[Bug 1550330] Review Request: python-flask-paranoid - Flask Simple user session protection

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550330



--- Comment #12 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
$  fedpkg --module-name python-flask-paranoid request-branch f27
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/5944

$  fedpkg --module-name python-flask-paranoid request-branch f28
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/5945

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

[Bug 1536780] Review Request: swift-lang - Apple' s Swift Programming Language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536780



--- Comment #19 from Ron Olson  ---
Updated to Swift 4.2:

Spec URL: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/swift-lang/swift-lang.spec
4.2-20180411git537a846 for Fedora 27:
https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/swift-lang/swift-lang-4.2-0.3.20180411git537a846.fc27.src.rpm
4.2-20180411git537a846 for Fedora Rawhide:
https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/swift-lang/swift-lang-4.2-0.3.20180411git537a846.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 1295115] Review Request: swift-lang - Swift Programming Language by Apple

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115
Bug 1295115 depends on bug 1362511, which changed state.

Bug 1362511 Summary: RFE: Build BlocksRuntime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1362511

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE



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

[Bug 1550334] Review Request: python-pyrsistent - Persistent/Functional/ Immutable data structures

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550334



--- Comment #12 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
without tests.


Spec URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pyrsistent.spec

SRPM URL:
https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pyrsistent-0.14.2-2.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 1550334] Review Request: python-pyrsistent - Persistent/Functional/ Immutable data structures

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550334



--- Comment #11 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
on my machine rpkg.noarch 0.14-1.fc28 has a tests/__init__.py 

and python2 tests finishes, there's something broken in the tests.

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

[Bug 1380826] Review Request: pgadmin4 - Management tool for PostgreSQL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380826



--- Comment #21 from Anthony Messina  ---
(In reply to Itamar Reis Peixoto from comment #20)
> what do you think about removing the qt/desktop part and shipping / adding
> only the web  part on fedora, It will work only via webpage
> http://localhost/pgadmin4 , in the same way as phpMyAdmin does.

I'm just on the user end (not the packager end) of this one, but I'd prefer to
have the qt/desktop part available if it's not too much to ask.

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

[Bug 1550334] Review Request: python-pyrsistent - Persistent/Functional/ Immutable data structures

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550334



--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - I can't run the tests in mock, did you forget to add some BuildRequires?


gcc -pthread -shared -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-z,now
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld
build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.7/pvectorcmodule.o -L/usr/lib64 -lpython2.7 -o
/builddir/build/BUILD/pyrsistent-0.14.2/pvectorc.so
BUILDSTDERR: Traceback (most recent call last):
BUILDSTDERR:   File "setup.py", line 85, in 
BUILDSTDERR: packages=['pyrsistent']
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/setuptools/__init__.py",
line 129, in setup
BUILDSTDERR: return distutils.core.setup(**attrs)
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/distutils/core.py", line 151, in
setup
BUILDSTDERR: dist.run_commands()
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/distutils/dist.py", line 953, in
run_commands
BUILDSTDERR: self.run_command(cmd)
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/distutils/dist.py", line 972, in
run_command
BUILDSTDERR: cmd_obj.run()
BUILDSTDERR:   File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/setuptools/command/test.py", line 226, in run
BUILDSTDERR: self.run_tests()
BUILDSTDERR:   File
"/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/setuptools/command/test.py", line 248, in
run_tests
BUILDSTDERR: exit=False,
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/unittest/main.py", line 94, in
__init__
BUILDSTDERR: self.parseArgs(argv)
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/unittest/main.py", line 149, in
parseArgs
BUILDSTDERR: self.createTests()
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/unittest/main.py", line 158, in
createTests
BUILDSTDERR: self.module)
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/unittest/loader.py", line 130, in
loadTestsFromNames
BUILDSTDERR: suites = [self.loadTestsFromName(name, module) for name in
names]
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/unittest/loader.py", line 91, in
loadTestsFromName
BUILDSTDERR: module = __import__('.'.join(parts_copy))
BUILDSTDERR: ImportError: No module named tests

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

[Bug 1550334] Review Request: python-pyrsistent - Persistent/Functional/ Immutable data structures

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550334



--- Comment #9 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
Spec URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pyrsistent.spec

SRPM URL:
https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pyrsistent-0.14.2-2.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 1380826] Review Request: pgadmin4 - Management tool for PostgreSQL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380826



--- Comment #20 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
Hey Devrim,  I am adding a new spec file + src.rpm on your behalf, please take
a look , 


Spec URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/pgadmin4.spec
SRPM URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/pgadmin4-3.0-1.fc28.src.rpm


I am also created an copr repo with the stuff that's need to be added in Fedora
28 at https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/itamarjp/pgadmin4/


what do you think about removing the qt/desktop part and shipping / adding only
the web  part on fedora, It will work only via webpage
http://localhost/pgadmin4 , in the same way as phpMyAdmin does.


?

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

[Bug 1550330] Review Request: python-flask-paranoid - Flask Simple user session protection

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550330



--- Comment #11 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
$ fedpkg --module-name python-flask-paranoid request-repo 1550330
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/5943

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

[Bug 1550330] Review Request: python-flask-paranoid - Flask Simple user session protection

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550330

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package approved.

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

[Bug 1550334] Review Request: python-pyrsistent - Persistent/Functional/ Immutable data structures

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550334

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |python-pyrsistent   |python-pyrsistent -
   |Persistent/Functional/Immut |Persistent/Functional/Immut
   |able data structures|able data structures



--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - You must install LICENSE.mit with %license in %files

 - Simplify %files:

%files  -n python2-%{srcname}
%license LICENSE.mit
%doc README.rst
%{python2_sitearch}/%{srcname}
%{python2_sitearch}/_%{srcname}_version.py*
%{python2_sitearch}/p*.so
%{python2_sitearch}/%{srcname}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info/*

%files -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname}
%license LICENSE.mit
%doc README.rst
%{python3_sitearch}/__pycache__/_%{srcname}_*.pyc
%{python3_sitearch}/_%{srcname}_version.py
%{python3_sitearch}/%{srcname}
%{python3_sitearch}/%{srcname}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info/*
%{python3_sitearch}/pvectorc.cpython*.so


 - Run the provided tests

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

[Bug 1550330] Review Request: python-flask-paranoid - Flask Simple user session protection

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550330



--- Comment #9 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
Spec URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-paranoid.spec

SRPM URL:
https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-paranoid-0.2.0-2.fc28.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1540833] Review Request: racket - programming language

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #13 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Don't use 

%license %{_datadir}/racket/COPYING*

   use:

%license COPYING.txt COPYING_LESSER.txt COPYING-libscheme.txt

 - You must install the %license in every package combination possible, so also
in %files minimal and %files doc

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

[Bug 1550330] Review Request: python-flask-paranoid - Flask Simple user session protection

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550330



--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Remove the dot at the end of the summary:

python-flask-paranoid.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Flask Simple user
session protection.

 - Version in changelog is wrong:

* Thu Mar 01 2018 Itamar Reis Peixoto  - 0.2.0-1

 - Be more specific in %files:

%files -n python2-%{pkg_name}
%{python2_sitelib}/flask_paranoid
%{python2_sitelib}/Flask_Paranoid-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info


%files -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pkg_name}
%{python3_sitelib}/flask_paranoid
%{python2_sitelib}/Flask_Paranoid-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info



Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[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". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-flask-
 paranoid/review-python-flask-paranoid/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.
[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]: 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

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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2
 -flask-paranoid , python3-flask-paranoid
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections 

[Bug 1540833] Review Request: racket - programming language

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #12 from David Benoit  ---
SPEC:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dbenoit/racket/fedora-27-x86_64/00740429-racket/racket.spec

SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dbenoit/racket/fedora-27-x86_64/00740429-racket/racket-6.12-5.fc27.src.rpm

Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26310121

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

[Bug 1063047] Review Request: rubygem-em-websocket-client - A WebSocket client implementation for EventMachine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063047

Bugzilla account termination  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|mmo...@redhat.com   |nob...@fedoraproject.org



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

[Bug 1063038] Review Request: rubygem-cookiejar - The Ruby CookieJar is a library to help manage client-side cookies in pure Ruby

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038

Bugzilla account termination  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|mmo...@redhat.com   |nob...@fedoraproject.org



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

[Bug 1561634] Review Request: golang-github-shurcool-events - Events service definition for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561634

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST



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

[Bug 1561546] Review Request: golang-github-dnaeon-vcr - Record and replay your HTTP interactions for fast , deterministic and accurate tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561546

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith  ---
I have reviewed this package, it conforms to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines,
so it 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 1567202] Review Request: gerbera - UPnP Media Server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567202



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Build error:

BUILDSTDERR: CMake Error at
/usr/share/cmake/Modules/FindPackageHandleStandardArgs.cmake:137 (message):
BUILDSTDERR:   Could NOT find ZLIB (missing: ZLIB_LIBRARY ZLIB_INCLUDE_DIR)
BUILDSTDERR: Call Stack (most recent call first):
BUILDSTDERR:   /usr/share/cmake/Modules/FindPackageHandleStandardArgs.cmake:378
(_FPHSA_FAILURE_MESSAGE)
BUILDSTDERR:   /usr/share/cmake/Modules/FindZLIB.cmake:112
(FIND_PACKAGE_HANDLE_STANDARD_ARGS)
BUILDSTDERR:   CMakeLists.txt:552 (find_package)
-- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred!

  Add:

BuildRequires:  zlib-devel


 - Add these license to the license field:

MIT/X11 (BSD like)
--
gerbera-2f6dcb5e941dce3ace651394cfa86b862becaa77/web/vendor/popper/popper.js

SIL (v1.1)
--
gerbera-2f6dcb5e941dce3ace651394cfa86b862becaa77/web/vendor/lato/LICENCE.md


 - You should own these directories:

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gerbera/web,
 /etc/logrotate.d, /usr/share/gerbera, /usr/share/gerbera/js

 - gerbera.x86_64: E: non-root-user-log-file /var/log/gerbera gerbera
gerbera.x86_64: E: non-root-group-log-file /var/log/gerbera gerbera

non-root-user-log-file:
If you need log files owned by a non-root user, just create a subdir in
/var/log and put your log files in it.

   Create a subdir for the logs. Don't forget to change the location in the
config file and the logrotate file too.

 - The log file should be ghosted:

gerbera.x86_64: E: non-ghost-file /var/log/gerbera

 - [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
 is arched.
 Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5396480 bytes in /usr/share

Move the data to a noarch data subpackage


Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD
 like)", "SIL (v1.1)", "zlib/libpng", "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)",
 "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2)", "GPL (v2) LGPL (v2.1)". 375 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/gerbera/review-gerbera/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gerbera/web, /usr/share/gerbera/js,
 /usr/share/gerbera
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gerbera/web,
 /etc/logrotate.d, /usr/share/gerbera, /usr/share/gerbera/js
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 30720 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

[Bug 1567202] Review Request: gerbera - UPnP Media Server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567202



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - I made a typo, Source0 should be:

Source0:   
https://github.com/gerbera/gerbera/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{commit}.tar.gz

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

[Bug 1567202] Review Request: gerbera - UPnP Media Server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567202

Robert-André Mauchin <zebo...@gmail.com> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebo...@gmail.com> ---
 - That's not good:

#Source0:   
https://github.com/gerbera/gerbera/archive/v%%{version}/%%{name}-%%{version}.tar.gz
#Use tarball to address build issue.
Source0:gerbera-1.1.0-2f6dcb5e94.tar.gz

  If you're packaging a snapshot, just use:

%global commit  2f6dcb5e941dce3ace651394cfa86b862becaa77
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
%global snapshotdate20180413

Name:   gerbera
Version:1.1.0
Release:1.%{snapshotdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
Summary:UPnP Media Server
License:GPLv2
Url:https://gerbera.io
Source0:   
https://github.com/gerbera/gerbera/archive/{commit}/%{name}-%{commit}.tar.gz

   Then:

%prep
%autosetup -n %{name}-%{commit}

   And the %changelog:

* Fri Apr 13 2018 Gwyn Ciesla <limburg...@gmail.com> -
1.1.0-1.20180413git2f6dcb5


 - You're missing the dist tag:

Release:1.%{snapshotdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

 - %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build

 - make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" → %make_install

 - %{__install}, %{__mkdir_p}, %{__cat} don't bring anything, just use install,
mkdir -p and cat.

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

[Bug 1561530] Review Request: golang-github-anmitsu-shlex - Library to make a lexical analyzer like Unix shell for golang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561530

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith  ---
I have reviewed this package, it passes the Fedora Packaging Guidelines, and 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 1545378] Review Request: libmicrodns - Minimal mDNS resolver library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545378

Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-04-13 16:29:19



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

[Bug 1561558] Review Request: golang-github-globalsign-mgo - The MongoDB driver for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561558

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith  ---
I have reviewed this package, and it 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 1561560] Review Request: golang-github-google-cmp - Package for comparing Go values in tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561560

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith  ---
This package conforms to the packaging guidelines, and 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 1567201] Review Request: duktape - Embeddable Javascript engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567201



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
%{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build

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

[Bug 1567201] Review Request: duktape - Embeddable Javascript engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567201

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 #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Use the new %ldconfig_scriplets instead of:

%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

   See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets#Upgrade.2Fcompatibility_impact

 - You're missing the dist tag:

Release:1%{?dist}
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Dist tag is present.


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[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.
[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". 954 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/duktape/review-duktape/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.
[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 327680 bytes in 66 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 does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned 

[Bug 1561564] Review Request: golang-github-ianlancetaylor-demangle - C++ symbol name demangler written in Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561564

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith  ---
This package conforms to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines, and 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 1561563] Review Request: golang-github-google-pprof - Tool for visualization and analysis of profiling data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561563

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith  ---
Package is APPROVED.  It conforms to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines.

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

[Bug 1567089] Review Request: vmaf - Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567089



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
python2 package, not python3.

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

[Bug 1561565] Review Request: golang-github-googleapis-gax - Google API Extensions for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1561565

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith  ---
I have reviewed this package, and it follows the Fedora Packaging Guidelines. 
It 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 1564439] Review Request: sbsigntools - Signing utility for UEFI secure boot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564439



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
sbsigntools-0.9.1-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-77d16af293

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

[Bug 1564439] Review Request: sbsigntools - Signing utility for UEFI secure boot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564439



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
sbsigntools-0.9.1-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b5a125439c

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

[Bug 1564439] Review Request: sbsigntools - Signing utility for UEFI secure boot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564439

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 1567089] Review Request: vmaf - Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567089

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 #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Ha I used this extensively, it's great.

 - Should you also generate the python3-vmaf library from the python/
subdirectory? And install the python/scripts?


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.
[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 or later)", "Unknown or generated",
 "*No copyright* Apache", "CC0", "LGPL (v2.1)", "NTP", "BSD (3
 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright*
 Apache (v2.0)". 921 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/vmaf/review-
 vmaf/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.
[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 81920 bytes in 5 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency 

[Bug 1566889] Review Request: ghc-mockery - Support functions for automated testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1566889

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-mockery/review-ghc-
 mockery/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.
[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.
[-]: 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 133120 bytes in 18 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1566718] Review Request: quasselgrep - Tool for searching quassel logs from the commandline

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1566718

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  ---
 - The License file states:

Parts of this project (time.py and dateparse.py) are licensed under the
BSD license. See those files for copyright notices.

   Thus please add BSD to the License: field.

Everything else is fine, package approved, but don't forget to fix the above
issue before import.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/quasselgrep/review-
 quasselgrep/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

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.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: Description 

[Bug 1565603] Review Request: python-microfs - CLI and Python module to work with BBC micro: bit filesystem

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1565603

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
mu-0.9.13-1.fc28, python-microfs-1.2.2-1.fc28, python-nudatus-0.0.2-1.fc28,
uflash-1.1.2-2.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-2018-368e017dd6

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

[Bug 1565626] Review Request: python-nudatus - Strip comments from Python scripts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1565626

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
mu-0.9.13-1.fc28, python-microfs-1.2.2-1.fc28, python-nudatus-0.0.2-1.fc28,
uflash-1.1.2-2.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-2018-368e017dd6

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

[Bug 1566880] Review Request: gnome-themes-extra - GNOME Extra Themes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1566880

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 1566880] Review Request: gnome-themes-extra - GNOME Extra Themes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1566880



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
gnome-themes-extra-3.28-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d271aeff0a

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

[Bug 1563680] Package Review: libocxl - library for OpenCAPI accelerator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680

Hanns-Joachim Uhl  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1524656



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

[Bug 1540875] Review Request: python-pyModBusTCP - A simple Modbus/ TCP library for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540875



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
I already approved it in my previous comment:

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

You can already request it with fedpkg.

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

[Bug 1567202] Review Request: gerbera - UPnP Media Server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567202

Gwyn Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1567201




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567201
[Bug 1567201] Review Request: duktape - Embeddable Javascript engine
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1567201] Review Request: duktape - Embeddable Javascript engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567201

Gwyn Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1567202




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567202
[Bug 1567202] Review Request: gerbera - UPnP Media Server
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1567202] New: Review Request: gerbera - UPnP Media Server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567202

Bug ID: 1567202
   Summary: Review Request: gerbera - UPnP Media Server
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: limburg...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/gerbera/gerbera-1.1.0-1.src.rpm
SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/gerbera/gerbera.spec

Description:
Gerbera is a UPnP media server which allows you to stream your digital
media through your home network and consume it on a variety of UPnP
compatible devices.

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

[Bug 1567201] New: Review Request: duktape - Embeddable Javascript engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567201

Bug ID: 1567201
   Summary: Review Request: duktape - Embeddable Javascript engine
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: limburg...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/duktape/duktape-2.2.0-1.src.rpm
SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/duktape/duktape.spec

Description:
Duktape is an embeddable Javascript engine, with a focus on portability and
compact footprint.

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

[Bug 1540875] Review Request: python-pyModBusTCP - A simple Modbus/ TCP library for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540875



--- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen  ---
Robert do you have  a moment to finish this off.

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

[Bug 1545378] Review Request: libmicrodns - Minimal mDNS resolver library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545378



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libmicrodns

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

[Bug 1566880] Review Request: gnome-themes-extra - GNOME Extra Themes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1566880



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-themes-extra

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

[Bug 1567089] New: Review Request: vmaf - Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567089

Bug ID: 1567089
   Summary: Review Request: vmaf - Video Multi-Method Assessment
Fusion
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: kwiz...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/vmaf.spec
SRPM URL:
http://dl.kwizart.net/review/vmaf-1.3.3-1.20180407git510e257.fc26.src.rpm
Description: Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion
Fedora Account System Username: kwizart

This package still has room for improvements, specially as it only build on
x86_64 and they are some bundling issues. But here is the current version.

It's still questionable about either to use the shared version or only provide
a static file as upstream does...

(this package will be used by ffmpeg, so tests will occur there).

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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551402



--- Comment #19 from Kevin Kofler  ---
I filed updates with QupZilla 2.2.6:
F27: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-46b0560ccc
F26: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-f9e35683fa
Functionality-wise, they should be more or less equivalent to Falkon 3.0.0.

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

[Bug 1564716] Review Request: dionaea - Low interaction honeypot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564716



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
dionaea-0.6.0-6.20180326git1748f3b.fc27 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-acbbd4d1f1

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

[Bug 1564716] Review Request: dionaea - Low interaction honeypot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564716



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
dionaea-0.6.0-6.20180326git1748f3b.fc28 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-1524d5b6e4

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

[Bug 1564716] Review Request: dionaea - Low interaction honeypot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564716

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 1564716] Review Request: dionaea - Low interaction honeypot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564716



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
dionaea-0.6.0-6.20180326git1748f3b.fc26 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2ec9729d98

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

[Bug 1564716] Review Request: dionaea - Low interaction honeypot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564716



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
dionaea-0.6.0-6.20180326git1748f3b.el7 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-c048c20448

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

[Bug 1565504] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-apidoc - A Sphinx extension for running sphinx-apidoc on each build

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1565504



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-sphinxcontrib-apidoc-0.2.1-6.fc27 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-864dc74943

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

[Bug 1565504] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-apidoc - A Sphinx extension for running sphinx-apidoc on each build

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1565504

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 1565504] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-apidoc - A Sphinx extension for running sphinx-apidoc on each build

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1565504



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-sphinxcontrib-apidoc-0.2.1-6.fc28 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-6683babf40

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

[Bug 1566880] Review Request: gnome-themes-extra - GNOME Extra Themes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1566880



--- Comment #2 from Pete Walter  ---
Thanks Chris! Let me know when you need a review swap. Happy to do one (or
more!) as you've reviewed so many of my things.

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

[Bug 1566880] Review Request: gnome-themes-extra - GNOME Extra Themes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1566880

Chris Sandler  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ch...@protonmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ch...@protonmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Chris Sandler  ---
Looks good. As it's a rename of an existing package, I verified that Obsoletes
and Provides are correct for gnome-themes-standard -> gnome-themes-extra
rename. adwaita-gtk2-theme subpackage name didn't change and should just keep
on updating fine as is.

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

[Bug 1566889] Review Request: ghc-mockery - Support functions for automated testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1566889



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26338050

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

[Bug 1566889] New: Review Request: ghc-mockery - Support functions for automated testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1566889

Bug ID: 1566889
   Summary: Review Request: ghc-mockery - Support functions for
automated testing
   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//ghc-mockery.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//ghc-mockery-0.3.5-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
Support functions for automated testing.

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

[Bug 1566880] New: Review Request: gnome-themes-extra - GNOME Extra Themes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1566880

Bug ID: 1566880
   Summary: Review Request: gnome-themes-extra - GNOME Extra
Themes
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: walter.p...@yandex.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://pwalter.fedorapeople.org/gnome-themes-extra.spec
SRPM URL:
https://pwalter.fedorapeople.org/gnome-themes-extra-3.28-1.fc29.src.rpm
Description: Rename of gnome-themes-standard package to gnome-themes-extra to
follow upstream rename.
Fedora Account System Username: pwalter

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26337789

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