[Bug 1529824] Review Request: awx - AWX, Ansible Management GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529824 --- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa --- This package spec is terribly broken, and doesn't follow *any* of the packaging guidelines at all. Please review the guidelines and rework the spec accordingly: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529824] Review Request: awx - AWX, Ansible Management GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529824 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Component|Package Review |Package Review Version|epel7 |rawhide Product|Fedora EPEL |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 1528781] Review Request: mpfr - multiple-precision floating-point computations [needs sponsor]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1528781 --- Comment #4 from James Paul Turner --- I forgot the Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23945790 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1528781] Review Request: mpfr - multiple-precision floating-point computations [needs sponsor]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1528781 --- Comment #3 from James Paul Turner --- Michael. Thank you for your feedback. I have initiated the unresponsive packager procedure: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529827 I have also made changes to the specfile which hopefully fix the previous issues. Furthermore, I have also updated MPFR to the just-released version 4.0.0. Specfile: https://jamesturner246.fedorapeople.org/mpfr-4.0.0/mpfr.spec SRPM: https://jamesturner246.fedorapeople.org/mpfr-4.0.0/mpfr-4.0.0-1.fc28.src.rpm Do respond if any issues remain - it is appreciated. All the best, James. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529758] Review Request: paper-icon-theme - Modern freedesktop icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529758 Carl George changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Carl George --- Thanks for those extra details. I'm happy with each of those responses, so 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 1529788] Review Request: spirv-headers - Header files from the SPIR-V registry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529788 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|besse...@fedoraproject.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Taken. =) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529789] Review Request: spirv-tools - API and commands for processing SPIR-V modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529789 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|besse...@fedoraproject.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Taken. =) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529758] Review Request: paper-icon-theme - Modern freedesktop icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529758
--- Comment #4 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
(In reply to Carl George from comment #3)
> The package requires adwaita-icon-theme, gnome-icon-theme, and
> hicolor-icon-theme. Why is that?
This is because the icon theme inherits from them in the following order:
Adwaita ---> Gnome ---> Hicolor
See: https://github.com/snwh/paper-icon-theme/blob/master/Paper/index.theme
`Inherits=Adwaita,gnome,hicolor`
For this reason all three need to be present and thus I've added those explicit
Requires for them.
> The giturl macro is only used once. That's a pet peeve of mine, so I
> personally would remove the macro and just insert the url into Source0.
Mhh… Personal preference, I'd say… I like to keep lines short.
> Just a suggestion, not required. That said, Source0 doesn't follow the
> recommend format for GitHub tag tarballs [1]. Please change it to:
> https://github.com/snwh/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Same here. The guidelines say 'For the source tarball, you *can* use the
following syntax'. The syntax I'm using here works that way since 5 years and
actually reflects the original link as provided on github.
> I think only the LICENSE file should be marked %license [2]. AUTHORS should
> be marked with %doc. I don't think COPYING should be included, as it
> appears to just be a brief summary of the actual license. If you still want
> to include it, it should probably be marked as %doc as well.
I'll move COPYING to %%doc during import…
About the AUTHORS file I really disagree, since we're dealing with a CC-BY-SA
license here, which means, we need to attribute all authors. When the file is
in %%doc, it is not guaranteed to be installed (and thus the authors are not
properly attributed). One could omit installation of %%doc by adding
`--nodocs` to dnf command or `--excludedocs` to rpm command.
The AUTHORS file is generally a culprit depending on the underlying license of
the sources; some licenses *require* it to be guaranteed to be present in the
'binary' package, e.g. BSD, CC-BY-SA, ISC, NCSA.
> The scriptlet example in the icon cache guidelines [3] runs touch before
> gtk-update-icon-cache in %postun, but your %postun just runs
> gtk-update-icon-cache. After contemplating it, I think the example is
> incorrect because that directory won't exist at that point. I don't think
> any action is needed for this, I just wanted to check and see if you
> understood this the same way I do.
Yes… The example in the guidelines refers to hicolor icons. Since those are
almost always present, it is required to modify the mtime of that directory to
sth. more recent then the generated icon-cache when things change, so
gtk-update-icon-cache will rebuild the cache with the changed (added / removed)
icons in that dir.
For this package things are different as you already pointed out, I agree.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529824] Review Request: awx - AWX, Ansible Management GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529824 --- Comment #2 from Martin Juhl --- INFO: Currently, AWX does not build on Fedora, so it's not possible to push this into Rawhide for testing... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529824] Review Request: awx - AWX, Ansible Management GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529824 --- Comment #1 from Martin Juhl --- Install instructions are available here: https://github.com/MrMEEE/awx-build/blob/master/installguide -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529824] Review Request: awx - AWX, Ansible Management GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529824 Martin Juhl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@casalogic.dk Component|Package Review |Package Review Version|rawhide |epel7 Product|Fedora |Fedora EPEL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529824] New: Review Request: awx - AWX, Ansible Management GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529824 Bug ID: 1529824 Summary: Review Request: awx - AWX, Ansible Management GUI Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@casalogic.dk QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mrmeee/awx/epel-7-x86_64/00687852-awx/awx-build.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mrmeee/awx/epel-7-x86_64/00687852-awx/awx-1.0.2.0-3.el7.centos.src.rpm Description: AWX, Ansible Management GUI Fedora Account System Username: mrmeee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529758] Review Request: paper-icon-theme - Modern freedesktop icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529758
--- Comment #3 from Carl George ---
This package looks good to me overall, but I have questions/comments about a
few minor things.
The package requires adwaita-icon-theme, gnome-icon-theme, and
hicolor-icon-theme. Why is that?
The giturl macro is only used once. That's a pet peeve of mine, so I
personally would remove the macro and just insert the url into Source0. Just a
suggestion, not required. That said, Source0 doesn't follow the recommend
format for GitHub tag tarballs [1]. Please change it to:
https://github.com/snwh/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
I think only the LICENSE file should be marked %license [2]. AUTHORS should be
marked with %doc. I don't think COPYING should be included, as it appears to
just be a brief summary of the actual license. If you still want to include
it, it should probably be marked as %doc as well.
The scriptlet example in the icon cache guidelines [3] runs touch before
gtk-update-icon-cache in %postun, but your %postun just runs
gtk-update-icon-cache. After contemplating it, I think the example is
incorrect because that directory won't exist at that point. I don't think any
action is needed for this, I just wanted to check and see if you understood
this the same way I do.
[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Tags
[2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
[3]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Icon_Cache
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529789] New: Review Request: spirv-tools - API and commands for processing SPIR-V modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529789 Bug ID: 1529789 Summary: Review Request: spirv-tools - API and commands for processing SPIR-V modules Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: leigh123li...@googlemail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/spirv-tools/1/spirv-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/spirv-tools/1/spirv-tools-2016.7-0.1.20170518.git7c8da66.fc26.src.rpm Description: The package includes an assembler, binary module parser, disassembler, and validator for SPIR-V. Fedora Account System Username: leigh123linux -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529788] New: Review Request: spirv-headers - Header files from the SPIR-V registry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529788 Bug ID: 1529788 Summary: Review Request: spirv-headers - Header files from the SPIR-V registry Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: leigh123li...@googlemail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/spirv-headers/1/spirv-headers.spec SRPM URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/spirv-headers/1/spirv-headers-1.2-0.1.20170516.git63e1062.fc26.src.rpm Description: Header files from the SPIR-V registry Fedora Account System Username: leigh123linux -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529785] Review Request: python-pypillowfight - Various image processing algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529785 --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23945530 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529785] New: Review Request: python-pypillowfight - Various image processing algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529785 Bug ID: 1529785 Summary: Review Request: python-pypillowfight - Various image processing algorithms 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: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//python-pypillowfight.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//python-pypillowfight-0.2.2-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Library containing various image processing algorithms: Automatic Color Equalization, Unpaper's algorithms, Stroke Width Transformation, etc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529784] New: Review Request: shyaml - YAML for command line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529784 Bug ID: 1529784 Summary: Review Request: shyaml - YAML for command line Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: till.hofm...@posteo.de QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/shyaml.spec SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/shyaml-0.5.0-2.fc27.src.rpm Description: Simple scripts that allow read access to YAML files through command line. This can be handy, if you want to get access to YAML data in your shell scripts. This scripts supports only read access and it might not support all the subtleties of YAML specification. But it should support some handy basic query of YAML file. Fedora Account System Username: thofmann -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529402] Review Request: python3-docker-pycreds - Python bindings for the docker credentials store API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529402 --- Comment #1 from Carl George --- I noticed a minor typo in my changelog. -* Wed Dec 27 2017 Carl George 0.2.1-1 +* Wed Dec 27 2017 Carl George - 0.2.1-2 That doesn't really warrant bumping the release and uploading a new SRPM, but I'll definitely correct it before uploading to distgit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529758] Review Request: paper-icon-theme - Modern freedesktop icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529758 Carl George changed: What|Removed |Added CC||carl@george.computer Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|carl@george.computer Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529230] Review Request: python-pyinsane2 - Python library to access and use image scanners (Linux /Windows/etc)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529230 --- Comment #4 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Since some of the previous reviews have already been done, I'm just giving a short update on packages, that are still waiting for a review. wlroots: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529352 paper-icon-theme: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529758 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1515701] Review Request: diceware - It will create passphrases which one can remember
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1515701 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- diceware-0.9.3-3.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-2017-5701a7c419 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1084007] Review Request: google-roboto-fonts - Google Roboto fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084007 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- google-roboto-fonts-2.138-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-30d4a534b6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1470635] Review Request: glslang - OpenGL and OpenGL ES shader front end and validator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470635 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: === - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ---> False positive - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: glslang-devel. Does not provide -static: glslang-devel. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries ---> This is argueable, but since this is a compiler it is fine this way. = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1249 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/vm_shared/fedora/review/1470635-glslang/licensecheck.txt ---> Please add ASL-2.0 to License tag. [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. ---> Please document the licensing breakdown in the spec file. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/.build-id(python- libxml2, libmad, cups-client, efivar-libs, netcdf, rsyslog, policycoreutils-python-utils, qemu-block-gluster, rpm-plugin-selinux, abrt, ghc-transformers, libimagequant, giflib, libreoffice- graphicfilter, trousers, libdb-utils, tracker-miners, xorg-x11-font- utils, OpenEXR-libs, libcom_err, libseccomp, arprec, openblas- openmp64_, p11-kit, libabw, gtkspell, libvirt-daemon-driver-storage- iscsi, libmodman, xdotool, ghc-semigroups, cfitsio, argyllcms, parted, gnome-disk-utility, libdvdread, zstd, bluez-libs, libwebp, libxslt, system-config-printer-udev, perl-Encode, elfutils, python2-cryptography, libevdev, libgpg-error, lvm2-libs, libchromaprint, perl-Digest-SHA, libzstd, gtk-murrine-engine, xdg- desktop-portal-gtk, ghc-mmorph, lua-lpeg, symlinks, openbox-libs, libcdr, cdparanoia-libs, e2fsprogs-libs, pulseaudio-libs, lcms2, qemu- guest-agent, ntfs-3g, libxcb, freexl, libyubikey, sssd-common-pac, openconnect, rtkit, xcb-util-keysyms, orc, m4, libgphoto2, cdparanoia, xcb-util, libwmf-lite, python3-coverage, anaconda-widgets, http- parser, java-1.8.0-openjdk, pulseaudio-utils, libeot, ImageMagick-c++, systemd-bootchart, uniconvertor, python3-scipy, ghc-old-time, ncurses- libs, libidn2, ldns, libreport-plugin-logger, gnome-color-manager, fcoe-utils, xorg-x11-xkb-utils, python-setproctitle, NetworkManager- openvpn, libxkbfile, hplip-libs, libwvstreams, ghc-binary, xmlrpc-c-client, sane-backends-drivers-cameras, python3-hawkey, libwpd, libdc1394, libvirt-daemon-driver-qemu, perl-Time-HiRes, ghc- filemanip, qemu-block-ssh, libwps, gssdp, ghc-zlib, libacl, xorg-x11 -drv-ati, libSM, policycoreutils, mcelog, abrt-plugin-bodhi, libgdiplus, libmusicbrainz5, ghc-unix, pptp, sane-backends-drivers- scanners, libXxf86misc, foomatic, minizip, colord-gtk, dbus-x11, libpath_utils, libicu-devel, rpm-build, wodim, libcangjie, libglvnd- gles, rpm-plugin-systemd-inhibit, setroubleshoot, freeglut, gstreamer1, gmime30, ccache, dbus-libs, cinnamon-screensaver, libreoffice-gtk3, libreoffice-gtk2, optipng, librtmp, cairo-gobject, gnome-screenshot, libkkc, gutenprint, openal-soft, usermode, ghc-SHA, cinnamon-desktop, qpdf-libs, linux-atm-libs, libedit, ghc-hashable, chrpath, openssl, python3-cair
[Bug 1411151] Review Request: cinnamon-themes - Collection of the best themes available for Cinnamon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411151 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|ERRATA |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- cinnamon-3.6.7-3.el7, cinnamon-themes-2017.06.20-4.el7, mint-themes-1.5.0-1.el7, mint-themes-gtk3-3.18+17-1.el7, mint-y-theme-1.2.3-1.el7, slick-greeter-1.1.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-6e4a7b572e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529555] Review Request: mint-themes - Mint themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529555 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- cinnamon-3.6.7-3.el7, cinnamon-themes-2017.06.20-4.el7, mint-themes-1.5.0-1.el7, mint-themes-gtk3-3.18+17-1.el7, mint-y-theme-1.2.3-1.el7, slick-greeter-1.1.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-6e4a7b572e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529559] Review Request: mint-themes-gtk3 - Mint themes for GTK3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529559 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- cinnamon-3.6.7-3.el7, cinnamon-themes-2017.06.20-4.el7, mint-themes-1.5.0-1.el7, mint-themes-gtk3-3.18+17-1.el7, mint-y-theme-1.2.3-1.el7, slick-greeter-1.1.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-6e4a7b572e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1411154] Review Request: mint-y-theme - The Mint-Y theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411154 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- cinnamon-3.6.7-3.el7, cinnamon-themes-2017.06.20-4.el7, mint-themes-1.5.0-1.el7, mint-themes-gtk3-3.18+17-1.el7, mint-y-theme-1.2.3-1.el7, slick-greeter-1.1.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-6e4a7b572e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529516] Un-retirement Review Request: mint-y-theme - The Mint-Y theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529516 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- cinnamon-3.6.7-3.el7, cinnamon-themes-2017.06.20-4.el7, mint-themes-1.5.0-1.el7, mint-themes-gtk3-3.18+17-1.el7, mint-y-theme-1.2.3-1.el7, slick-greeter-1.1.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-6e4a7b572e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023 --- Comment #7 from David Carlos --- (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #6) > (In reply to David Carlos from comment #5) > > (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #4) > > > > - Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream > > > > uses > > > > MIT. > > > > I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as > > > > BSD, > > > > but the LICENSE file is MIT. > > > > I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear > > > > a bit inconsistent to me. > > > > > > > [!]: 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)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or > > > > generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have > > > > unknown > > > > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > > > > /home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python- > > > > validators/licensecheck.txt > > > > > > Well, there is very little difference in these licenses. On Pypi the > > > package is distributed as BSD licensed… That's why I didn't complain > > > about > > > it. > > > > > > The only real difference between those two licenses is: BSD *requires* > > > you > > > to redistribute the license file, MIT does not (It just recommends 'shall > > > be' to do it). > > > > > > For a Fedora package this difference is not relevant, since we require to > > > redistribute the license file along with the SRPM and the binary RPMs by > > > our > > > guidelines. > > > > > > > We are packaging a license file containing a MIT license description, but > > the license spec field defines the license as BSD. If this is relevant or > > not, I really don't know, but is inconsistent. In my point of view this is > > not a packaging problem, but was a decision made by the upstream (in my > > opinion, a inconsistent decision) that is making the license spec field and > > the license file be different. > > Then that *should* be discussed with upstream and changed in a new release > of the package… As I said, it is not a packaging problem, but is a problem that is interfering in how the packaging was made. > > > > > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > > > > > > I don't get the reason, why the package doesn't comply to the additional > > > Python guidelines… > > > > William should use the python macros defined on the guidelines, as I pointed > > on the review. > > Mhh… 'should' != 'must' and thus doesn't violate the guidelines. Or is my > logic wrong here? The fedora-review tool not fills this item automatically. Is a reviewer decision if using or not a macro violates the python guidelines. On the guidelines is not explicit defined that not using macros is a violation, but is a rule that I, as a reviewer, always follow. If there is a macro for something, use it. So, for me this is a packaging rule and I should have said 'must' instead of 'should'. In any case, this is a informal review so he can decides by him self this question. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529758] Review Request: paper-icon-theme - Modern freedesktop icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529758 --- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- === Updated package === Scratch build: Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23944844 EPEL7:https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23944846 Urls: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/paper-icon-theme.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/paper-icon-theme-1.4.0-0.2.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 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023 --- Comment #6 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- (In reply to David Carlos from comment #5) > (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #4) > > > - Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream uses > > > MIT. > > > I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as BSD, > > > but the LICENSE file is MIT. > > > I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear > > > a bit inconsistent to me. > > > > > [!]: 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)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or > > > generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have unknown > > > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > > > /home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python- > > > validators/licensecheck.txt > > > > Well, there is very little difference in these licenses. On Pypi the > > package is distributed as BSD licensed… That's why I didn't complain about > > it. > > > > The only real difference between those two licenses is: BSD *requires* you > > to redistribute the license file, MIT does not (It just recommends 'shall > > be' to do it). > > > > For a Fedora package this difference is not relevant, since we require to > > redistribute the license file along with the SRPM and the binary RPMs by our > > guidelines. > > > > We are packaging a license file containing a MIT license description, but > the license spec field defines the license as BSD. If this is relevant or > not, I really don't know, but is inconsistent. In my point of view this is > not a packaging problem, but was a decision made by the upstream (in my > opinion, a inconsistent decision) that is making the license spec field and > the license file be different. Then that *should* be discussed with upstream and changed in a new release of the package… > > > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > > > > I don't get the reason, why the package doesn't comply to the additional > > Python guidelines… > > William should use the python macros defined on the guidelines, as I pointed > on the review. Mhh… 'should' != 'must' and thus doesn't violate the guidelines. Or is my logic wrong 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 1529758] Review Request: paper-icon-theme - Modern freedesktop icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529758 --- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Scratch build: Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23944517 EPEL7:https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23944531 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529167] Review Request: python-parso - Parser that supports error recovery and round-trip parsing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529167 --- Comment #5 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- There is a new package waiting for review, since the others have already been done in the meantime… https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529758 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529758] New: Review Request: paper-icon-theme - Modern freedesktop icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529758 Bug ID: 1529758 Summary: Review Request: paper-icon-theme - Modern freedesktop icon theme Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: besse...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Description: Paper is a modern freedesktop icon theme whose design is based around the use of bold colours and simple geometric shapes to compose icons. Each icon has been meticulously designed for pixel-perfect viewing. While it does take some inspiration from the icons in Google's Material Design, some aspects have been adjusted to better suit a desktop environment. Issues: fedora-review shows no obvious issues. FAS-User: besser82 Urls: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/paper-icon-theme.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/paper-icon-theme-1.4.0-0.1.fc28.src.rpm Thanks for review in advance! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529705] Review Request: adapta-backgrounds - A wallpaper collection for adapta-project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529705
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leigh123li...@googlemail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|leigh123li...@googlemail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from leigh scott ---
APPROVED
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "CC by-sa (v3.0)", "CC by-sa (v4.0)", "Unknown or generated".
11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/leigh/Desktop/1529705-adapta-backgrounds/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gnome-background-
properties(desktop-backgrounds-basic), /usr/share/mate-background-
properties(desktop-backgrounds-basic)
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to pr
[Bug 1529593] Review Request: adapta-gtk-theme - An adaptive Gtk+ theme based on Material Design Guidelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529593
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leigh123li...@googlemail.co
||m
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|leigh123li...@googlemail.co
||m
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from leigh scott ---
APPROVED
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "CC by-sa (v4.0)", "Unknown or generated".
447 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/leigh/Desktop/1529593-adapta-gtk-theme/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the packa
[Bug 1529167] Review Request: python-parso - Parser that supports error recovery and round-trip parsing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529167
--- Comment #4 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
(In reply to Carl George from comment #3)
> > You shoudn't greedy-glob there, since you might own the `__pycache__`
> > directory
>
> I don't necessarily disagree, but I duplicated that part from the example
> spec file in the guidelines. How do we go about getting the guidelines
> updated?
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file
Well, the guidelines were written in times before Python 3.4 (or 3.3?), which
introduced the `__pycache__` dir… We can try to get them updated, but FPC
seems to be pretty unresponsive in the last time… If I find the time during
the naxt days, I'll write a proposal for that.
> > Please fix `%{undefined rhel}` ---> `%{!?rhel}` during import!
>
> What is the issue here? The undefined macro exists to make that type of
> condition more readable. It's built into RPM (defined in
> /usr/lib/rpm/macros) and exists as far back as RHEL 5 (perhaps even further).
Ohh… I didn't know that existed. I've said nothing then. ;)
> I'll be happy to review your packages, but it might have to wait until next
> week unless I can find some time this afternoon.
Yay! =)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023 --- Comment #5 from David Carlos --- (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #4) > > - Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream uses > > MIT. > > I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as BSD, > > but the LICENSE file is MIT. > > I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear > > a bit inconsistent to me. > > > [!]: 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)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or > > generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have unknown > > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > > /home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python- > > validators/licensecheck.txt > > Well, there is very little difference in these licenses. On Pypi the > package is distributed as BSD licensed… That's why I didn't complain about > it. > > The only real difference between those two licenses is: BSD *requires* you > to redistribute the license file, MIT does not (It just recommends 'shall > be' to do it). > > For a Fedora package this difference is not relevant, since we require to > redistribute the license file along with the SRPM and the binary RPMs by our > guidelines. > We are packaging a license file containing a MIT license description, but the license spec field defines the license as BSD. If this is relevant or not, I really don't know, but is inconsistent. In my point of view this is not a packaging problem, but was a decision made by the upstream (in my opinion, a inconsistent decision) that is making the license spec field and the license file be different. > > > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > > I don't get the reason, why the package doesn't comply to the additional > Python guidelines… William should use the python macros defined on the guidelines, as I pointed on 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 1529167] Review Request: python-parso - Parser that supports error recovery and round-trip parsing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529167
--- Comment #3 from Carl George ---
> You shoudn't greedy-glob there, since you might own the `__pycache__`
> directory
I don't necessarily disagree, but I duplicated that part from the example spec
file in the guidelines. How do we go about getting the guidelines updated?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file
> Please fix `%{undefined rhel}` ---> `%{!?rhel}` during import!
What is the issue here? The undefined macro exists to make that type of
condition more readable. It's built into RPM (defined in /usr/lib/rpm/macros)
and exists as far back as RHEL 5 (perhaps even further).
I'll be happy to review your packages, but it might have to wait until next
week unless I can find some time this afternoon.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1518671] Review Request: mozilla-ublock-origin - An efficient blocker for Firefox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1518671 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- mozilla-ublock-origin-1.14.22-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a8b77b0496 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1518671] Review Request: mozilla-ublock-origin - An efficient blocker for Firefox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1518671 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- mozilla-ublock-origin-1.14.22-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-94e8bf7417 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1518671] Review Request: mozilla-ublock-origin - An efficient blocker for Firefox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1518671 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 1529396] Review Request: python3-websocket-client - WebSocket client for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529396 --- Comment #2 from Carl George --- Howdy David, This package is not for Fedora, it is for EPEL only. It is part of a larger effort to have a full Python 3.4 stack available in EPEL. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3 Since python-websocket-client exists in RHEL, a different SRPM name must be used. > Packages already in RHEL > Some packages imported from Fedora, for example python-setuptools, would have > same SRPM name (possibly different version) as packages in base RHEL. Since > SRPM > names must not conflict, it is necessary to create python3- package for > these (assuming it doesn't exist yet in Fedora), do a new package review and > build it just for EPEL (the package will likely have python3- subpackage > already > in Fedora built from python-). When built, this python3-websocket-client spec file creates a python34-websocket-client RPM. Here are reviews for other similar packages. python3-setuptools - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294704 python3-six - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294865 python3-netaddr - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394046 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023 --- Comment #4 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- > - Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream uses > MIT. > I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as BSD, > but the LICENSE file is MIT. > I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear > a bit inconsistent to me. > [!]: 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)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or > generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python- > validators/licensecheck.txt Well, there is very little difference in these licenses. On Pypi the package is distributed as BSD licensed… That's why I didn't complain about it. The only real difference between those two licenses is: BSD *requires* you to redistribute the license file, MIT does not (It just recommends 'shall be' to do it). For a Fedora package this difference is not relevant, since we require to redistribute the license file along with the SRPM and the binary RPMs by our guidelines. > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python I don't get the reason, why the package doesn't comply to the additional Python guidelines… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529396] Review Request: python3-websocket-client - WebSocket client for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529396 David Carlos changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ddavidcarlos1...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from David Carlos --- Hey Carl, This package already exists on Fedora, so that is no need to open a bug with status NEW. I took a look on the repo commits (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-websocket-client/commits/master) and the last commit was 12 days ago (so it is still being maintained). I noticed that you had opened a PR on the repo, so you should try to get in touch with the maintainers on the devel list, talking about your PR. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1528303] Review Request: python-pytest-vcr - Py.test plugin for managing VCR.py cassettes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1528303 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2017-12-29 13:45:05 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python-pytest-vcr-0.3.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1526429] Review Request: electron-cash - A lightweight Bitcoin Cash client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526429 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2017-12-29 13:44:35 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- electron-cash-3.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529559] Review Request: mint-themes-gtk3 - Mint themes for GTK3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529559 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- slick-greeter-1.1.4-1.fc26 mint-themes-gtk3-3.18+17-1.fc26 mint-themes-1.5.0-1.fc26 mint-y-theme-1.2.3-1.fc26 cinnamon-themes-2017.06.20-4.fc26 cinnamon-3.6.7-3.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-cf0e3033d2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529555] Review Request: mint-themes - Mint themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529555 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- slick-greeter-1.1.4-1.fc26 mint-themes-gtk3-3.18+17-1.fc26 mint-themes-1.5.0-1.fc26 mint-y-theme-1.2.3-1.fc26 cinnamon-themes-2017.06.20-4.fc26 cinnamon-3.6.7-3.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-cf0e3033d2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529516] Un-retirement Review Request: mint-y-theme - The Mint-Y theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529516 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- slick-greeter-1.1.4-1.fc26 mint-themes-gtk3-3.18+17-1.fc26 mint-themes-1.5.0-1.fc26 mint-y-theme-1.2.3-1.fc26 cinnamon-themes-2017.06.20-4.fc26 cinnamon-3.6.7-3.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-cf0e3033d2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1411154] Review Request: mint-y-theme - The Mint-Y theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411154 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- slick-greeter-1.1.4-1.fc26 mint-themes-gtk3-3.18+17-1.fc26 mint-themes-1.5.0-1.fc26 mint-y-theme-1.2.3-1.fc26 cinnamon-themes-2017.06.20-4.fc26 cinnamon-3.6.7-3.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-cf0e3033d2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529559] Review Request: mint-themes-gtk3 - Mint themes for GTK3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529559 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- slick-greeter-1.1.4-1.fc27 mint-themes-gtk3-3.18+17-1.fc27 mint-themes-1.5.0-1.fc27 mint-y-theme-1.2.3-1.fc27 cinnamon-themes-2017.06.20-4.fc27 cinnamon-3.6.7-3.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-546a9d254e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529555] Review Request: mint-themes - Mint themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529555 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- slick-greeter-1.1.4-1.fc27 mint-themes-gtk3-3.18+17-1.fc27 mint-themes-1.5.0-1.fc27 mint-y-theme-1.2.3-1.fc27 cinnamon-themes-2017.06.20-4.fc27 cinnamon-3.6.7-3.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-546a9d254e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1411154] Review Request: mint-y-theme - The Mint-Y theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411154 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- slick-greeter-1.1.4-1.fc27 mint-themes-gtk3-3.18+17-1.fc27 mint-themes-1.5.0-1.fc27 mint-y-theme-1.2.3-1.fc27 cinnamon-themes-2017.06.20-4.fc27 cinnamon-3.6.7-3.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-546a9d254e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529516] Un-retirement Review Request: mint-y-theme - The Mint-Y theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529516 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- slick-greeter-1.1.4-1.fc27 mint-themes-gtk3-3.18+17-1.fc27 mint-themes-1.5.0-1.fc27 mint-y-theme-1.2.3-1.fc27 cinnamon-themes-2017.06.20-4.fc27 cinnamon-3.6.7-3.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-546a9d254e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023
David Carlos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ddavidcarlos1...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from David Carlos ---
Hello William,
I will do an unofficial review.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=
- Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream uses MIT.
I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as BSD,
but the LICENSE file is MIT.
I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear
a bit inconsistent to me.
- You can use %{py3_dist}/%{py2_dist} macro on BuildRequires field, instead of
python2-*/python3-* [1].
- You can use %{py3_dist}/%{py2_dist} macro on Requires field, instead of
python2-*/python3-* [1].
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
= 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. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or
generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python-
validators/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: 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.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query
[Bug 1518671] Review Request: mozilla-ublock-origin - An efficient blocker for Firefox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1518671 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mozilla-ublock-origin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529643] Review Request: python-zuul-sphinx - A Sphinx extension for documenting Zuul jobs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529643 --- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Maybe you could have a look at one of my packages waiting for review in exchange? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529352 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529593 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529705 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529644] Review Request: python-sphinx-autodoc-typehints - Type hints support for the Sphinx autodoc extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529644 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529643] Review Request: python-zuul-sphinx - A Sphinx extension for documenting Zuul jobs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529643 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||besse...@fedoraproject.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|besse...@fedoraproject.org Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Package looks good to me. No issues spotted. 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 1529644] Review Request: python-sphinx-autodoc-typehints - Type hints support for the Sphinx autodoc extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529644 --- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Maybe you could have a look at one of my packages waiting for review in exchange? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529352 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529593 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529705 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1518671] Review Request: mozilla-ublock-origin - An efficient blocker for Firefox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1518671 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 1529644] Review Request: python-sphinx-autodoc-typehints - Type hints support for the Sphinx autodoc extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529644
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||besse...@fedoraproject.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|besse...@fedoraproject.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
Package looks good to me. No issues spotted.
A small hint for some optimization:
Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
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 1529230] Review Request: python-pyinsane2 - Python library to access and use image scanners (Linux /Windows/etc)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529230 --- Comment #3 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Maybe you could have a look at one of my packages waiting for review in exchange? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529352 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529593 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529705 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529167] Review Request: python-parso - Parser that supports error recovery and round-trip parsing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529167 --- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Maybe you could have a look at one of my packages waiting for review in exchange? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529352 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529593 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529705 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023 --- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Maybe you could have a look at one of my packages waiting for review in exchange? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529352 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529593 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529705 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529026] Review Request: python-googletrans - Google Translate API for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529026 --- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Maybe you could have a look at one of my packages waiting for review in exchange? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529352 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529593 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529705 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529025] Review Request: python-filetype - Infer file type and MIME type of any file/buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529025 --- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Maybe you could have a look at one of my packages waiting for review in exchange? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529352 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529593 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529705 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529027] Review Request: python-send2trash - Python library to natively send files to Trash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529027 --- Comment #3 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Maybe you could have a look at one of my packages waiting for review in exchange? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529352 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529593 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529705 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529230] Review Request: python-pyinsane2 - Python library to access and use image scanners (Linux /Windows/etc)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529230 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||besse...@fedoraproject.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|besse...@fedoraproject.org Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Package looks good to me. No issues spotted. 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 1529167] Review Request: python-parso - Parser that supports error recovery and round-trip parsing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529167
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||besse...@fedoraproject.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|besse...@fedoraproject.org
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
Package looks good to me, but `%{python3_sitelib}/*`… You shoudn't greedy-glob
there, since you might own the `__pycache__` directory, which is owned by
python3 itself.
Please fix `%{undefined rhel}` ---> `%{!?rhel}` during import!
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 1529027] Review Request: python-send2trash - Python library to natively send files to Trash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529027
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||besse...@fedoraproject.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|besse...@fedoraproject.org
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
Package looks good to me, but `%{python3_sitelib}/*`… You shoudn't greedy-glob
there, since you might own the `__pycache__` directory, which is owned by
python3 itself.
Please fix `%{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-%send2trash}` (the `%` in
package name) during import!
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 1529026] Review Request: python-googletrans - Google Translate API for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529026
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||besse...@fedoraproject.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|besse...@fedoraproject.org
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
Package looks good to me, but `%{python3_sitelib}/*`… You shoudn't greedy-glob
there, since you might own the `__pycache__` directory, which is owned by
python3 itself.
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 1529025] Review Request: python-filetype - Infer file type and MIME type of any file/buffer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529025
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||besse...@fedoraproject.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|besse...@fedoraproject.org
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
Package looks good to me, but `%{python3_sitelib}/*`… You shoudn't greedy-glob
there, since you might own the `__pycache__` directory, which is owned by
python3 itself.
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 1529024] Review Request: python-tld - Extract the top level domain from the URL given
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529024
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||besse...@fedoraproject.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|besse...@fedoraproject.org
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
Package looks good to me, but `%{python3_sitelib}/*`… You shoudn't greedy-glob
there, since you might own the `__pycache__` directory, which is owned by
python3 itself.
Please fix `Requires: python3-six` ---> `Requires: python2-six` for the
python2-pkg during import!
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 1529023] Review Request: python-validators - Data Validation in python for Humans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529023
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||besse...@fedoraproject.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|besse...@fedoraproject.org
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
Package looks good to me, but `%{python3_sitelib}/*`… You shoudn't greedy-glob
there, since you might own the `__pycache__` directory, which is owned by
python3 itself.
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 1529593] Review Request: adapta-gtk-theme - An adaptive Gtk+ theme based on Material Design Guidelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529593 --- Comment #4 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- === Updated package === Scratch build: Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23941662 EPEL7:https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23941664 Urls: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/adapta-gtk-theme.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/adapta-gtk-theme-3.92.2.63-0.4.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 1529705] Review Request: adapta-backgrounds - A wallpaper collection for adapta-project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529705 --- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- Scratch build: Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23941528 EPEL7:https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23941530 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529705] New: Review Request: adapta-backgrounds - A wallpaper collection for adapta-project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529705 Bug ID: 1529705 Summary: Review Request: adapta-backgrounds - A wallpaper collection for adapta-project Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: besse...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Description: A wallpaper collection for adapta-project. Issues: fedora-review shows no obvious issues. FAS-User: besser82 Urls: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/adapta-backgrounds.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/adapta-backgrounds-0.5.2.2-0.1.fc28.src.rpm Thanks for review in advance! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1529593] Review Request: adapta-gtk-theme - An adaptive Gtk+ theme based on Material Design Guidelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529593 --- Comment #3 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- === Updated package === Scratch build: Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23941513 EPEL7:https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23941515 Urls: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/adapta-gtk-theme.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/adapta-gtk-theme-3.92.2.63-0.3.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 1518671] Review Request: mozilla-ublock-origin - An efficient blocker for Firefox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1518671 --- Comment #2 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-ublock-origin/mozilla-ublock-origin.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-ublock-origin/mozilla-ublock-origin-1.14.22-1.fc27.src.rpm * Fri Dec 29 2017 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski - 1.14.22-1 - update to 1.14.22 - install the appdata meteinfo file into correct place Thanks for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1130199] Review Request: kyua - Testing framework for infrastructure software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1130199 --- Comment #3 from Björn Persson --- Ping? If you're no longer active in Fedora, then perhaps it would be better if I'd take over as package maintainer? You should be able to log in at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kyua-cli, access the Settings page, and use "add user" or "give project" to give me, "rombobeorn", access to the packages. Or we could swap roles if you want. I could make a Kyua 0.13 package if you promise to review it. If you'd rather proceed with this renaming review, then I still need to see the new source package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
