[Bug 1540422] Review Request: ghc-typed-process - Run external processes, with strong typing of streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540422



--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen  ---
Thanks a lot, Robert-André

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4402

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

[Bug 1539323] Review Request: ghc-unliftio-core - The MonadUnliftIO typeclass for unlifting monads to IO

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539323



--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen  ---
Thank you for reviewing! :)

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4401

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

[Bug 1539314] Review Request: ghc-basement - Foundation scrap box of array & string

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539314



--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen  ---
Thanks for reviewing, Robert!

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2)
>  - Latest version seems to be 0.0.6, please bump the version.

I probably can, though I am tracking package versions in Stackage LTS.


https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4400

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

[Bug 1539291] Review Request: ghc-echo - Cross-platform, cross-console echoing of terminal input

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539291



--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen  ---
Thank you, Robert-André

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4399

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

[Bug 1541343] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-code-coverage6 - PHP code coverage information

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541343



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Thanks for the review

SCM request
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4398

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

[Bug 1520375] Review Request: php-kdyby-strict-objects - Simple trait to make your class strict

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520375



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Thanks for the review

SCM requests
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4395
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4396
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4397

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

[Bug 1513669] Review Request: php-phpmailer6 - Full-featured email creation and transfer class for PHP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513669



--- Comment #6 from Remi Collet  ---
And
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4393
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4394

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

[Bug 1513669] Review Request: php-phpmailer6 - Full-featured email creation and transfer class for PHP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513669



--- Comment #5 from Remi Collet  ---
Thanks for the review

SCM request
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4392

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

[Bug 1541337] Review Request: php-sebastian-diff3 - Diff implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541337



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Thanks for the review

SCM request
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4391

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

[Bug 1541334] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-timer2 - PHP Utility class for timing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541334



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Thanks for the review

SCM request
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4390

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

[Bug 1541340] Review Request: php-phpunit-mock-objects6 - Mock Object library for PHPUnit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541340



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Thanks for the review

SCL request
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4389

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

[Bug 1541342] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-token-stream3 - Wrapper around PHP tokenizer extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541342



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Thanks for the review

SCM request
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4388

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

[Bug 1539554] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-invoker2 - Invoke callables with a timeout

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539554



--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet  ---
Thanks for the review

SCM request
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4387

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

[Bug 1509856] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-token-stream2 - Wrapper around PHP tokenizer extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509856



--- Comment #5 from Remi Collet  ---
Thanks for the review

SCM requests
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4385
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4386

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

[Bug 1519719] Review Request: php-phpunit-mock-objects5 - Mock Object library for PHPUnit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519719



--- Comment #8 from Remi Collet  ---
Thanks for the review

SCM requests
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4383
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4384

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

[Bug 1509119] Review Request: php-gecko-packages-gecko-php-unit3 - Additional PHPUnit asserts and constraints

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509119



--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet  ---
Thanks for the review


SCM requests
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4380
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4381
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4382

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

[Bug 1541346] Review Request: phpunit7 - The PHP Unit Testing framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541346



--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet  ---
Make rpmlint happy and me sad:
https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/phpunit/phpunit7.git/commit/?id=d42d474d01d987b661216d6f2dab2d6d3984cee3

Spec URL:
https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/phpunit/phpunit7.git/plain/phpunit7.spec?id=d42d474d01d987b661216d6f2dab2d6d3984cee3
SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/phpunit7-7.0.0-2.remi.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 1368855] Review Request: radare2 - The reverse engineering framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368855

Michal Ambroz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)  |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449
[Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter
response should be blocking this bug.
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1541346] Review Request: phpunit7 - The PHP Unit Testing framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541346



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
>  - RPMLint error:
> 
> phpunit7.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/phpunit7 /usr/bin/env
> php
> 
>Policy is not to use env in Fedora. What is the motivation for removing 
> brp_mangle_shebangs ?

Because I don't agree with this Guidelines.

Such packages works perfectly with different PHP versions (for most PHP
projects, compatibility with newer PHP version is considered as a standard
feature, and when needed, fixed as a bug)

This is commonly used in travis, daily, by tons of project to ensure
compatibility with various PHP versions.

Having this package locked with default version will make no sense, making it
unusable, and this will encourage php users to use the upstream distribution
(.phar file) instead of this package.

This is described in 
https://blog.remirepo.net/post/2016/04/16/My-PHP-Workstation (§ Working on PHP
code)

This specific version doesn't support old PHP version, but handles this
properly

  $ module load php56
  $ phpunit7 
  This version of PHPUnit is supported on PHP 7.1 and PHP 7.2.
  You are using PHP 5.6.33 (/opt/remi/php56/root/usr/bin/php).


When I submit this review this was still under discussion by FPC
as https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/725 is now rejected, I'm sad

So I you prefer, I can remove the macro for the review
(well... to be honest... I will probably re-add it later)

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

[Bug 1509856] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-token-stream2 - Wrapper around PHP tokenizer extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509856



--- Comment #4 from Remi Collet  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2)
>  - Version 3.0.0 has been published 4 days ago.

v2 is for PHPunit 6
v3 is for PHPunit 7

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

[Bug 1368855] Review Request: radare2 - The reverse engineering framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368855

Michal Ambroz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ASSIGNED
 Resolution|DEFERRED|---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #27 from Michal Ambroz  ---
Bump to release 2.3.0
https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/radare2.spec
https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/radare2-2.3.0-1.fc27.src.rpm

> As I mentioned earlier, one option is to drop the affected functionality.
OK dropped the webui for now.

> Is this an upstream opinion? Did they actually do this on purpose? My guess 
> is not.
> To clarify, this absolutely needs fixing before the package can be imported.
This is the upstream default behaviour. There is actually undocumented
HAVE_LIBVERSION=1 option which makes the linking of the binaries point to
versioned so libraries. I believe this should be acceptable for you.
I got it checking the Debian package ... but then I found you actually had it
in your spec file as well.

> Well I'm probably just nitpicking here, but that %changelog entry doesn't 
> reflect reality (perhaps Pavel would be surprised to learn that he did an 
> initial radare2 package?).
Yes I consider this nitpicking.
Here is the upstream commit of the line directly by Pavel Odvody -
https://github.com/radare/radare2/commit/3640a0481c1ba8b40a40eda6834ac02d51475267
I originally thought tito was his other nick-name. Now I guess he re-used tito
spec-file and possibly forgot to replace "tito" with "radare2" in the
changelog.

>This still requires action.
I have added a comment.
I consider this nitpicking as well ... have not seen SPEC file where it would
be described which options were not used and why.

>>2.2.) Bundling of C libraries
> This is still a problem (perhaps rather easy) that needs to be addressed; 
> in particular the "provides" tags.
I have added "provides" tag for some of the libraries I found bundled.
I do not consider this as finished, because it remains to pinpoint the versions
used.

Best regards
Michal Ambroz

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

[Bug 1519719] Review Request: php-phpunit-mock-objects5 - Mock Object library for PHPUnit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519719



--- Comment #7 from Remi Collet  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6)
> Sh*t I forgot to check latest release, version 6.0.0 has been published 4
> days ago, please bump your package.

This package is v5 (v6 is review #1541340)

v5 is required bu PHPUnit 6.5 (phpunit6 package is for now stalled at 6.4
because of this dependency)
v6 is required by PHPunit 7.0

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

[Bug 1541862] Review Request: clover2 - Yet another compiler language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541862

Mamoru TASAKA  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2018-02-05 23:15:56



--- Comment #4 from Mamoru TASAKA  ---
Successfully rebuilt, push request submitted on stable branches.
Thank you for review! Now closing.

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

[Bug 1119197] Review Request: gnushogi - Shogi (Japanese Chess) AI engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197



--- Comment #20 from Ben Rosser  ---
copr is fine for scratch builds these days (it uses Koji behind the scenes).

Just a  note, generally it's good to run "rpmlint" over your package before
uploading (e.g. "rpmlint [rpm]"). It frequently produces spurious warnings that
can safely be ignored (like "spelling errors"), but it can also detect actual
problems. In this instance it found a few complaints.

On a related note, I'd encourage you to use the template format of:

> Spec URL:
> SRPM URL: 

when posting changes in a review ticket-- this makes it possible for the
automated "fedora-review" tool to run properly. You can try running this
yourself over a review ticket if you have mock installed:

$ dnf install fedora-review
$ fedora-review -b [bugzilla ID] -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64

This will try to fetch the spec and SRPM from bugzilla and automatically build
and run some checks over them. (fedora-review can also be given files locally,
but that adds a step for the reviewer of having to download the tickets). 

Anyway, here are a few problems pointed out by rpmlint:

> gnushogi.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C GNU shogi is a program that 
> plays shogi, the Japanese version of chess, against a human (or computer) 
> opponent.
> gnushogi.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C GNU Shogi proper is only the 
> AI engine, and you will likely want to use a GUI frontend (XBoard, for 
> example) to be more comfortable.

The lines in %description should be wrapped to 80 characters.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description

> gnushogi.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.5.0.2.git5bb0b5b 
> ['1.5-0.2.git5bb0b5b.fc28', '1.5-0.2.git5bb0b5b']

Looks like you just made a small typo here, though it looks like you fixed it
in the spec after building the SRPM. (In general, you should make sure that the
version of the spec you upload is the same as the one you use to build the
SRPM. For simple things like this it doesn't really matter, but it's just
generally good practice).

> gnushogi.x86_64: E: shell-syntax-error-in-%post
> gnushogi.x86_64: E: shell-syntax-error-in-%preun

You seem to be missing "; then" after your conditionals:

https://gist.github.com/aflyhorse/dc5f37bd72008315ac323f66b88ead1e#file-gnushogi-spec-L48

https://gist.github.com/aflyhorse/dc5f37bd72008315ac323f66b88ead1e#file-gnushogi-spec-L58

When I attempted to install the RPM, I got similar errors from dnf.

In addition, I then tried to run gnushogi. It seems it wants to write out it's
.bbk file in /usr/lib64/gnushogi, which is not user-writable. Looking at the
documentation (doc/BOOKFILES), I believe "make -C gnushogi gnushogi.bbk" should
be run under %build, in order to pre-compile the binary book file.

Please fix the above, and I'll be more than happy to approve the package and
sponsor you-- everything else looks good.

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

[Bug 1256104] Review Request: holtz - Abstract strategy board game collection

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256104

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
  Flags|needinfo?(maths...@gmail.co |
   |m)  |
Last Closed||2018-02-05 20:45:09



--- Comment #6 from Ben Rosser  ---
More than a week has passed, so... I'll close this ticket as a dead review.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449
[Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter
response should be blocking this bug.
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1536878] Review Request: elementary-wallpapers - Collection of wallpapers from the elementary project

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536878



--- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa  ---
The problem is that you previously defined elementary-wallpapers as %version in
pandora-wallpapers.

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

[Bug 1541554] Review Request: podman - Manage Pods, Containers and Container Images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541554



--- Comment #3 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
Thanks for the review and approval. 

I merged your PR, the link should be the same as the original posted above.

RE: manpage macro, it's probably because the '.' character appears first on a
newline followed by the word "You" in the mardown file. That will be taken care
of once fixed upstream.

Right now there's no ExcludeArch but ExclusiveArch, so I think we should be
fine.

RE: %gobuild, that's needed for debuginfo.

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

[Bug 1540833] Review Request: racket - programming language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540833



--- Comment #3 from David Benoit  ---
Here is the rpmlint output of the updated package:

[dbenoit@dbenoit]$ rpmlint racket-6.12-1.fc27.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

[dbenoit@dbenoit]$ rpmlint racket.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

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

[Bug 1541554] Review Request: podman - Manage Pods, Containers and Container Images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541554

Frantisek Kluknavsky  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 1541554] Review Request: podman - Manage Pods, Containers and Container Images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541554



--- Comment #2 from Frantisek Kluknavsky  ---
"MUST:rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review."

$ rpmlint ./podman-*
podman.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpod -> lib pod, lib-pod,
libido
podman.src: E: description-line-too-long C libpod provides a library for
applications looking to use the Container Pod concept popularized by
Kubernetes.
podman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpod -> lib pod,
lib-pod, libido
podman.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C libpod provides a library for
applications looking to use the Container Pod concept popularized by
Kubernetes.
podman.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
podman.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/podman-run.1.gz 846:
warning: macro `You' not defined
podman-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.

Spelling error is obviously a false positive.
only-non-binary-in-usr-lib is a known bug.
Too long description should be fixed. I created a pull request.
I am not aware if every subpackage must have some documentation, it does not
make much sense here.
Manual page is readable, the warning should probably be investigated anyway.

"If a Fedora package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next
to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla
entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the
comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and
replace the long explanation with the bug number."

The custom definition of %gobuild macro seems a buggy remnant of developing the
spec, but in Fedora the spec does not use this definition, it should not be a
problem.

Overall, I can not find any serious blockers.

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

[Bug 1514274] Review Request: twitter-twemoji-fonts - Twitter Emoji for everyone

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1514274



--- Comment #26 from Peter Oliver  ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #25)

> But fedora-review will automatically use posts that have the following
> construction:
> 
> Spec URL:
> https://pagure.io/twitter-twemoji-fonts/raw/master/f/twitter-twemoji-fonts.
> spec
> 
> SRPM URL:
> https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mavit/twitter-twemoji-fonts/
> fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00705303-twitter-twemoji-fonts/twitter-twemoji-fonts-2.
> 4.0-1.fc28.src.rpm

If I understand correctly, what you're telling me is that I need to include
both URLs in a single comment, and that I have to label them "Spec URL" and
"SRPM URL".  However, my testing indicates that fedora-review copes fine with
the URLs being in different comments, and with the string " URL" being omitted
from the label, so I'm a bit confused.

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

[Bug 1540726] Review request: bettercap - A complete, modular, portable and easily extensible MITM framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540726



--- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Also note that these dependencies may have their own dependencies as well, in
other words, lots of work ahead.

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

[Bug 1542200] Review Request: 4diac-forte - IEC 61499 runtime environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1542200



--- Comment #5 from Jens Reimann  ---
Thanks for the quick 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 1542200] Review Request: 4diac-forte - IEC 61499 runtime environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1542200

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
It's all good, 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 1540726] Review request: bettercap - A complete, modular, portable and easily extensible MITM framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540726



--- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
(In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #6)
> 
> Done, but I still obtain some errors
> 
> main.go:7:2: cannot find package "github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/core"
> in any of:
> /usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/core (from
> $GOROOT)
>
> /builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/
> _build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/core (from $GOPATH)
> /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/core
> main.go:8:2: cannot find package "github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/log" in
> any of:
> /usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/log (from
> $GOROOT)
>
> /builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/
> _build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/log (from $GOPATH)
> /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/log
> main.go:9:2: cannot find package
> "github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/modules" in any of:
> /usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/modules (from
> $GOROOT)
>
> /builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/
> _build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/modules (from $GOPATH)
> /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/modules
> main.go:10:2: cannot find package
> "github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/session" in any of:
> /usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/session (from
> $GOROOT)
>
> /builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/
> _build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/session (from $GOPATH)
> /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/session

You did not fix the header as I said so it doesn't work:

>Your Gopath is probably fcked up. Yes I see, fix your header:

%global providergithub
%global provider_tldcom
%global project  evilsocket
%global repo bettercap-ng
%global provider_prefix %{provider}.%{provider_tld}/%{project}


Once you do that you'll see that you are missing plenty of dependencies because
you haven't done your job beforehand:

+ go build -buildmode pie -compiler gc -tags=rpm_crashtraceback -ldflags ' -B
0x45265e550377a69ca63e577f452392918e5720c2 -extldflags '\''-Wl,-z,relro 
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld '\''' -a -v -x -o bettercap .
WORK=/tmp/go-build248343626
_build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/session/command_handler.go:4:2:
cannot find package "github.com/chzyer/readline" in any of:
/usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/chzyer/readline (from $GOROOT)
   
/builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/_build/src/github.com/chzyer/readline
(from $GOPATH)
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/chzyer/readline
_build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/session/prompt.go:10:2: cannot
find package "github.com/dustin/go-humanize" in any of:
/usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/dustin/go-humanize (from $GOROOT)
   
/builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/_build/src/github.com/dustin/go-humanize
(from $GOPATH)
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/dustin/go-humanize
_build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/modules/http_proxy_base.go:24:2:
cannot find package "github.com/elazarl/goproxy" in any of:
/usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/elazarl/goproxy (from $GOROOT)
   
/builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/_build/src/github.com/elazarl/goproxy
(from $GOPATH)
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/elazarl/goproxy
_build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/modules/api_rest.go:14:2: cannot
find package "github.com/gin-gonic/gin" in any of:
/usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/gin-gonic/gin (from $GOROOT)
   
/builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/_build/src/github.com/gin-gonic/gin
(from $GOPATH)
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/gin-gonic/gin
_build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/modules/api_rest_utils.go:8:2:
cannot find package "github.com/gin-gonic/gin/binding" in any of:
/usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/gin-gonic/gin/binding (from $GOROOT)
   
/builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/_build/src/github.com/gin-gonic/gin/binding
(from $GOPATH)
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/gin-gonic/gin/binding
_build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/packets/dhcp6_layer.go:4:2:
cannot find package "github.com/google/gopacket" in any of:
/usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/google/gopacket (from $GOROOT)
   
/builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/_build/src/github.com/google/gopacket
(from $GOPATH)
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/google/gopacket
_build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/packets/arp.go:6:2: cannot find
package 

[Bug 1542200] Review Request: 4diac-forte - IEC 61499 runtime environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1542200



--- Comment #3 from Jens Reimann  ---
Just to be sure: As the version/release changed, the new name/URL of the SRPM
is now:

https://dentrassi.de/download/4diac-forte/4diac-forte-1.9.0-0.1.M3.fc27.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1542200] Review Request: 4diac-forte - IEC 61499 runtime environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1542200



--- Comment #2 from Jens Reimann  ---
Sorry, you are right. I mixed up Release with Version when it came to
. Also to "dist" variable was wrong.

I fixed both problems and also changed file under "/etc/sysconfig" to
"%config(noreplace)" as this file is configuration, but should not be
overwritten if the user makes changes to it.

New scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24737654

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

[Bug 1536878] Review Request: elementary-wallpapers - Collection of wallpapers from the elementary project

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536878



--- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini  ---
That doesn't work, because Epoch isn't defined:

warning: line 35: Possible unexpanded macro in: Requires:  
elementary-wallpapers = %{epoch}:0-0.1.20171230.git4f5b8e4.fc27

error: line 35: Invalid version (epoch must be unsigned integer):
%{epoch}:0-0.1.20171230.git4f5b8e4.fc27: Requires:   elementary-wallpapers
= %{epoch}:0-0.1.20171230.git4f5b8e4.fc27

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

[Bug 1540726] Review request: bettercap - A complete, modular, portable and easily extensible MITM framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540726



--- Comment #10 from Germano Massullo  ---
bettercap 2.0.0 will be released on 28 February 2018
https://github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/milestones

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

[Bug 1535207] Review Request: ravada - Remote Virtual Desktops Manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535207



--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner  ---
Thanks for the reminder and sorry for the delay. I hoped we can wait for a new
release from upstream including latest (important) fixes. Maybe you want to
package a pre-release or shapshot?


*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)

ravada-0.2.12/public/css/sb-admin.css
ravada-0.2.12/public/js/main.js

Add ASL 2.0 to License tag with a breakdown for above files in a comment,
they're obviously taken from startbootstrap.com templates.


Rpmlint
---
Checking: ravada-0.2.12-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
  ravada-0.2.12-1.fc28.src.rpm
ravada.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libvirt-daemon-kvm
ravada.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libvirt-daemon-lxc
=> Maybe remove.
ravada.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/ravada/public/css/custom/insert_here_custom_css
ravada.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/ravada/public/img/custom/insert_here_custom_images
ravada.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/ravada/public/js/custom/insert_here_custom_javascripts
ravada.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/ravada/templates/main/custom/insert_here_custom_template
=> Remove.
ravada.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rvd_back.pl
ravada.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rvd_front.pl
ravada.src: W: file-size-mismatch ravada-0.2.12.tar.gz = 133,
https://github.com/UPC/ravada/archive/0.2.12/ravada-0.2.12.tar.gz = 1333228
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 warnings.


Source checksums

https://github.com/UPC/ravada/archive/0.2.12/ravada-0.2.12.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
621523e70abecc028f2985f63131e73a7fd3af64b7c68920b50979576fb5338d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
f7a91597a5f11374743daaa87d00314ecb015c9a2d7297200569beb07107b8d3
diff -r also reports differences

diff -U2 -r
/home/builder/fedora-review/1535207-ravada/upstream-unpacked/Source0/ravada-0.2.12/lib/Ravada.pm
/home/builder/fedora-review/1535207-ravada/srpm-unpacked/ravada-0.2.12.tar.gz-extract/ravada-0.2.12/lib/Ravada.pm
---
/home/builder/fedora-review/1535207-ravada/upstream-unpacked/Source0/ravada-0.2.12/lib/Ravada.pm
   2018-01-22 10:02:48.0 +0100
+++
/home/builder/fedora-review/1535207-ravada/srpm-unpacked/ravada-0.2.12.tar.gz-extract/ravada-0.2.12/lib/Ravada.pm
  2018-01-16 15:48:42.0 +0100
@@ -4,5 +4,5 @@
 use strict;

-our $VERSION = '0.2.12';
+our $VERSION = '0.2.12-rc1';

 use Carp qw(carp croak);


All other look good so far.

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

[Bug 1368855] Review Request: radare2 - The reverse engineering framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368855

Michal Ambroz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||podv...@redhat.com,
   ||re...@seznam.cz



--- Comment #26 from Michal Ambroz  ---
Sorry it is complex package and I have only limited time. 

I doubt anyone else here is having any motivation to continue with the package.
If anyone feels like doing the packaging better - feel free to close this
review and package radare2 better ... or just continue with the effort here as
I would welcome co-maintainer. Until that time I would rather keep the review
open to not waste the efforts you already did for the review and have a picture
on what needs to be fixed.


https://github.com/shaded-enmity/r2-ropstats

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

[Bug 1542200] Review Request: 4diac-forte - IEC 61499 runtime environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1542200

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Your dist tag in Release is malformed, it's missing ?

Release:  0.1%{?dist}

 - Version: should not contain letters, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Upstream_uses_invalid_characters_in_the_version

Instead use  as documented here
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#More_complex_versioning

%global extraver M3

Release:  0.1.%{extraver}%{?dist}

   Otherwise you would not be able to provide a correct upgrade path when 1.9.0
finally lands.


Package Review
==

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


Issues:
- Dist tag is present.


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "*No copyright* EPL (v1.0)", "Unknown or generated", "EPL
 (v1.0)". 57 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/4diac-forte/review-4diac-
 forte/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1542200] New: Review Request: 4diac-forte - IEC 61499 runtime environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1542200

Bug ID: 1542200
   Summary: Review Request: 4diac-forte - IEC 61499 runtime
environment
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jreim...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://dentrassi.de/download/4diac-forte/4diac-forte.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dentrassi.de/download/4diac-forte/org.eclipse.4diac.forte-1.9.0.M3.tar.gz
Description: The 4DIAC runtime environment (4DIAC-RTE, FORTE) is a small
portable
implementation of an IEC 61499 runtime environment targeting small
embedded control devices (16/32 Bit), implemented in C++. It supports
online-reconfiguration of its applications and the real-time capable
execution of all function block types provided by the IEC 61499 standard.

Fedora Account System Username: ctron

Successful scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24736059

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

[Bug 1514274] Review Request: twitter-twemoji-fonts - Twitter Emoji for everyone

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1514274



--- Comment #25 from Neal Gompa  ---
(In reply to Peter Oliver from comment #24)
> (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #23)
> > I need specifically links laid out specifically as they are in the
> > original post, so that fedora-review can process it.
> 
> Are you sure that that’s the cause of whatever problem you’re experiencing? 
> I had success finding the spec and SRPM with:
> 
> 
> ```
> cd `mktemp -d`
> curl -O
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/nototools/0/0.20170926.
> git0c99dff.fc28/noarch/nototools-0-0.20170926.git0c99dff.fc28.noarch.rpm -O
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/nototools/0/0.20170926.
> git0c99dff.fc28/noarch/python2-nototools-0-0.20170926.git0c99dff.fc28.noarch.
> rpm
> fedora-review -b 1514274 -L .
> ```
> 
> (Here I’m downloading the nototools packages manually only because they
> haven’t yet reached my nearest Rawhide mirror)

Doing that means I'm overriding fedora-review on locating the spec and srpm,
which I can do, of course.

And I have the Koji internal repo enabled on my fedora-review.

But fedora-review will automatically use posts that have the following
construction:

Spec URL:
https://pagure.io/twitter-twemoji-fonts/raw/master/f/twitter-twemoji-fonts.spec

SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mavit/twitter-twemoji-fonts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00705303-twitter-twemoji-fonts/twitter-twemoji-fonts-2.4.0-1.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 1520375] Review Request: php-kdyby-strict-objects - Simple trait to make your class strict

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520375

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---

 - Group: and %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc} are not needed.

 - sutie → suite

Package approved.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 13
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/php-kdyby-strict-objects/review-php-kdyby-
 strict-objects/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/php/Kdyby(php-
 kdyby-events)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package 

[Bug 1513669] Review Request: php-phpmailer6 - Full-featured email creation and transfer class for PHP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513669

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Group: and %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc} are not needed.

Package approved.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL", "Unknown or generated". 105 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-
 phpmailer6/review-php-phpmailer6/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/php/PHPMailer(php-
 PHPMailer)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 163840 bytes in 31 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1539276] Review Request: rust-threadpool - Thread pool for running a number of jobs on a fixed set of worker threads

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539276

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
rust-threadpool-1.7.1-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-8cf4ad15b8

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

[Bug 1527289] Review Request: nototools - Noto fonts support tools and scripts plus web site generation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1527289

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
google-noto-emoji-fonts-20170928-3.fc27, nototools-0-0.20170926.git0c99dff.fc27
has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist,
please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4791ed67e5

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

[Bug 1506428] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-historymanager-prefix-search - Use PageUp and PageDown to search for previous GNOME Shell commands

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506428



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
gnome-shell-extension-historymanager-prefix-search-10-2.fc27 has been pushed to
the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note
of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b866dfc687

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

[Bug 1506429] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-windowoverlay-icons - Show app icons on top of the windows thumbnails in Activities Overview

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506429



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
gnome-shell-extension-windowoverlay-icons-27-2.fc27 has been pushed to the
Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it
in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-1f07259844

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

[Bug 1541441] Review Request: python-txredisapi - Non-blocking Redis client for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541441

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-txredisapi-1.4.4-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-eea6a3c68f

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

[Bug 1519081] Review Request: scribus-generator - Open source high-quality PDF template and mail-merge alternative

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519081



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
scribus-generator-2.5-5.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-1e35738efa

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

[Bug 1509119] Review Request: php-gecko-packages-gecko-php-unit3 - Additional PHPUnit asserts and constraints

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509119

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Latest version is 3.1.1

Package approved.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 63 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/php-gecko-packages-gecko-php-unit3/review-
 php-gecko-packages-gecko-php-unit3/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/php/GeckoPackages
 (php-gecko-packages-gecko-php-unit)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1519081] Review Request: scribus-generator - Open source high-quality PDF template and mail-merge alternative

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519081

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
scribus-generator-2.5-5.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-2018-56d598bde5

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

[Bug 1506429] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-windowoverlay-icons - Show app icons on top of the windows thumbnails in Activities Overview

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506429



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
gnome-shell-extension-windowoverlay-icons-27-2.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-2018-ce6a4c1ec9

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

[Bug 1506428] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-historymanager-prefix-search - Use PageUp and PageDown to search for previous GNOME Shell commands

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506428

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
gnome-shell-extension-historymanager-prefix-search-10-2.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-2018-a458392fef

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

[Bug 1506429] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-windowoverlay-icons - Show app icons on top of the windows thumbnails in Activities Overview

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506429

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
gnome-shell-extension-windowoverlay-icons-27-2.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-2018-e271543907

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

[Bug 1541346] Review Request: phpunit7 - The PHP Unit Testing framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541346

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Group: and %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc} are not needed

 - RPMLint error:

phpunit7.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/phpunit7 /usr/bin/env php

   Policy is not to use env in Fedora. What is the motivation for removing 
brp_mangle_shebangs ?


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (3 clause)". 600 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/phpunit7/review-
 phpunit7/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires 

[Bug 1525570] Review Request: pew - Tool to manage multiple virtualenvs written in pure python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1525570

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-02-05 11:13:17



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
pew-1.1.2-1.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 1541566] Review Request: whipper - Python CD-DA ripper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541566

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||williamjmore...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|williamjmore...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #4 from William Moreno  ---
Spec looks good, will run fedora-review soon.

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

[Bug 1541340] Review Request: php-phpunit-mock-objects6 - Mock Object library for PHPUnit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541340

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Group: and %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc} are not needed

Package approved.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (3 clause)". 143 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-phpunit-mock-objects6
 /review-php-phpunit-mock-objects6/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 

[Bug 1529593] Review Request: adapta-gtk-theme - An adaptive Gtk+ theme based on Material Design Guidelines

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529593

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2018-01-03 16:32:54 |2018-02-05 10:30:54



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
adapta-gtk-theme-3.93.0.66-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1541337] Review Request: php-sebastian-diff3 - Diff implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541337

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Group: and %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc} are not needed

Package approved.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (3 clause)". 52 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-sebastian-diff3/review-
 php-sebastian-diff3/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/php/SebastianBergmann(php-phpunit-Version)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1541334] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-timer2 - PHP Utility class for timing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541334

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Group: and %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc} are not needed


Package approved.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (3 clause)". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-phpunit-php-timer2
 /review-php-phpunit-php-timer2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/php/SebastianBergmann(php-phpunit-Version)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: 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 uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1541343] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-code-coverage6 - PHP code coverage information

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541343

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Group: and %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc} are not needed

Package approved.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (3 clause)". 157 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-phpunit-php-code-
 coverage6/review-php-phpunit-php-code-coverage6/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners:
 /usr/share/php/SebastianBergmann
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve 

[Bug 1541342] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-token-stream3 - Wrapper around PHP tokenizer extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541342

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Group: and %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc} are not needed

Package approved.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (3 clause)". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-phpunit-php-token-
 stream3/review-php-phpunit-php-token-stream3/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/php/SebastianBergmann(php-phpunit-Version)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1539554] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-invoker2 - Invoke callables with a timeout

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539554

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package approved.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (3 clause)". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-phpunit-php-invoker2
 /review-php-phpunit-php-invoker2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/php/SebastianBergmann(php-phpunit-Version)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1541862] Review Request: clover2 - Yet another compiler language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541862



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/clover2. You may commit to the branch "f27"
in about 10 minutes.

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

[Bug 1509856] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-token-stream2 - Wrapper around PHP tokenizer extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509856

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  ---
Ehhh, it was apparently a problem from the previous package I've built in my
chroot.


Package approved.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (3 clause)". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-phpunit-php-token-
 stream2/review-php-phpunit-php-token-stream2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/php/SebastianBergmann(php-phpunit-Version)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1509856] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-token-stream2 - Wrapper around PHP tokenizer extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509856

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Version 3.0.0 has been published 4 days ago.

 - Not needed in Fedora:

Group:

%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}


 - Build fails in %check:

Exécution_de(%check) : /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.jcUKWm
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd php-token-stream-791198a2c6254db10131eecfe8c06670700904db
+ mkdir vendor
+ touch vendor/autoload.php
+ : Run upstream test suite
+ ret=0
+ for cmd in php php70 php71 php72
+ which php
/usr/bin/php
+ php -d
auto_prepend_file=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-phpunit-php-token-stream2-2.0.2-1.fc28.x86_64/usr/share/php/SebastianBergmann/PhpTokenStream2/autoload.php
/usr/bin/phpunit6 --verbose
PHP Fatal error:  Uncaught RuntimeException: File not found:
'PHPUnit6/Framework/MockObject/autoload.php' in
/usr/share/php/Fedora/Autoloader/functions.php:58
Stack trace:
#0 /usr/share/php/Fedora/Autoloader/Dependencies.php(78):
Fedora\Autoloader\requireFile('PHPUnit6/Framew...')
#1 /usr/share/php/Fedora/Autoloader/Dependencies.php(100):
Fedora\Autoloader\Dependencies::process(Array, true)
#2 /usr/share/php/PHPUnit6/autoload.php(141):
Fedora\Autoloader\Dependencies::required(Array)
#3 /usr/bin/phpunit6(47): require('/usr/share/php/...')
#4 {main}
  thrown in /usr/share/php/Fedora/Autoloader/functions.php on line 58
+ ret=1
+ for cmd in php php70 php71 php72
+ which php70
which: no php70 in
(/usr/lib64/ccache:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/sbin)
+ for cmd in php php70 php71 php72
+ which php71
which: no php71 in
(/usr/lib64/ccache:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/sbin)
+ for cmd in php php70 php71 php72
+ which php72
which: no php72 in
(/usr/lib64/ccache:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/sbin)
+ exit 1
Erreur de construction de RPM :
erreur : Mauvais statut de sortie pour /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.jcUKWm (%check)

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

[Bug 1541862] Review Request: clover2 - Yet another compiler language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541862



--- Comment #2 from Mamoru TASAKA  ---
Thank you for review!

About license tag: I noticed that README.md says this is under GPLv2, I will
modify this.
Now I proceed to importing process...

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

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

[bugzilla]

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

Michal Schmidt  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||ucx-1.2.2-1.fc27
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2018-02-05 08:48:56



--- Comment #37 from Michal Schmidt  ---
ucx is in Rawhide, F27 updates, and batched for F26 updates. Closing this
review.

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

[Bug 1539276] Review Request: rust-threadpool - Thread pool for running a number of jobs on a fixed set of worker threads

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539276



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
rust-threadpool-1.7.1-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-8cf4ad15b8

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

[Bug 1539276] Review Request: rust-threadpool - Thread pool for running a number of jobs on a fixed set of worker threads

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539276

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 1519719] Review Request: php-phpunit-mock-objects5 - Mock Object library for PHPUnit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519719



--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Sh*t I forgot to check latest release, version 6.0.0 has been published 4 days
ago, please bump your 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

[Bug 1519719] Review Request: php-phpunit-mock-objects5 - Mock Object library for PHPUnit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519719

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Not needed in Fedora:

Group:

%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}


Package approved.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (3 clause)". 143 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-phpunit-mock-objects5
 /review-php-phpunit-mock-objects5/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/php/PHPUnit6/Framework(php-phpunit-mock-objects4,
 phpunit6), /usr/share/php/PHPUnit6(php-phpunit-mock-objects4,
 phpunit6)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve 

[Bug 1514274] Review Request: twitter-twemoji-fonts - Twitter Emoji for everyone

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1514274



--- Comment #24 from Peter Oliver  ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #23)
> I need specifically links laid out specifically as they are in the
> original post, so that fedora-review can process it.

Are you sure that that’s the cause of whatever problem you’re experiencing?  I
had success finding the spec and SRPM with:


```
cd `mktemp -d`
curl -O
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/nototools/0/0.20170926.git0c99dff.fc28/noarch/nototools-0-0.20170926.git0c99dff.fc28.noarch.rpm
-O
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/nototools/0/0.20170926.git0c99dff.fc28/noarch/python2-nototools-0-0.20170926.git0c99dff.fc28.noarch.rpm
fedora-review -b 1514274 -L .
```

(Here I’m downloading the nototools packages manually only because they haven’t
yet reached my nearest Rawhide mirror)

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

[Bug 1540073] Review Request: nss_nis - Name Service Switch (NSS) module using NIS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540073



--- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nss_nis

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

[Bug 1520922] Review Request: extractpdfmark - Extract page mode and named destinations as PDFmark from PDF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520922



--- Comment #12 from Federico Bruni  ---
Hello William

I've made a new build in Copr:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fedelibre/extractpdfmark/build/709990/

I think I will do a new release (1.0.2-2) as soon as this request passes 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 1211821] Review Request: golang-github-bradfitz-gomemcache - Go Memcached client library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1211821

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-02-05 08:05:35



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

[Bug 1541862] Review Request: clover2 - Yet another compiler language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541862

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License seems to be GPLv2+:
https://github.com/ab25cq/clover2/blob/master/LICENSE


Please correct the License: before import. Package accepted.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 322 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/clover2/review-clover2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: 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 389120 bytes in 52 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: 

[Bug 1540073] Review Request: nss_nis - Name Service Switch (NSS) module using NIS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540073

Petr Kubat  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #9 from Petr Kubat  ---
There are some obsolete m4 macros (please file a bug against upstream for them)
but otherwise lgtm.

Also be aware that there is a F28 change for removing ldconfig scriptlets:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets

According to the change doc you can just remove the scriplets entirely if the
package is only for F28+

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

[Bug 1540073] Review Request: nss_nis - Name Service Switch (NSS) module using NIS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540073



--- Comment #8 from Petr Kubat  ---
Package Review
==

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

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1114146] Review Request: rubygem-ffi-yajl - Ruby FFI wrapper around YAJL 2.x

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146



--- Comment #12 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Julian C. Dunn from comment #11)
> This all seems reasonable. I updated it to rubygem-ffi-yajl 2.3.1 and
> rebuilt it

There is missing changelog entry, but this is just minor nit.

> Are we good to go on this now?

Well, I am, but since I proposed this, I don't think I am eligible to approve
this.

BTW it would be probably better to have the runtime dependency directly on the
libyajl library instead of the package, i.e.:

~~~
Requires: libyajl.so.2()%{_isa}
~~~

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

[Bug 1539276] Review Request: rust-threadpool - Thread pool for running a number of jobs on a fixed set of worker threads

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539276



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-threadpool. You may commit to the
branch "f27" in about 10 minutes.

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

[Bug 1541587] Review Request: python-kiwisolver - A fast implementation of the Cassowary constraint solver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541587



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
I've rerun fedora-review, I still get the same error.

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

[Bug 1373004] Review Request: rubygem-tzinfo-data - Timezone Data for TZInfo

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373004

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2018-02-05 06:18:41



--- Comment #6 from Matthias Runge  ---
closing this.

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

[Bug 1364603] Review Request: python-XStatic-Angular-Schema-Form - Angular-Schema-Form JavaScript library packaged for setuptools (easy_install) / pip.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364603

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(d...@redhat.com)



--- Comment #11 from Matthias Runge  ---
Did you go to the step of getting the package added to 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 1364607] Review Request: python-XStatic-objectpath - ObjectPath JavaScript library packaged for setuptools (easy_install) / pip.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364607

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(d...@redhat.com)



--- Comment #8 from Matthias Runge  ---
What's the status here? Since this was a fedora package review, it is possible
to get it added to 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 1463253] rubygem-lru_redux: An efficient implementation of an lru cache

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463253

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jbadi...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(jbadiapa@redhat.c
   ||om)



--- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge  ---
Can we close this bug?

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

[Bug 1463538] Review-request: rubygem-recursive-open-struct: Allows nested hashes to be treated in a recursive fashion

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463538

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jbadi...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(jbadiapa@redhat.c
   ||om)



--- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge  ---
Can we close this bug?

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

[Bug 1540073] Review Request: nss_nis - Name Service Switch (NSS) module using NIS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540073



--- Comment #7 from Petr Kubat  ---
(In reply to Matej Mužila from comment #6)

> The packaged version is 3.0 already. As long as I know, there is no more
> recent version yet.

Now that I am looking at the contents of the source rpm you are right. I got
confused by the 2.0.0 version on the shared library file, but it is versioned
exactly the same way in upstream.

I guess this is a nitpick but it would be nice to have the library version
match the release.

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

[Bug 1540073] Review Request: nss_nis - Name Service Switch (NSS) module using NIS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540073

Matej Mužila  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #6 from Matej Mužila  ---
(In reply to Petr Kubat from comment #5)
> Actually, Matej can you rebase the package against latest upstream release
> first? I see Thorsten just released version 3 a few days ago - this
> versioning will make more sense with the versioning we are going to use for
> the rpm package.

The packaged version is 3.0 already. As long as I know, there is no more recent
version yet.

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

[Bug 1540073] Review Request: nss_nis - Name Service Switch (NSS) module using NIS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540073

Petr Kubat  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #5 from Petr Kubat  ---
Actually, Matej can you rebase the package against latest upstream release
first? I see Thorsten just released version 3 a few days ago - this versioning
will make more sense with the versioning we are going to use for the rpm
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

[Bug 1527289] Review Request: nototools - Noto fonts support tools and scripts plus web site generation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1527289

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1527289] Review Request: nototools - Noto fonts support tools and scripts plus web site generation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1527289



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
google-noto-emoji-fonts-20170928-3.fc27 nototools-0-0.20170926.git0c99dff.fc27
has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4791ed67e5

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

[Bug 1540073] Review Request: nss_nis - Name Service Switch (NSS) module using NIS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540073



--- Comment #4 from Petr Kubat  ---
>I think we absolutely should keep the name for the binary RPM.

After thinking about it a bit more I agree with keeping the name of the package
as nss_nis. Changing it to libnss_nis would have some positives but there are
also some other issues that would pop up.

Since the package only has a single binary rpm it does not make sense to me to
rename the srpm either. So lets keep it as it is.

Will continue with 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