[Bug 1577543] Review Request: R-tufte - Tufte' s Styles for R Markdown Documents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577543

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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 26 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/R-tufte/review-R-tufte/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: No rpmlint messages.
[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:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not 

[Bug 1576056] Review Request: python-pyte - Simple VTXXX-compatible linux terminal emulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576056



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package is fine to be approved after you fix the README issue mentioned by
Guido.

However since you're not already a packager, you'll need to find a sponsor as
stated in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group



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: "GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 53 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
 /python-pyte/review-python-pyte/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 0 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-pyte , python3-pyte
[?]: 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]: 

[Bug 1576056] Review Request: python-pyte - Simple VTXXX-compatible linux terminal emulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576056

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1577543] New: Review Request: R-tufte - Tufte' s Styles for R Markdown Documents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577543

Bug ID: 1577543
   Summary: Review Request: R-tufte - Tufte's Styles for R
Markdown Documents
   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-tufte.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-tufte-0.3-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
Provides R Markdown output formats to use Tufte styles for PDF and HTML output.

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

[Bug 1577468] Review Request: R-tinytex - Helper Functions to Install and Maintain 'TeX Live', and Compile 'LaTeX' Documents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577468

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-tinytex/review-R-tinytex/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 

[Bug 1577454] Review Request: rust-xdg - Library for storing and retrieving files according to XDG

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577454

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  ---
 - Latest version packaged
 - License ok
 - Builds in Mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to the Packaging Guidelines

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 1576853] Review Request: mednafen - A multi-system emulator utilizing OpenGL and SDL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576853

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 #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Tell upstream to fix the FSF address in COPYING:

mednafen.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/mednafen/COPYING

 - Shouldn't you provide a .desktop file? And maybe an Appdata file too
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData).


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]: 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: "GPL", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
 address)", "LGPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No
 copyright* GPL", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "zlib/libpng", "BSD (3
 clause)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
 address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "FSF All Permissive", "GPL (v2)",
 "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 833 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mednafen
 /review-mednafen/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[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]: 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.
[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 

[Bug 1577404] Review Request: kaldi - A toolkit for speech recognition

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577404

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
I don't understand what you're trying to do with this SPEC file?? This doesn't
install anything.

See the guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

Look at how to install the software on the Github page. It seems the main
dependency is ATLAS, then run %configure/%make_build/%make_install from within
src. Might be more complicated though.

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

[Bug 1573695] Review Request: battray - simple tray icon to show a laptop’s battery status.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573695

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #13 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 1573634] Review Request: python3-img2pdf - a lossless images -> PDF converter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573634

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #5 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 1575453] Review Request: R-quadprog - Functions to solve Quadratic Programming Problems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575453



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-quadprog-1.5.5-1.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-a08e7f71b4

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

[Bug 1576413] Review Request: boom-boot - boot manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576413



--- Comment #8 from Neal Gompa  ---
Alasdair,

This is fundamentally flawed. My own setup has /boot as part of the OS disk
that is snapshotted with the rest of the OS. The reason being is precisely
because we install files into /boot.

If Boom cannot handle this, then it needs to do something to make that work.

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

[Bug 1576879] Review Request: ignition - First boot installer and configuration tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576879

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - 0.24 is published.

 - Unbundle vendor, that might require lots of work packaging the missing deps.
Use gofed to package these.

%prep
%autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}
rm -rf vendor

Discovering package dependencies
Class: github.com/ajeddeloh/go-json (golang-github-ajeddeloh-go-json)
PkgDB=False
Class: github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go (golang-github-aws-aws-sdk-go)
PkgDB=True
Class: github.com/coreos/go-semver (golang-github-coreos-go-semver)
PkgDB=True
Class: github.com/coreos/go-systemd (golang-github-coreos-go-systemd)
PkgDB=True
Class: github.com/pin/tftp (golang-github-pin-tftp) PkgDB=False
Class: github.com/sigma/vmw-guestinfo
(golang-github-sigma-vmw-guestinfo) PkgDB=False
Class: github.com/vincent-petithory/dataurl
(golang-github-vincent-petithory-dataurl) PkgDB=False
Class: github.com/vmware/vmw-ovflib (golang-github-vmware-vmw-ovflib)
PkgDB=False

Discovering test dependencies
Class: github.com/stretchr/testify (golang-github-stretchr-testify)
PkgDB=True


 - Consider using https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging . See
examples: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/golang/

 - Thus I would not use the build script but a standard %build section like
this:

%build 
%gobuildroot
%gobuild -o _bin/ignition %{goipath}/internal
%gobuild -o _bin/ignition-validate" %{goipath}/validate

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

[Bug 1575142] Review Request: python-ansible-runner - Tool to interface with ansible

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575142

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-ansible-runner-1.0.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-5187aa95dd

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

[Bug 1571287] Review Request: python-lightblue - A Python library to work with Lightblue database API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1571287



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-lightblue-0.1.3-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1577217] Review Request: python-gitlab - Interact with GitLab API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577217

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - The COPYING file should be marked as %license in %files:

%files -n python2-%{pypi_name}
%doc README.rst contrib/docker/README.rst
%license COPYING
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}
%{python2_sitelib}/python_gitlab-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info

%files -n python3-%{pypi_name}
%doc README.rst contrib/docker/README.rst
%license COPYING
%{_bindir}/gitlab
%{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}
%{python3_sitelib}/python_gitlab-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info

%files -n python-%{pypi_name}-doc
%license COPYING
%doc html

 - I've got a test failure:

BUILDSTDERR: ERROR: gitlab.tests.test_config
(unittest.loader.ModuleImportFailure)
BUILDSTDERR:
--
BUILDSTDERR: ImportError: Failed to import test module:
gitlab.tests.test_config
BUILDSTDERR: Traceback (most recent call last):
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/unittest/loader.py", line 254, in
_find_tests
BUILDSTDERR: module = self._get_module_from_name(name)
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/unittest/loader.py", line 232, in
_get_module_from_name
BUILDSTDERR: __import__(name)
BUILDSTDERR:   File
"/builddir/build/BUILD/python-gitlab-1.3.0/gitlab/tests/test_config.py", line
23, in 
BUILDSTDERR: import mock
BUILDSTDERR: ImportError: No module named mock
BUILDSTDERR:
--
BUILDSTDERR: Ran 166 tests in 0.338s
BUILDSTDERR: FAILED (errors=1)

   Add python2dist(mock) / python3dist(mock) as a BR to fix this.




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: "LGPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 94
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/python-gitlab/review-python-
 gitlab/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: 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]: 

[Bug 1577198] Review Request: python-httmock - mocking library for requests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577198

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  ---
 -  Adjusts the description: pyp2rpm is automatic but it cuts the description
when they are too long. Fix them so they are meaningful.

%description
A mocking library for requests for Python 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3 and
3.4.



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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
 /python-httmock/review-python-httmock/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: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-httmock , python3-httmock
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is 

[Bug 1573532] Review Request: golang-github-syncthing-notify - File system event notification library on steroids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573532



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-syncthing-notify-0-0.1.20180502gitb9ceffc.fc27 has been pushed to
the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of
it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1571287] Review Request: python-lightblue - A Python library to work with Lightblue database API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1571287



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-lightblue-0.1.3-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1576792] Review Request: webthing - HTTP Web Thing implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576792

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Use a more meaningful archive name with:

Source0:   
https://github.com/mozilla-iot/webthing-python/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

 - If you only plan to support Fedora >= 28, you could use the new
"%?python_enable_dependency_generator" instead of specifying the Requires
manually. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EnablingPythonGenerators

 - Generally we start numbering patch at 0

 - I think you should name this package python-webthing and provide a Python 3
subpackage. You could use pyp2rpm to help with that: pyp2rpm -b3 webthing >
python-webthing.spec and then adjust the patch, license, description.

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

[Bug 1576836] Review Request: zam-plugins - A collection of LV2/LADSPA/ JACK audio plugins

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576836

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  ---
I have a deja-vu feeling about this package.

 - Instead of

export CFLAGS="%{optflags}"
export CXXFLAGS="%{optflags}"
export LDFLAGS="%{__global_ldflags}"

   Use simply: %set_build_flags

 - Don't forget to add Version-Release infos in the %changelog:

* Wed May 9 2018 Guido Aulisi  - 3.10-1


Package otherwise 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]: 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: "LGPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)",
 "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* LGPL
 (v2.1 or later)", "ISC GPL", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
 address)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "ISC", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)",
 "zlib/libpng", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GPL (v3 or later)".
 404 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/zam-plugins/review-zam-
 plugins/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[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 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]: 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]: 

[Bug 1575942] Review Request: python-crcmod - Python module for generating objects that compute CRC

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575942

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Not needed:

Group: Development/Libraries

BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root

 - Specify either python2-devel or python3-devel

 - You must add either a Python 2 subpackage or a Python 3 subpackages, or
both.

 - Use the Python macros:

python setup.py build → %py3_build

python setup.py install --skip-build --root=%{buildroot} --prefix=%{_prefix} →
py3_install


 - I'd recommend to use pyp2rpm to ease the packaging:

pyp2rpm -b3 -p2 crcmod > python-crcmod.spec

It will produce a standard Python SPEC file with documentation and 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 1575412] Review Request: libmml - MML Widget

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575412

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Own this directory:

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/qt5

 - It seems the package is dual licensed, GPLv3 or LGPLv2 with exceptions:

 ** GNU Lesser General Public License Usage
 ** Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU Lesser
 ** General Public License version 2.1 as published by the Free Software
 ** Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.LGPL included in the
 ** packaging of this file.  Please review the following information to
 ** ensure the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 requirements
 ** will be met: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html.
 **
 ** In addition, as a special exception, Nokia gives you certain
 ** additional rights. These rights are described in the Nokia Qt LGPL
 ** Exception version 1.0, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this
 ** package.
 **
 ** GNU General Public License Usage
 ** Alternatively, this file may be used under the terms of the GNU
 ** General Public License version 3.0 as published by the Free Software
 ** Foundation and appearing in the file LICENSE.GPL included in the
 ** packaging of this file.  Please review the following information to
 ** ensure the GNU General Public License version 3.0 requirements will be
 ** met: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html.
 **
 ** Please note Third Party Software included with Qt Solutions may impose
 ** additional restrictions and it is the user's responsibility to ensure
 ** that they have met the licensing requirements of the GPL, LGPL, or Qt
 ** Solutions Commercial license and the relevant license of the Third
 ** Party Software they are using.




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: "GPL (v2.1) LGPL (v2.1)", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/libmml/review-libmml/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/qt5
[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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

[Bug 1573634] Review Request: python3-img2pdf - a lossless images -> PDF converter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573634



--- Comment #4 from Georg Sauthoff  ---
Ok, I fixed the license tag, fixed the spaces in the .spec file and removed the
shebang line from the library files.

New copr build:

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gsauthof/fedora/build/753184/

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

[Bug 1573532] Review Request: golang-github-syncthing-notify - File system event notification library on steroids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573532

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-05-12 14:20:13



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-syncthing-notify-0-0.1.20180502gitb9ceffc.fc28 has been pushed to
the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of
it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1571287] Review Request: python-lightblue - A Python library to work with Lightblue database API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1571287

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-05-12 14:19:13



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-lightblue-0.1.3-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1575255] Review Request: gibo - gitignore boilerplate

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575255



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - I don't think %global debug_package %{nil} is needed as it is a noarch
package already.

> - Archive name is based on automatic tarballs generated by Github based on 
> git tags

You can give a name for those archives if you use the following URL:

Source0:
https://github.com/simonwhitaker/gibo/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

 - Install the license file in %files with %license, not %doc:

%files
%doc README.md
%license UNLICENSE

[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gibo-
 bash-completion , gibo-zsh-completion

You should require the main package from the subpackages.




Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- 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.
  Note: License file UNLICENSE is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


= 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". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gibo/review-
 gibo/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 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gibo-
 bash-completion , gibo-zsh-completion
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the 

[Bug 1573634] Review Request: python3-img2pdf - a lossless images -> PDF converter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573634



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License seems wrong, according to setup.py, it is licensed as GNU Lesser
General Public License v3

License:LGPLv3

 - Remove the shebangs from img2pdf.py and jp2.py

python3-img2pdf.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/img2pdf.py /usr/bin/env python3
python3-img2pdf.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/img2pdf.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
python3-img2pdf.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/jp2.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-img2pdf.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/jp2.py 644 /usr/bin/env python

   See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries

 - Use either spaces or tabs, not both:

python-img2pdf.src:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab:
line 10)


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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 28 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/python-img2pdf/review-python-
 img2pdf/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]: 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 

[Bug 1573695] Review Request: battray - simple tray icon to show a laptop’s battery status.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573695



--- Comment #12 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
Thanks for the detailed feedback, and for catching those two silly tabs.

New uploads:

SRPM: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~maitra/Fedora/battray-2.3-5.fc28.src.rpm
SPEC: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~maitra/Fedora/battray.spec

Builds fine on koji. 

$ koji build --scratch f28 battray-2.3-5.fc28.src.rpm 
.
  0 free  0 open  2 done  0 failed

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

[Bug 1421346] Review Request: extracturl - perl script for url extraction

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421346

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Use the  %make_install macro to preserve timestamps:

make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install

 - Bump the package to the latest version and I'll review it

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

[Bug 1574128] Review Request: python-Automat - Self-service finite-state machines for the programmer on the go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574128

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|josdek...@gmail.com



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

[Bug 1570047] Review Request: prestopalette - A tool for artists to create harmonious color palettes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1570047



--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
The package is okay to be approved.


To find a sponsor, try introducing yourself on the devel mailing list, and do
informal review of other packages to show you understand the 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 1573695] Review Request: battray - simple tray icon to show a laptop’s battery status.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573695



--- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - You have a mix of tabs and spaces, use either tabs or spaces but not both at
the same time. (tabs: line 12 and 17)

 - The %changelog data is incorrectly specified: it should be Version-Release,
not Version.Release. Also you should specify your name followed by your email
between <>

* Thu May 3 2018 Ranjan Maitra  - 2.3-4
- fixed packaging issues as per BZ #1573695 comment #6
- kept removed Requires: python3-gobject (still does not seem to need it). 

* Wed May 2 2018 Ranjan Maitra  - 2.3-3
- fixed packaging issues as per BZ #1573695 comment #4
- removed Requires: python3-gobject (does not seem to need it. try for now 
  without it.) 

* Wed May 2 2018 Ranjan Maitra  - 2.3-2
- fixed packaging issues as per BZ #1573695 comment #2

* Tue May 1 2018 Ranjan Maitra  - 2.3-1
- initial packaging of 2.3 version

 - Remove:

#Source0:%{name}-version-%{version}.tar.bz2
#Source0:%{name}-version-%{version}.tar.gz



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". 14 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/battray/review-battray/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 

[Bug 1574128] Review Request: python-Automat - Self-service finite-state machines for the programmer on the go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574128



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Thank you for the review!

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

[Bug 1574121] Review Request: python-graphviz - Simple Python interface for Graphviz

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574121



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
First, thank you for the review!

Here's the changes I've made:

 - Bumped to 0.8.3

 - Set Epoch to 1

 - Renamed Documentation package and expanded the description.

 - Removed the automatic comment regarding install

 - Fixed the end of line encoding with:

sed -i 's/\r//' docs/*.rst
sed -i 's/\r//' README.rst

 - Added a Requires to Graphviz

Rpmlint is now:

Rpmlint
---
Checking: python2-graphviz-0.8.3-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
  python3-graphviz-0.8.3-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
  python-graphviz-doc-0.8.3-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
  python-graphviz-0.8.3-1.fc29.src.rpm
python2-graphviz.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo -> rope,
rep, reps
python3-graphviz.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo -> rope,
rep, reps
python-graphviz-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo ->
rope, rep, reps
python-graphviz.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo -> rope, rep,
reps
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Updated SPEC and SRPM:

Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/python-twisted/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00753150-python-graphviz/python-graphviz.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/python-twisted/fedora-raw
hide-x86_64/00753150-python-graphviz/python-graphviz-0.8.3-1.fc29.src.rpm


I'll try to catch Zbyszek for the required Graphviz changes.

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

[Bug 1499431] Review Request: nodejs-cloudant-follow - Very stable, very reliable, NodeJS CouchDB _changes follower

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1499431



--- Comment #4 from Parag Nemade  ---
It appears there are many dependencies that I need to be included for this
package review and I don't have that much time.

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

[Bug 1576056] Review Request: python-pyte - Simple VTXXX-compatible linux terminal emulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576056



--- Comment #3 from Guido Aulisi  ---
Informal review - cont.

You can wrap description in the spec file without backslashes, it was a rpmlint
error

You should include in %doc the file README, because README.rst is a symlink to
README (reported by rpmlint)

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

[Bug 1577468] Review Request: R-tinytex - Helper Functions to Install and Maintain 'TeX Live', and Compile 'LaTeX' Documents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577468



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26915966

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

[Bug 1577468] New: Review Request: R-tinytex - Helper Functions to Install and Maintain 'TeX Live', and Compile 'LaTeX' Documents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577468

Bug ID: 1577468
   Summary: Review Request: R-tinytex - Helper Functions to
Install and Maintain 'TeX Live', and Compile 'LaTeX'
Documents
   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-tinytex.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-tinytex-0.5-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
Helper functions to compile 'LaTeX' documents. This package also contains
helper functions to install and maintain the 'LaTeX' distribution named
'TinyTeX', and install missing 'LaTeX' packages automatically. TinyTeX
() is a lightweight, cross-platform, portable, and
easy-to-maintain version of 'TeX Live'.

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

[Bug 1577011] Review Request: wiringpi - PIN based GPIO access library for BCM283x SoC devices

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577011



--- Comment #4 from Vaughan  ---
Hi Peter, thanks for the review. Please see below for commits / comments.

(In reply to Peter Oliver from comment #3)
> Issues:
> ===
> - Dist tag is present.  Use %{?dist} instead of %{dist}.  See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag
DONE
https://github.com/agrez/wiringpi/commit/6e53a3b22548372f66d3e7d5e23c20407d212151

> - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
>   Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
>   Files /usr/lib/libwiringPi.so and /usr/lib/libwiringPiDev.so are present
> in both the libs and devel subpackages, but should only be in the devel
> subpackage.
DONE
https://github.com/agrez/wiringpi/commit/02e43e63fc44373cc19e03f2b5e6b7ac1fac0e65

> - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
>   Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in wiringpi-libs
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
>   On Fedora 27 and earlier, a post-install scriptlet is required in the libs
> subpackage.
DONE
https://github.com/agrez/wiringpi/commit/fadf83b45da31b5c2af25b693600ec90ef47c117

> - Package uses hardened build flags if required to.
>   Note: suid files: gpio and not %global _hardened_build
>   See:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/
> Guidelines#Compiler_flags
DONE
https://github.com/agrez/wiringpi/commit/3fc96c13b755ca543f835cf52a1b943201ff91e1

> - The licence can be left out of the main and devel subpackages, since both
> depend on libs, which also contains the licence.
DONE
https://github.com/agrez/wiringpi/commit/85d5651d9fad86a883ffa69812f9168e0f6683f5

> - The devel subpackage should mention %{?_isa} when it requires the libs
> subpackage.  Perhaps the main package should require the libs subpackage in
> the same way.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/
> Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
DONE
https://github.com/agrez/wiringpi/commit/28cbb1352e77ee2f261fbccb0a935428f0ac8270

> - Can this be built on all ARM flavours?  ExclusiveArch could be set to
> %{arm} if so.
Do you want to know if it works on aarch64 too? I haven't actually tested
wiringpi on aarch64 (as you would need aarch64 BCM270x Linux kernel port, which
I haven't ever built), so I don't know if it works. Anyway, I updated the spec
and makefile patch to add aarch64 build support. Koji scratch builds seem to
build ok.
https://github.com/agrez/wiringpi/commit/db7bc872556ec98f5c82e443f48f51bed8c061da

> - rpmlint suggests that “WiringPi is” is left off the start of the Summary.
DONE
https://github.com/agrez/wiringpi/commit/79899f3c3956eddc6396f32868c52e49618c875a

> - Commit 8d188fa of WiringPi is tagged as version 2.46, which means the
> “release version” guidelines rather than the “snapshot” guidelines of
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning should be followed
> (i.e., “.git%{commit_short}” can removed).
DONE
https://github.com/agrez/wiringpi/commit/229325a65f607de4b622249fa499cc6ff0cc75eb

> - It might be nice to install the examples as documentation in the devel
> package.
DONE
https://github.com/agrez/wiringpi/commit/a5774441b5da91b2d626adab003479241c90e601

> - Could some of the Makefile changes be submitted upstream?
> 
Yes, ok I can ask upstream and see if the maintainer is receptive.

Updated Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/agrez/wiringpi/master/wiringpi.spec

Update SRPM URL:
https://github.com/agrez/wiringpi/releases/download/2.46-1/wiringpi-2.46-1.fc28.src.rpm

koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26913836

Cheers!
Vaughan

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

[Bug 1577454] New: Review Request: rust-xdg - Library for storing and retrieving files according to XDG

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577454

Bug ID: 1577454
   Summary: Review Request: rust-xdg - Library for storing and
retrieving files according to XDG
   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-xdg.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-xdg-2.1.0-1.fc29.src.rpm
Description:
Library for storing and retrieving files according to XDG.
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 1576853] Review Request: mednafen - A multi-system emulator utilizing OpenGL and SDL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576853



--- Comment #2 from Julian Sikorski  ---
Scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26875824

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