[Bug 1553967] New: Review Request: rust-indexmap - Hash table with consistent order and fast iteration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553967 Bug ID: 1553967 Summary: Review Request: rust-indexmap - Hash table with consistent order and fast iteration Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ignate...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-indexmap.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-indexmap-0.4.1-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Hash table with consistent order and fast iteration. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553867] Review Request: python-flask-sphinx-themes - Sphinx themes for Flask and related projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553867 --- Comment #2 from Itamar Reis Peixoto --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4957 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103 --- Comment #85 from digimer --- Removed the 'pkgconfig()' method of handling BuildRequires. New .spec and srpm: https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.1-8 https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet-1.1-8.fc27.src.rpm f26: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25592451 f27: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25592465 f28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25592473 rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25592491 epel7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25592503 Diff from 1.1-7: --- kronosnet.spec.1.1-72018-03-07 01:50:40.831722937 -0500 +++ kronosnet.spec.1.1-82018-03-09 19:48:42.630061443 -0500 @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ Name: kronosnet Summary: Multipoint-to-Multipoint VPN daemon Version: 1.1 -Release: 7%{?dist} +Release: 8%{?dist} License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ URL: http://www.kronosnet.org Source0: http://www.kronosnet.org/releases/kronosnet-%{version}.tar.gz @@ -79,27 +79,27 @@ BuildRequires: gcc # required to build man pages BuildRequires: libxml2-devel doxygen -BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libqb) +BuildRequires: libqb-devel %if %{defined buildsctp} BuildRequires: lksctp-tools-devel %endif %if %{defined buildcryptonss} -BuildRequires: pkgconfig(nss) +BuildRequires: nss-devel %endif %if %{defined buildcryptoopenssl} -BuildRequires: pkgconfig(openssl) +BuildRequires: openssl-devel %endif %if %{defined buildcompresszlib} -BuildRequires: pkgconfig(zlib) +BuildRequires: zlib-devel %endif %if %{defined buildcompresslz4} -BuildRequires: pkgconfig(liblz4) >= 1.7 +BuildRequires: lz4-devel %endif %if %{defined buildcompresslzo2} BuildRequires: lzo-devel %endif %if %{defined buildcompresslzma} -BuildRequires: pkgconfig(liblzma) +BuildRequires: xz-devel %endif %if %{defined buildcompressbzip2} BuildRequires: bzip2-devel @@ -470,6 +470,10 @@ %endif %changelog +* Fri Mar 09 2018 Madison Kelly - 1.1-8 +- Changed pkgconfig() to normal package names to help avoid the wrong + package being pulled in to satisfy dependencies. + * Wed Mar 07 2018 Madison Kelly - 1.1-7 - Moved the comment back above '%%files -n libknet1-devel'. - Added comment to '%%debug_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 1553639] Review Request: rust-hyper - Modern HTTP library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553639 --- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > Works fine with tokio-core v0.1.13 from bug #1553572. Maybe bump the minimal > requirements? It's some regression in tokio, so it's tokio-core should bump requirements. I will sort it out. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1551107] Review Request: nulib2 - Disk and file archive program for NuFX (.SDK, .BXY) archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551107 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- nulib2-3.1.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-37ebe4bcb0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1551107] Review Request: nulib2 - Disk and file archive program for NuFX (.SDK, .BXY) archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551107 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 1551107] Review Request: nulib2 - Disk and file archive program for NuFX (.SDK, .BXY) archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551107 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- nulib2-3.1.0-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d1febdf5bd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553944] New: Review Request: R-webp - A New Format for Lossless and Lossy Image Compression
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553944 Bug ID: 1553944 Summary: Review Request: R-webp - A New Format for Lossless and Lossy Image Compression Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-webp.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-webp-0.4-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: Lossless webp images are 26% smaller in size compared to PNG. Lossy webp images are 25-34% smaller in size compared to JPEG. This package reads and writes webp images into a 3 (rgb) or 4 (rgba) channel bitmap array using conventions from the 'jpeg' and 'png' packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553944] Review Request: R-webp - A New Format for Lossless and Lossy Image Compression
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553944 --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25591013 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-coreos-bbolt-1.3.1-0.1.coreos.5.20180309git32c383e.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-9098bc744b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553054] Review Request: R-bit - A class for vectors of 1-bit booleans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553054 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- R-bit-1.1.12-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-4a613802ad -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553082] Review Request: R-webutils - Utility Functions for Developing Web Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553082 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- R-webutils-0.6-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-cc9d20edeb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553049] Review Request: R-gdtools - Utilities for Graphical Rendering
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553049 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- R-gdtools-0.1.7-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-15ad764a12 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553053] Review Request: R-fastmatch - Fast match() function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553053 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- R-fastmatch-1.1.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-6485910c93 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553684] Rename-Review Request: gnome-tweaks - Customize advanced GNOME 3 options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553684 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- gnome-tweaks-3.27.92-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-a545376f62 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553015] Review Request: R-disposables - Create Disposable R Packages for Testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553015 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- R-disposables-1.0.3-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-9189340438 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553560] Review Request: R-pkgconfig - Private Configuration for 'R' Packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553560 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- R-pkgconfig-2.0.1-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d0508576de -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553560] Review Request: R-pkgconfig - Private Configuration for 'R' Packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553560 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 1553560] Review Request: R-pkgconfig - Private Configuration for 'R' Packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553560 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- R-pkgconfig-2.0.1-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-41ebcde59c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553560] Review Request: R-pkgconfig - Private Configuration for 'R' Packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553560 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- R-pkgconfig-2.0.1-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-5c5095ba05 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1551402] Review Request: falkon - Modern web browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551402 Kevin Kofler changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(ngomp...@gmail.co ||m) --- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler --- Ping? Can we move forward with 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 1553891] Review Request: nodejs-pg-native - High performance native bindings between node.js and PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553891 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs-pg-native -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553560] Review Request: R-pkgconfig - Private Configuration for 'R' Packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553560 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-pkgconfig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553891] Review Request: nodejs-pg-native - High performance native bindings between node.js and PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553891 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 33 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/nodejs-pg-native /review-nodejs-pg-native/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 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %gl
[Bug 1553867] Review Request: python-flask-sphinx-themes - Sphinx themes for Flask and related projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553867 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 --- 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 (unspecified)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-flask-sphinx-themes /review-python-flask-sphinx-themes/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 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 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep = SHOULD items = Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2 -flask-sphinx-themes , python3-flask-sphinx-themes [?]: 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
[Bug 1553639] Review Request: rust-hyper - Modern HTTP library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553639 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Works fine with tokio-core v0.1.13 from bug #1553572. Maybe bump the minimal requirements? - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors 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 1553639] Review Request: rust-hyper - Modern HTTP library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553639 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Build error: BUILDSTDERR:Compiling tokio-core v0.1.12 BUILDSTDERR: Running `/usr/bin/rustc --crate-name tokio_core /usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/lib.rs --crate-type lib --emit=dep-info,link -C opt-level=3 -C metadata=84504471d9c2cb31 -C extra-filename=-84504471d9c2cb31 --out-dir /builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps -L dependency=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps --extern log=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps/liblog-129ea5bbac2dadda.rlib --extern futures=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps/libfutures-98f50b5ddb4b0aa3.rlib --extern slab=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps/libslab-b17f549fb7b4bc0c.rlib --extern bytes=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps/libbytes-e80650f556e05ce6.rlib --extern tokio_io=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps/libtokio_io-68b9f7afb436dc4a.rlib --extern iovec=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps/libiovec-e4757dc54099439a.rlib --extern mio=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps/libmio-015995e705c15631.rlib --extern scoped_tls=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps/libscoped_tls-7dc00805d71a4171.rlib --cap-lints allow -Copt-level=3 -Cdebuginfo=2 -Clink-arg=-Wl,-z,relro,-z,now` BUILDSTDERR: error[E0061]: this function takes 1 parameter but 0 parameters were supplied BUILDSTDERR:--> /usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/reactor/poll_evented.rs:276:39 BUILDSTDERR: | BUILDSTDERR: 276 | if let Async::NotReady = self.poll_read() { BUILDSTDERR: | ^ expected 1 parameter BUILDSTDERR: error[E0308]: mismatched types BUILDSTDERR:--> /usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/reactor/poll_evented.rs:276:16 BUILDSTDERR: | BUILDSTDERR: 276 | if let Async::NotReady = self.poll_read() { BUILDSTDERR: |^^^ expected enum `std::result::Result`, found enum `futures::Async` BUILDSTDERR: | BUILDSTDERR: = note: expected type `std::result::Result, std::io::Error>` BUILDSTDERR:found type `futures::Async<_>` BUILDSTDERR: error[E0061]: this function takes 1 parameter but 0 parameters were supplied BUILDSTDERR:--> /usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/reactor/poll_evented.rs:289:39 BUILDSTDERR: | BUILDSTDERR: 289 | if let Async::NotReady = self.poll_write() { BUILDSTDERR: | ^^ expected 1 parameter BUILDSTDERR: error[E0308]: mismatched types BUILDSTDERR:--> /usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/reactor/poll_evented.rs:289:16 BUILDSTDERR: | BUILDSTDERR: 289 | if let Async::NotReady = self.poll_write() { BUILDSTDERR: |^^^ expected enum `std::result::Result`, found enum `futures::Async` BUILDSTDERR: | BUILDSTDERR: = note: expected type `std::result::Result, std::io::Error>` BUILDSTDERR:found type `futures::Async<_>` BUILDSTDERR: error[E0061]: this function takes 1 parameter but 0 parameters were supplied BUILDSTDERR:--> /usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/reactor/poll_evented.rs:300:39 BUILDSTDERR: | BUILDSTDERR: 300 | if let Async::NotReady = self.poll_write() { BUILDSTDERR: | ^^ expected 1 parameter BUILDSTDERR: error[E0308]: mismatched types BUILDSTDERR:--> /usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/reactor/poll_evented.rs:300:16 BUILDSTDERR: | BUILDSTDERR: 300 | if let Async::NotReady = self.poll_write() { BUILDSTDERR: |^^^ expected enum `std::result::Result`, found enum `futures::Async` BUILDSTDERR: | BUILDSTDERR: = note: expected type `std::result::Result, std::io::Error>` BUILDSTDERR:found type `futures::Async<_>` BUILDSTDERR: error[E0061]: this function takes 1 parameter but 0 parameters were supplied BUILDSTDERR:--> /usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/reactor/poll_evented.rs:335:39 BUILDSTDERR: | BUILDSTDERR: 335 | if let Async::NotReady = self.poll_read() { BUILDSTDERR: | ^ expected 1 parameter BUILDSTDERR: error[E0308]: mismatched types BUILDSTDERR:--> /usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/reactor/poll_evented.rs:335:16 BUILDSTDERR: | BUILDSTDERR: 335 | if let Async::NotReady = self.poll_read() { BUILDSTDERR: |^^^ expected enum `std::result::Result`, found enum `futures::A
[Bug 1553635] Review Request: rust-language-tags - Language tags for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553635 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 ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors 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 1553615] Review Request: rust-tokio - Platform for writing asynchronous I/O backed applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553615 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 ok - Latest version is 0.1.3 published on March 9th - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors Package approved. Please bump to version 0.1.3 before import. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553610] Review Request: rust-http - Set of types for representing HTTP requests and responses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553610 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 ok - Latest versionpackaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors 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 1553891] Review Request: nodejs-pg-native - High performance native bindings between node.js and PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553891 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553891] Review Request: nodejs-pg-native - High performance native bindings between node.js and PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553891 --- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25586620 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553891] New: Review Request: nodejs-pg-native - High performance native bindings between node.js and PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553891 Bug ID: 1553891 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-pg-native - High performance native bindings between node.js and PostgreSQL Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: t...@compton.nu QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://tomh.fedorapeople.org//nodejs-pg-native.spec SRPM URL: http://tomh.fedorapeople.org//nodejs-pg-native-2.2.0-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: High performance native bindings between node.js and PostgreSQL via libpq with a simple API. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553597] Review Request: rust-tokio-reactor - Event loop that drives Tokio I/O resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553597 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 ok - Latest versionpackaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors 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 1553601] Review Request: rust-tokio-threadpool - Task scheduler backed by a work-stealing thread pool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553601 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 ok - Latest versionpackaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors 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 1553866] Review Request: nodejs-libpq - Node native bindings to the PostgreSQL libpq C client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553866 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs-libpq -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553596] Review Request: rust-tokio-executor - Future execution primitives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553596 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553596] Review Request: rust-tokio-executor - Future execution primitives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553596 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest versionpackaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors 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 1553866] Review Request: nodejs-libpq - Node native bindings to the PostgreSQL libpq C client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553866 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 --- - Tests fail in fedora-review: + pg_ctl start -w -D pg_data -l pg_log -o '-k /builddir/build/BUILD/package -p 12345' waiting for server to start done server started + createdb -h /builddir/build/BUILD/package -p 12345 test + PGHOST=/builddir/build/BUILD/package + PGPORT=12345 + PGDATABASE=test + /usr/bin/mocha -t 1 async connection ✓ works ✓ works with hard-coded connection parameters 1) returns an error to the callback if connection fails 2 passing (10s) 1 failing 1) async connection returns an error to the callback if connection fails: Error: timeout of 1ms exceeded. Ensure the done() callback is being called in this test. BUILDSTDERR: erreur : Mauvais statut de sortie pour /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ftIlhM (%check) Seems to work in Koji though: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25585943 Everything else is fine so package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1550317] Review Request: python-flask-security - Flask-Security quickly adds security features to your Flask application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550317 Itamar Reis Peixoto changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1553867 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553867 [Bug 1553867] Review Request: python-flask-sphinx-themes - Sphinx themes for Flask and related projects -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553867] Review Request: python-flask-sphinx-themes - Sphinx themes for Flask and related projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553867 Itamar Reis Peixoto changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1550317 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550317 [Bug 1550317] Review Request: python-flask-security - Flask-Security quickly adds security features to your Flask application -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553867] New: Review Request: python-flask-sphinx-themes - Sphinx themes for Flask and related projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553867 Bug ID: 1553867 Summary: Review Request: python-flask-sphinx-themes - Sphinx themes for Flask and related projects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ita...@ispbrasil.com.br QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-sphinx-themes.spec SRPM URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-sphinx-themes-1.0.2-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: Sphinx themes for Flask and related projects Fedora Account System Username: itamarjp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1519790] Review Request: rust-seahash - Blazingly fast, portable hash function with proven statistical guarantees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519790 Josh Stone changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||jist...@redhat.com Fixed In Version||rust-seahash-3.0.5-3.fc29 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2018-03-09 13:38:40 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553835] Review Request: utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835 Sergey Avseyev changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: ocaml-utop |Review Request: utop - |- Improved toplevel for |Improved toplevel for OCaml |OCaml | --- Comment #4 from Sergey Avseyev --- I've renamed package and applied other notes: Spec URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/utop/0/utop.spec SRPM URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/utop/0/utop-2.1.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25585813 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553802] Review Request: gnome-usage - a system resources visualizer for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553802 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Fix the license as mentinned by Yanko 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: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 74 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gnome-usage/review-gnome- usage/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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: 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. [-]: %check is pre
[Bug 1553866] Review Request: nodejs-libpq - Node native bindings to the PostgreSQL libpq C client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553866 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553866] Review Request: nodejs-libpq - Node native bindings to the PostgreSQL libpq C client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553866 --- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25585484 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553866] New: Review Request: nodejs-libpq - Node native bindings to the PostgreSQL libpq C client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553866 Bug ID: 1553866 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-libpq - Node native bindings to the PostgreSQL libpq C client library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: t...@compton.nu QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://tomh.fedorapeople.org//nodejs-libpq.spec SRPM URL: http://tomh.fedorapeople.org//nodejs-libpq-1.8.7-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: Node native bindings to the PostgreSQL libpq C client library. This module attempts to mirror as closely as possible the C API provided by libpq and provides the absolute minimum level of abstraction. It is intended to be extremely low level and allow you the same access as you would have to libpq directly from C, except in node.js! The obvious trade-off for being "close to the metal" is having to use a very "c style" API in JavaScript. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553632] Review Request: perl-GooCanvas2 - Perl binding for GooCanvas2 widget using Glib::Object:: Introspection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553632 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 --- URL and Source addresses are Ok. Source archive (SHA-256: e24c87873e19063dd4d5e2c709caacf8c0ae8881044395bb865dc2b4fdd63b50) is original. Ok. Summary verified from lib/GooCanvas2.pm. Ok. Description verified from lib/GooCanvas2.pm. Ok. License verified from lib/GooCanvas2.pm and README. Ok. No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-GooCanvas2.spec review-perl-GooCanvas2/results/perl-GooCanvas2-0.06-1.fc29.noarch.rpm review-perl-GooCanvas2/results/perl-GooCanvas2-0.06-1.fc29.src.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpm -q -lv -p perl-GooCanvas2-0.06-1.fc29.noarch.rpm18:53:52 drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 mars 9 18:51 /usr/share/doc/perl-GooCanvas2 -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 811 juin 19 2017 /usr/share/doc/perl-GooCanvas2/Changes -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 876 juin 18 2017 /usr/share/doc/perl-GooCanvas2/README -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3229 mars 9 18:51 /usr/share/man/man3/GooCanvas2.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 7283 juin 19 2017 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/GooCanvas2.pm File permissions and layout are Ok. rpm -q --requires -p perl-GooCanvas2-0.06-1.fc29.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 goocanvas2 >= 2.0 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.1) 1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.6.0 1 perl(Glib::Object::Introspection) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(warnings) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -q --provides -p perl-GooCanvas2-0.06-1.fc29.noarch.rpm perl(GooCanvas2) = 0.06 perl(GooCanvas2::Canvas) = 0.06 perl-GooCanvas2 = 0.06-1.fc29 Binary provides are Ok. Package builds in F28 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25585468) Ok The package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Resolution: Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553622] Review Request: perl-Gtk3-SimpleList - Simple interface to Gtk3's complex MVC list widget
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553622 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 --- URL and Source addresses are Ok. Source archive (SHA-256: ed201f74a9ff3542b7cc260159e87ca5894c24a5b182a39d6f86bb84669c9053) is original. Ok. Summary verified from lib/Gtk3/SimpleList.pm. Ok. Description verified from lib/Gtk3/SimpleList.pm. Ok. License verified from llib/Gtk3/SimpleList.pm and README.md. Ok. No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-Gtk3-SimpleList.spec review-perl-Gtk3-SimpleList/results/perl-Gtk3-SimpleList-0.17-1.fc29.noarch.rpm review-perl-Gtk3-SimpleList/results/perl-Gtk3-SimpleList-0.17-1.fc29.src.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpm -q -lv perl-Gtk3-SimpleList-0.17-1.fc29.noarch.rpm 18:37:31 drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 mars 9 18:33 /usr/share/doc/perl-Gtk3-SimpleList -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 128 nov. 23 2013 /usr/share/doc/perl-Gtk3-SimpleList/Changes -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1326 nov. 23 2013 /usr/share/doc/perl-Gtk3-SimpleList/README drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 mars 9 18:33 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Gtk3-SimpleList -rw-r--r--1 rootroot26527 avril 1 2012 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Gtk3-SimpleList/COPYING -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 5957 mars 9 18:33 /usr/share/man/man3/Gtk3::SimpleList.3pm.gz drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 mars 9 18:33 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Gtk3 -rw-r--r--1 rootroot24594 nov. 6 08:57 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Gtk3/SimpleList.pm File permissions and layout are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p perl-Gtk3-SimpleList-0.17-1.fc29.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.1) 1 perl(Carp) 1 perl(Data::Dumper) 1 perl(Gtk3) 1 perl(strict) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -q --provides -p perl-Gtk3-SimpleList-0.17-1.fc29.noarch.rpm perl(Gtk3::SimpleList) = 0.17 perl(Gtk3::SimpleList::TiedList) perl(Gtk3::SimpleList::TiedRow) perl-Gtk3-SimpleList = 0.17-1.fc29 Binary provides are Ok. Package builds in F28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25585295 Ok The package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Resolution: Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553835] Review Request: ocaml-utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835 --- Comment #3 from Sergey Avseyev --- Thanks for the notes, I will fix and update SRPM. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553835] Review Request: ocaml-utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835 Ben Rosser changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rosser@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Ben Rosser --- Hi Sergey, I was planning to submit a review ticket for this but hadn't gotten to it. I'm happy to review it for you. :) A few immediate thoughts: 1) It may just be personal preference, but I would suggest Providing "utop", as this is both a library and application package. (I was going to name the package "utop" and provide ocaml-utop). 2) If you BuildRequires: opam-installer, you can use the following to install: export OCAMLFIND_DESTDIR=%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/ocaml mkdir -p $OCAMLFIND_DESTDIR jbuilder install --prefix %{buildroot}%{_prefix} This doesn't *completely* do the right thing; I've found that it puts man pages in the wrong place, for instance. But it's a bit better than manually copying over all the files. 3) You likely need to Require emacs-filesystem, as I believe {_emacs_sitelispdir} will otherwise not be owned. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553560] Review Request: R-pkgconfig - Private Configuration for 'R' Packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553560 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 Issues: === - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION = 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: "Unknown or generated". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/R-pkgconfig/review-R-pkgconfig/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. [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]: 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 R: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires. [x]: The package has the standard %install section. [x]: Package requires R-core. = 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, /bin, /
[Bug 1553391] Review Request: nodejs-okay - Bubble errors back up your big ol' nested callback chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553391 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs-okay -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553496] Review Request: libusbauth-configparser, usbauth, usbauth-notifier - USB Firewall including flex/bison parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553496 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- 1 Review per bug, please open 3 bugs if you have 3 packages to review. - Not needed in Fedora: - Group: - BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build - %defattr(-,root,root) - If you install libraries, you must run %ldconfig_scriptlets after %install instead of: %post -n %{name}1 -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -n %{name}1 -p /sbin/ldconfig - What do you create a "%{name}1" subpackage? This is useless, putthe files in the main package. - Release must start at 1 and contains %{?dist}: Release: 1%{?dist} - Not needed: %{!?_udevrulesdir: %global _udevrulesdir %(pkg-config --variable=udevdir udev)/rules.d } - Don't mix SUSE stuff in a Fedora package - %config → %config(noreplace) - Not needed: %post %{?udev_rules_update:%udev_rules_update} %postun %{?udev_rules_update:%udev_rules_update} - Source0: must be an URL pointing to the upstream archive. For ex: Source0: https://github.com/kochstefan/usbauth-all/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - License:LGPL-2.1 License:GPL-2.0 These are not valid license shourthand. See the list of valid license: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses - Changelog must not be empty. - See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups#Dynamic_allocation for how to add users and groups -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553447] Review Request: python-backoff - Python library providing function decorators for configurable backoff and retry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553447 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- It seens to also be compatible with python 2, you don't want to provide the Py2 package? 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". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-backoff/review-python- backoff/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 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 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep = SHOULD items = Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [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]: Re
[Bug 1553835] Review Request: ocaml-utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835 --- Comment #1 from Sergey Avseyev --- Fixed version in changelog Spec URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-utop/1/ocaml-utop.spec SRPM URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-utop/1/ocaml-utop-2.1.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25584658 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553835] New: Review Request: ocaml-utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835 Bug ID: 1553835 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sergey.avse...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-utop/0/ocaml-utop.spec SRPM URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-utop/0/ocaml-utop-2.1.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: avsej Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25584105 Description: utop is an improved toplevel (i.e., Read-Eval-Print Loop) for OCaml. It can run in a terminal or in Emacs. It supports line editing, history, real-time and context sensitive completion, colors, and more. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553391] Review Request: nodejs-okay - Bubble errors back up your big ol' nested callback chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553391 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: "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/nodejs-okay/review-nodejs- okay/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 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported a
[Bug 1553377] Review Request: libyami-utils - Libyami Utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553377 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Same as before, add the commit date to your Release: %global commit0 9b5a3111078c83ab451809b02e88e7582e59a56c %global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:7}) %global commitdate0 20180207 Then Release:1.%{commitdate0}git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist} And: * Thu Mar 08 2018 Nicolas Chauvet - 1.3.0-1.20180207git9b5a311 - Simplify Source0: Source0:%{url}/archive/%{commit0}/%{name}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz - [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found -- AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libyami-utils- 9b5a3111078c83ab451809b02e88e7582e59a56c/configure.ac:189 Replace it with LT_INIT Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review /libyami-utils/review-libyami-utils/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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package 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: [-
[Bug 1548077] Review Request: libyami - Yet Another Media Infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548077 --- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin --- I forgot: add a comment with the license breakdown above the license field. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1548077] Review Request: libyami - Yet Another Media Infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548077 --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - The license is wrong: LICENSE.md is ASL 2.0 and some other parts are BSD: BSD (3 clause) -- libyami-40fa32e79f12c3c85c360532be00b7e4f9a35920/codecparsers/dboolhuff.LICENSE libyami-40fa32e79f12c3c85c360532be00b7e4f9a35920/codecparsers/vp9quant.LICENSE libyami-40fa32e79f12c3c85c360532be00b7e4f9a35920/gtestsrc/gtest/LICENSE Please correct the license field and add the above license files with %license - [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found -- AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libyami- 40fa32e79f12c3c85c360532be00b7e4f9a35920/configure.ac:420 Replace this obsolete macro with LT_INIT. 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 65 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libyami/review- libyami/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: 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 a
[Bug 1553684] Rename-Review Request: gnome-tweaks - Customize advanced GNOME 3 options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553684 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 1553802] Review Request: gnome-usage - a system resources visualizer for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553802 Yanko Kaneti changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yan...@declera.com --- Comment #1 from Yanko Kaneti --- You need sponsorship to get into the packager group, so you are already set. The license in the spec file doesn't match the source spec says LGPLv2+ , the source files and the tarball LICENSE file say GPLv3+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553684] Rename-Review Request: gnome-tweaks - Customize advanced GNOME 3 options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553684 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- gnome-tweaks-3.27.92-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-a545376f62 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1542654] Review Request: quentier - Cross-platform desktop Evernote client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1542654 --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Removed 1024 icon size Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/be3e910/quentier.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/quentier/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00726197-quentier/quentier-0.4.0-0.1.20180301.git8226e31.fc29.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 1553082] Review Request: R-webutils - Utility Functions for Developing Web Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553082 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- R-webutils-0.6-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-11eedbf267 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553015] Review Request: R-disposables - Create Disposable R Packages for Testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553015 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- R-disposables-1.0.3-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-0c58b6a875 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553053] Review Request: R-fastmatch - Fast match() function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553053 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- R-fastmatch-1.1.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b437e5cc05 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553049] Review Request: R-gdtools - Utilities for Graphical Rendering
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553049 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- R-gdtools-0.1.7-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-3304815863 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553054] Review Request: R-bit - A class for vectors of 1-bit booleans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553054 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- R-bit-1.1.12-2.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-c8faeba623 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1552767] Review Request: godot - Multi-platform 2D and 3D game engine with a feature-rich editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1552767 --- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to Rémi Verschelde from comment #4) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3) > > Spec review notes: > > > > > %if 0%{?mageia} > > > BuildRequires: appstream-util > > > %else > > > BuildRequires: libappstream-glib > > > %endif > > > > This could be simplified to "BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/appstream-util" > > > > "dnf install /usr/bin/appstream-util" works on both Fedora and Mageia, so I > > would think this should work in your spec. > > Sure, will do. > > > > # Git commit slightly newer than 2.87 > > > # Can be unbundled if bullet 2.88+ is available > > > Provides: bundled(bullet) = 2.87 > > > > If you know the Git commit, could you put that in the Provides versioning? > > > > Something like the following: > > > > Provides: bundled(bullet) = 2.87+git. > > Is the `+git.` standard enough? I wouldn't want > scripts relying on parsing `bundled()` provides to break due to invalid NEVR > expressions. > > How about simply specifying the commit > (d05ad4b821ba867dfd01f1e5f22c4d9d1bda6869) in a comment instead? > You can do that too, if you'd prefer. We don't actually have any tooling for processing bundled() Provides. It's mainly observed by humans when checking for security issues. > > > # Has some modifications for IPv6 support, upstream enet is unresponsive > > > # Should not be unbundled. > > > Provides: bundled(enet) = 1.3.13 > > > > I checked into this, it seems like upstream seems to want a mailing list > > discussion first[1]? I'm not entirely sure what this means, but it'd be nice > > if IPv6 support was in upstream enet (there are three pull requests for > > it...) > > > > [1]: https://github.com/lsalzman/enet/issues/78 > > We had very lengthy discussions before deciding to vendor and modify enet > [0]. > > The upstream maintainer is very uncooperative (and now, completely > inactive), so all projects using enet have ended up forking it for their own > usage. There is as of yet no "main" fork to use as upstream, and we > eventually wrote our own Godot socket interface to enet, which allows for a > much better integration than if we were using the pristine code. > > So currently unbundling enet is not possible, and not desired. > > [0]: https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/6992 > This is reasonable, though someone really should try to revive it properly so forking ad infinitum goes away... > > > # Upstream commit from 2016, newer than 1.0.0.27 which is last tag > > > # Could be unbundled if packaged. > > > # Godot upstream will soon deprecate this "libsimplewebm" module. > > > Provides: bundled(libwebm) > > > > As you're an upstream developer, I would suggest that libmatroska would be a > > better alternative to libwebm (libmatroska can parse webm containers too, > > since they are a subset of mkv). But if you're deprecating it... > > We're going to replace most audio and video plugins (apart from vorbis) by > pluggable libraries using the GDNative interface, so that all users can > simply pick the plugins they need without having to bundle all the world. > OK. > > > # Could be unbundled if packaged. > > > Provides: bundled(nanosvg) > > > > If this[2] is the nanosvg in question, I can see why it's bundled instead of > > packaged. > > > > Could you indicate what commit is packaged in nanosvg? You can do something > > like the following: > > > > Provides: bundled(nanosvg) = 0-0.git. > > > > [2]: https://github.com/memononen/nanosvg > > That's this nanosvg yeah, so far it's not package in distros that I know of. > I haven't actually looked into packaging it yet, but it's a header-only > library meant to be vendored by design. > > The bundled commit is 9a74da4db5ac74083e444010d75114658581b9c7. Same > question as above regarding putting it as the bundled() version, can we > consider that format standard? The Bundled Software policy [1] is not really > explicit. > > [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Software_policy > As I said earlier, it's mainly for humans to analyze, so there's no "standard" aside from using a valid RPM version-release. Since nothing is supposed to require bundled() Provides, it should be fine to use that too.. > > > # Could be unbundled if packaged. > > > Provides: bundled(squish) = 1.15 > > > > Is there any reason it couldn't be packaged? It looks like libsquish is > > fairly active and releases often enough. > > Not that I know of, just needs someone to package it :) > > As long as Godot is the only user of this dependency, and we already > provided bundled sources, I have little incentive to package it myself. But > if it were, it's already easy to unbundle with the `builtin_squish=no` > argument. > > The Bundled Software policy [1] doesn't explicitly require packaging > thirdparty libraries to unbundle them, but only to use those libraries which > are already available. Still, I'm a packager and l
[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-coreos-bbolt-1.3.1-0.1.coreos.5.20180309git32c383e.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-36e840bcc6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553082] Review Request: R-webutils - Utility Functions for Developing Web Applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553082 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- R-webutils-0.6-1.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-db226beb70 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730 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 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-coreos-bbolt-1.3.1-0.1.coreos.5.20180309git32c383e.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-9098bc744b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553015] Review Request: R-disposables - Create Disposable R Packages for Testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553015 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- R-disposables-1.0.3-1.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-2018-4df249966b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553054] Review Request: R-bit - A class for vectors of 1-bit booleans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553054 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- R-bit-1.1.12-2.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-2018-86ef05248e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553049] Review Request: R-gdtools - Utilities for Graphical Rendering
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553049 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- R-gdtools-0.1.7-1.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-2018-804bd01758 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553053] Review Request: R-fastmatch - Fast match() function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553053 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- R-fastmatch-1.1.0-1.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-2018-601f3707b6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1154750] Review Request: mozilla-privacy-badger - Protects your privacy by blocking spying ads and invisible trackers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154750 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #19 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package is approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553684] Rename-Review Request: gnome-tweaks - Customize advanced GNOME 3 options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553684 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-tweaks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553684] Rename-Review Request: gnome-tweaks - Customize advanced GNOME 3 options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553684 --- Comment #3 from Yanko Kaneti --- Ah, I hand't noticed the noarch thing. Sorry for the noise. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1548077] Review Request: libyami - Yet Another Media Infrastructure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548077 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - When using a dev snapshot, you should also include the commit date in the Release tag: %global commit0 40fa32e79f12c3c85c360532be00b7e4f9a35920 %global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:7}) %global commitdate0 20180228 Then Release:2.%{commitdate0}git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist} And: * Thu Mar 08 2018 Nicolas Chauvet - 1.3.0-2.20180228git40fa32e - Simply use: Source0:%{url}/archive/%{commit0}/%{name}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz Also please note that there is a discrepancy in your Release tag: 2. in the header, 3. in the %changelog. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553684] Rename-Review Request: gnome-tweaks - Customize advanced GNOME 3 options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553684 --- Comment #2 from Mohamed El Morabity --- Thank you Yanko for the review :). (In reply to Yanko Kaneti from comment #1) > P.S. the build will fail once the removal of gcc from the buildroot goes > through.. GNOME Tweaks only requires python3 and meson to be built. It doesn't require any compiler. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1154750] Review Request: mozilla-privacy-badger - Protects your privacy by blocking spying ads and invisible trackers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154750 --- Comment #18 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #17) > - I can't find any BSD code in his package. Are you sure " and BSD" is > necessary? > > - You should own the install directory: > > %files > %license LICENSE > %dir %{firefox_inst_dir} > %{firefox_inst_dir}/%{ext_id}.xpi Thanks for the review! Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-privacy-badger/mozilla-privacy-badger.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-privacy-badger/mozilla-privacy-badger-2018.2.5-2.fc27.src.rpm * Fri Mar 09 2018 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski - 2018.2.5-2 - drop BSD from license list (no BSD-licensed components anymore) - own firefox_inst_dir -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1189171] Review Request: python-antlr - Python runtime support for ANTLR-generated parsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189171 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 1189171] Review Request: python-antlr - Python runtime support for ANTLR-generated parsers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189171 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- python-antlr-2.7.7-5.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-2a2c9fbdde -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553802] New: Review Request: gnome-usage - a system resources visualizer for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553802 Bug ID: 1553802 Summary: Review Request: gnome-usage - a system resources visualizer for GNOME Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: febor...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/feborges/gnome-usage/fedora-28-x86_64/00726236-gnome-usage/gnome-usage.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/feborges/gnome-usage/fedora-28-x86_64/00726236-gnome-usage/gnome-usage-3.27.92-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: gnome-usage lets you easily visualize the use of system resources such as CPU, memory, and storage. Fedora Account System Username: feborges https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Usage I currently maintain other packages but this is the first package which I am introducing from the beginning, so I might need a sponsor. I am an upstream maintainer of gnome-usage, see https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-usage/blob/master/gnome-usage.doap I have made a koji build ~> //koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25582730 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-coreos-bbolt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553684] Rename-Review Request: gnome-tweaks - Customize advanced GNOME 3 options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553684 Yanko Kaneti changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||yan...@declera.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|yan...@declera.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Yanko Kaneti --- Rubber stamp. Its the same app. Nothing else is called gnome-tweaks Provides/Obosoletes look OK. Any and all otherissues can be addressed later APPROVED P.S. the build will fail once the removal of gcc from the buildroot goes through.. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730 --- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka --- New package: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4931 New 28 branch: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4932 New f27 branch: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4933 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1552767] Review Request: godot - Multi-platform 2D and 3D game engine with a feature-rich editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1552767 --- Comment #4 from Rémi Verschelde --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3) > Spec review notes: > > > %if 0%{?mageia} > > BuildRequires: appstream-util > > %else > > BuildRequires: libappstream-glib > > %endif > > This could be simplified to "BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/appstream-util" > > "dnf install /usr/bin/appstream-util" works on both Fedora and Mageia, so I > would think this should work in your spec. Sure, will do. > > # Git commit slightly newer than 2.87 > > # Can be unbundled if bullet 2.88+ is available > > Provides: bundled(bullet) = 2.87 > > If you know the Git commit, could you put that in the Provides versioning? > > Something like the following: > > Provides: bundled(bullet) = 2.87+git. Is the `+git.` standard enough? I wouldn't want scripts relying on parsing `bundled()` provides to break due to invalid NEVR expressions. How about simply specifying the commit (d05ad4b821ba867dfd01f1e5f22c4d9d1bda6869) in a comment instead? > > # Has some modifications for IPv6 support, upstream enet is unresponsive > > # Should not be unbundled. > > Provides: bundled(enet) = 1.3.13 > > I checked into this, it seems like upstream seems to want a mailing list > discussion first[1]? I'm not entirely sure what this means, but it'd be nice > if IPv6 support was in upstream enet (there are three pull requests for > it...) > > [1]: https://github.com/lsalzman/enet/issues/78 We had very lengthy discussions before deciding to vendor and modify enet [0]. The upstream maintainer is very uncooperative (and now, completely inactive), so all projects using enet have ended up forking it for their own usage. There is as of yet no "main" fork to use as upstream, and we eventually wrote our own Godot socket interface to enet, which allows for a much better integration than if we were using the pristine code. So currently unbundling enet is not possible, and not desired. [0]: https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/6992 > > # Upstream commit from 2016, newer than 1.0.0.27 which is last tag > > # Could be unbundled if packaged. > > # Godot upstream will soon deprecate this "libsimplewebm" module. > > Provides: bundled(libwebm) > > As you're an upstream developer, I would suggest that libmatroska would be a > better alternative to libwebm (libmatroska can parse webm containers too, > since they are a subset of mkv). But if you're deprecating it... We're going to replace most audio and video plugins (apart from vorbis) by pluggable libraries using the GDNative interface, so that all users can simply pick the plugins they need without having to bundle all the world. > > # Could be unbundled if packaged. > > Provides: bundled(nanosvg) > > If this[2] is the nanosvg in question, I can see why it's bundled instead of > packaged. > > Could you indicate what commit is packaged in nanosvg? You can do something > like the following: > > Provides: bundled(nanosvg) = 0-0.git. > > [2]: https://github.com/memononen/nanosvg That's this nanosvg yeah, so far it's not package in distros that I know of. I haven't actually looked into packaging it yet, but it's a header-only library meant to be vendored by design. The bundled commit is 9a74da4db5ac74083e444010d75114658581b9c7. Same question as above regarding putting it as the bundled() version, can we consider that format standard? The Bundled Software policy [1] is not really explicit. [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Software_policy > > # Could be unbundled if packaged. > > Provides: bundled(squish) = 1.15 > > Is there any reason it couldn't be packaged? It looks like libsquish is > fairly active and releases often enough. Not that I know of, just needs someone to package it :) As long as Godot is the only user of this dependency, and we already provided bundled sources, I have little incentive to package it myself. But if it were, it's already easy to unbundle with the `builtin_squish=no` argument. The Bundled Software policy [1] doesn't explicitly require packaging thirdparty libraries to unbundle them, but only to use those libraries which are already available. Still, I'm a packager and like clean things, so I might end up packaging libsquish and thus unbundling it somewhere down the road. > > # Can't be unbundled out-of-the-box as it uses experimental APIs available > > # only to static linking. They're not critical features though and could > > # maybe be patched away to link against a shared zstd. > Provides: bundled(zstd) = 1.3.3 > > Have you talked to upstream[3] about stabilizing the APIs used by Godot so > that it can use a dynamically linked libzstd? > > [3]: https://github.com/facebook/zstd No, it's actually a Godot bug to be using experimental APIs in the first place (just opened [2] about it). The contributor who integrated zstd likely did not pay attention to this (those APIs are available when linking statically), I found out th
[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730 Jakub Čajka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jakub Čajka --- LGTM -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1552767] Review Request: godot - Multi-platform 2D and 3D game engine with a feature-rich editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1552767 --- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa --- Spec review notes: > %if 0%{?mageia} > BuildRequires: appstream-util > %else > BuildRequires: libappstream-glib > %endif This could be simplified to "BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/appstream-util" "dnf install /usr/bin/appstream-util" works on both Fedora and Mageia, so I would think this should work in your spec. > # Git commit slightly newer than 2.87 > # Can be unbundled if bullet 2.88+ is available > Provides: bundled(bullet) = 2.87 If you know the Git commit, could you put that in the Provides versioning? Something like the following: Provides: bundled(bullet) = 2.87+git. > # Has some modifications for IPv6 support, upstream enet is unresponsive > # Should not be unbundled. > Provides: bundled(enet) = 1.3.13 I checked into this, it seems like upstream seems to want a mailing list discussion first[1]? I'm not entirely sure what this means, but it'd be nice if IPv6 support was in upstream enet (there are three pull requests for it...) [1]: https://github.com/lsalzman/enet/issues/78 > # Upstream commit from 2016, newer than 1.0.0.27 which is last tag > # Could be unbundled if packaged. > # Godot upstream will soon deprecate this "libsimplewebm" module. > Provides: bundled(libwebm) As you're an upstream developer, I would suggest that libmatroska would be a better alternative to libwebm (libmatroska can parse webm containers too, since they are a subset of mkv). But if you're deprecating it... > # Has custom changes to support seeking in zip archives > # Should not be unbundled. > Provides: bundled(minizip) = 1.2.4 OK. > # Could be unbundled if packaged. > Provides: bundled(nanosvg) If this[2] is the nanosvg in question, I can see why it's bundled instead of packaged. Could you indicate what commit is packaged in nanosvg? You can do something like the following: Provides: bundled(nanosvg) = 0-0.git. [2]: https://github.com/memononen/nanosvg > # Could be unbundled if packaged. > Provides: bundled(squish) = 1.15 Is there any reason it couldn't be packaged? It looks like libsquish is fairly active and releases often enough. > # Can't be unbundled out-of-the-box as it uses experimental APIs available > # only to static linking. They're not critical features though and could > # maybe be patched away to link against a shared zstd. Provides: bundled(zstd) = 1.3.3 Have you talked to upstream[3] about stabilizing the APIs used by Godot so that it can use a dynamically linked libzstd? [3]: https://github.com/facebook/zstd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730 Jakub Čajka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jca...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jca...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730 Jakub Čajka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730 --- Comment #1 from Jan Chaloupka --- The rpmlint does not like: Forge-specific packaging variables forgeurl:https://github.com/coreos/bbolt forgesource: https://github.com/coreos/bbolt/archive/32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14/bbolt-32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14.tar.gz forgesetupargs: -n bbolt-32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14 Generic variables archivename: bbolt-32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14 archiveext: tar.gz archiveurl: https://github.com/coreos/bbolt/archive/32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14/bbolt-32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14.tar.gz scm: git tag: commit: 32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14 dist:.20180309git32c383e.fc24 (snapshot date is computed once %{_sourcedir}/%{archivename}.%{archiveext} is available) which is just a verbose output of the gometa macro. It can be ignored. The same holds for /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/coreos/bbolt/.goipath. It is a lockfile used to automatically detect import path prefixes for auto-generated list of Provided and Required packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1553730] New: Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key/value database for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730 Bug ID: 1553730 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key/value database for Go Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jchal...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-coreos-bbolt/golang-github-coreos-bbolt.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-coreos-bbolt/golang-github-coreos-bbolt-1.3.1-0.1.coreos.5.20180309git32c383e.fc24.src.rpm Description: An embedded key/value database for Go Fedora Account System Username: jchaloup Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25579403 $ rpmlint golang-github-coreos-bbolt-1.3.1-0.1.coreos.5.20180309git32c383e.fc24.src.rpm golang-github-coreos-bbolt-devel-1.3.1-0.1.coreos.5.20180309git32c383e.fc24.x86_64.rpm golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: W: no-%build-section golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error Forge-specific packaging variables golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error forgeurl: https://github.com/coreos/bbolt golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error forgesource: https://github.com/coreos/bbolt/archive/32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14/bbolt-32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14.tar.gz golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error forgesetupargs: -n bbolt-32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14 golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error Generic variables golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error archivename: bbolt-32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14 golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error archiveext: tar.gz golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error archiveurl: https://github.com/coreos/bbolt/archive/32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14/bbolt-32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14.tar.gz golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error scm: git golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error tag: golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error commit: 32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14 golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error dist: .20180309git32c383e.fc24 (snapshot date is computed once %{_sourcedir}/%{archivename}.%{archiveext} is available) golang-github-coreos-bbolt-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/coreos/bbolt/.goipath golang-github-coreos-bbolt-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/coreos/bbolt/.goipath 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 2 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 1551153] Review Request: tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin - Binaries that are needed for the NFV host Tuned profile
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551153 Matěj Týč changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Matěj Týč --- The package is OK, I set the review flag. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org