[Bug 1564500] Review Request: pipenv - The higher level Python packaging tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564500 --- Comment #11 from Michal Cyprian --- Is this absolute paths approach documented somewhere? I cannot find any example how should it looks like. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1564500] Review Request: pipenv - The higher level Python packaging tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564500 --- Comment #12 from Miro Hrončok --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576413 Marian Csontos changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(b...@redhat.com) --- Comment #14 from Marian Csontos --- Bryn, after all, boom packaging could use different locations for the files in /boot: */boot/boom/boom.conf* => /etc/boom.conf || /etc/boom/boom.conf: This specifies boot_root, which is where the BLS entries will be written, and it may be different from /boot in the OS instance - e.g. user may want to create BLS entries into different path than /boot - e.g. IMO this could solve the BTRFS usecase where /boot is part of the /, and it would use different partition/path for BLS entries. */boot/boom/profiles/*.profile* => /dev/null: Profiles go to %(boom_root)s/profiles/, which is configurable, so IMO these should be created on demand only. Also these will be outdated most of the time (and already are). Let's keep them as examples only in doc dir. What do you think? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576413 --- Comment #15 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to Marian Csontos from comment #9) > I think snpshots of /boot has its own set of problems. One of snapper's > flaws when using BTRFS is exactly that - it keeps information about > snapshots inside the filesystem which is "snapshotted". > I wouldn't be snapshotting /boot at the same time as / if it weren't for the fact that we deliberately install crap there. The reason I do it is because everything from EFI files (shim and grub2), GRUB module files, to kernel images, to stuff like this is being installed there, and the rpmdb isn't happy when those files are "mysteriously missing" or "wrong". > I wonder, if you have multiple snapshots of /boot, where do you keep > information about those snapshots and grub.cfg to pick the > snapshot+kernel+initrd+cmdline to boot? > You're right that this is a problem. I currently have the information on ESP, but I don't like it there. It'd be cleaner if stuff wasn't getting installed into /boot directly and everything in there was something that was recoverable from the main filesystem. Then I could leave /boot alone. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578817] New: Review Request: python2-astroid - Common base representation of python source code for pylint and other projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578817 Bug ID: 1578817 Summary: Review Request: python2-astroid - Common base representation of python source code for pylint and other projects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mhron...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python2-astroid.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python2-astroid-1.6.4-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: The aim of this module is to provide a common base representation of python source code for projects such as pychecker, pyreverse, pylint... It provides a compatible representation which comes from the _ast module. It rebuilds the tree generated by the builtin _ast module by recursively walking down the AST and building an extended ast. The new node classes have additional methods and attributes for different usages. They include some support for static inference and local name scopes. Furthermore, astroid builds partial trees by inspecting living objects. This package provides the Python 2 implementation. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard Git: https://github.com/hroncok/python2-astroid (see last commit for changes since python-astroid) This conflicts with python-astroid ATM. It will not be added to Fedora before python2-astroid is removed from there. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578759 for context. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578817] Review Request: python2-astroid - Common base representation of python source code for pylint and other projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578817 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1578759 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578759 [Bug 1578759] python-astroid FTFBS with Python 3.7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1564500] Review Request: pipenv - The higher level Python packaging tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564500 --- Comment #13 from Michal Cyprian --- I've done it using absolute paths, updated spec is on its original URL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1119197] Review Request: gnushogi - Shogi (Japanese Chess) AI engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-05-16 09:06:13 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System --- gnushogi-1.5-0.4.git5bb0b5b.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 1576413] Review Request: boom-boot - boot manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576413 Bryn M. Reeves changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(b...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #16 from Bryn M. Reeves --- > The reason I do it is because everything from EFI files (shim and grub2), > GRUB > module files, to kernel images, to stuff like this is being installed there, > and the rpmdb isn't happy when those files are "mysteriously missing" or > "wrong". This isn't something that will happen soon, so it's really out of scope for this review request, but in the future we would like to see a situation where /boot is treated as a cache, and the corresponding packages install their files to another location under the root file system. There's actually some progress toward this in other distros, as well as other boot management tools, but it's not something that the majority of distributions are going to be able to switch over to in short order. When /boot is viewed in this way the management of files there becomes much easier and with less potential for conflict between multiple instances that are sharing the same volume. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578847] New: Review Request: python-collectd_systemd - Collectd plugin to monitor systemd services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578847 Bug ID: 1578847 Summary: Review Request: python-collectd_systemd - Collectd plugin to monitor systemd services Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: steve.tray...@cern.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-collectd_systemd/python-collectd_systemd.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-collectd_systemd/python-collectd_systemd-0.0.1-0.20180516git.a7018ec.fc28.src.rpm Description: Collectd plugin to monitor systemd services Fedora Account System Username: stevetraylen -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578851] New: Review Request: python2-pylint - Analyzes Python code looking for bugs and signs of poor quality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578851 Bug ID: 1578851 Summary: Review Request: python2-pylint - Analyzes Python code looking for bugs and signs of poor quality Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mhron...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python2-pylint.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python2-pylint-1.9.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Pylint is a Python source code analyzer which looks for programming errors, helps enforcing a coding standard and sniffs for some code smells (as defined in Martin Fowler's Refactoring book). Pylint can be seen as another PyChecker since nearly all tests you can do with PyChecker can also be done with Pylint. However, Pylint offers some more features, like checking length of lines of code, checking if variable names are well-formed according to your coding standard, or checking if declared interfaces are truly implemented, and much more. Additionally, it is possible to write plugins to add your own checks. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard Git: https://github.com/hroncok/python2-pylint (see couple of last commits for changes since Fedora's pylint) This conflicts with pylint ATM. It will not be added to Fedora before python2-pylint is removed from pylint. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578759 for context. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578851] Review Request: python2-pylint - Analyzes Python code looking for bugs and signs of poor quality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578851 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1578759 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578759 [Bug 1578759] python-astroid FTFBS with Python 3.7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1577198] Review Request: python-httmock - mocking library for requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577198 --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen --- THanks, I'll improve the 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 1564500] Review Request: pipenv - The higher level Python packaging tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564500 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(tcallawa@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #14 from Miro Hrončok --- I'd consider this approved. Spot, since you are here, do you want to double check the licensing madness? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1119197] Review Request: gnushogi - Shogi (Japanese Chess) AI engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System --- gnushogi-1.5-0.4.git5bb0b5b.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 1578152] Review Request: perl-Minion - High performance job queue for the Perl programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578152 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jples...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578093] Review Request: python-constantly - Symbolic constants in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578093 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Tests are not mandatory and I'd rather not complicate the SPEC. Did you run fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1577198] Review Request: python-httmock - mocking library for requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577198 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-httmock -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577217 --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen --- THanks for the comments. %license added mock build requires added. Spec URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-gitlab/python-gitlab.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-gitlab/python-gitlab-1.3.0-2.fc28.src.rpm I'll confirm mock once the httmock dependency is processed... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578238] Review Request: python-scan-build - A Clang scan-build reimplementation in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578238
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
>As you can see there are new (and useful!) binaries in this Python
>implementation. However, I will need to rename the /usr/bin/scan-build to
>avoid conflicting with clang-analyzer. I'm open to suggestions on how to
>handle this.
py-scan-build?
- Name your SPEC the same name as the package, i.e. python-scan-build
- Can't install the package:
DEBUG util.py:485: Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on mer. 16 mai
2018 16:17:26 CEST.
DEBUG util.py:483: BUILDSTDERR: Error:
DEBUG util.py:483: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:483: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing provides python3dist(typing)
needed by python3-scan-build-2.0.13-1.fc29.noarch
There's a python2-typing but no python3-typing beecause "in Python 3.5 and
later, the typing module lives in the stdlib, and installing this package has
NO EFFECT." So I guess you can safely remove that BR for the Py3 subpackage.
Just update the SPEC with the rename and the BR hnage and I'll approve it.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
= 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". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-scan-build
/review-python-scan-build/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.
[!]: 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]: 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.
[Bug 1578223] Review Request: python-yapf - A formatter for Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578223
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Name your SPEC the same name as the package, i.e. python-yapf
- The license shorhand is wrong, it should be "ASL 2.0"
- Set a URL, for example:
URL:https://github.com/google/yapf
- Bump to version 0.22.0, released yesterday
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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
(v2.0)". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-yapf/review-python-
yapf/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 61440 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
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-yapf , python3-yapf
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English
[Bug 1578562] Review Request: golang-github-mdlayher-genetlink - Generic netlink interactions and data types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578562 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Latest version 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 1578564] Review Request: golang-github-mdlayher-wifi - Provides access to IEEE 802.11 WiFi device actions and statistics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578564 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- warning: bogus date in %changelog: Sat May 15 2018 Paul Gier - 0-0.1.20180515git17fb83 - May 15 is a Tuesday not a Saturday. Please fix this. - Testing fails: Testing: github.com/mdlayher/wifi Testing: "/builddir/build/BUILD/wifi-17fb8383f38adbf6a7f12e6cbd1d461760aabf5c/_build/src/github.com/mdlayher/wifi" + GOPATH=/builddir/build/BUILD/wifi-17fb8383f38adbf6a7f12e6cbd1d461760aabf5c/_build:/usr/share/gocode + go test -buildmode pie -compiler gc -ldflags '-extldflags '\''-Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld '\''' BUILDSTDERR: # github.com/mdlayher/wifi BUILDSTDERR: client_linux_test.go:18:2: cannot find package "github.com/google/go-cmp/cmp" in any of: BUILDSTDERR: /usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/google/go-cmp/cmp (from $GOROOT) BUILDSTDERR: /builddir/build/BUILD/wifi-17fb8383f38adbf6a7f12e6cbd1d461760aabf5c/_build/src/github.com/google/go-cmp/cmp (from $GOPATH) BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/google/go-cmp/cmp BUILDSTDERR: FAILgithub.com/mdlayher/wifi [setup failed] Add: BuildRequires: golang(github.com/google/go-cmp/cmp) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578913] New: Review Request: R-cli - Helpers for Developing Command Line Interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578913
Bug ID: 1578913
Summary: Review Request: R-cli - Helpers for Developing Command
Line Interfaces
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: tcall...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-cli.spec
SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-cli-1.0.0-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description: A suite of tools designed to build attractive command line
interfaces ('CLIs'). Includes tools for drawing rules, boxes, trees, and
'Unicode' symbols with 'ASCII' alternatives.
Fedora Account System Username: spot
Koji Rawhide Scratch Build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26993135
Needed for updating R-testthat.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578817] Review Request: python2-astroid - Common base representation of python source code for pylint and other projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578817
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "LGPL", "*No copyright* LGPL", "Unknown
or generated". 127 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python2-astroid/review-
python2-astroid/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
= 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]: Bu
[Bug 1578847] Review Request: python-collectd_systemd - Collectd plugin to monitor systemd services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578847
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 ---
- No dot after git:
%global snapinfo 20180516git%{shortcommit}
- Release info is wrong, it should start with 0.1:
Release:0.1.%{snapinfo}%{?dist}
Same in the %changelog entry.
Package otherwise approved, please fix the aforementioned 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.
[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". 8 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-collectd_systemd/review-python-
collectd_systemd/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-collectd_systemd , python3-collectd_systemd
[?]: Package functions as d
[Bug 1578923] New: Review Request: R-rlang - Functions for Base Types and Core R and 'Tidyverse' Features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578923 Bug ID: 1578923 Summary: Review Request: R-rlang - Functions for Base Types and Core R and 'Tidyverse' Features Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tcall...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-rlang.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-rlang-0.2.0-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: A toolbox for working with base types, core R features like the condition system, and core 'Tidyverse' features like tidy evaluation. Fedora Account System Username: spot Koji Rawhide Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26993305 Needed for updating R-testthat. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578851] Review Request: python2-pylint - Analyzes Python code looking for bugs and signs of poor quality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578851
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No
copyright* GPL". 953 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python2-pylint/review-
python2-pylint/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 163840 bytes in 9 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.
[-]: 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 tha
[Bug 1578913] Review Request: R-cli - Helpers for Developing Command Line Interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578913 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2018-05-16 11:53:39 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Qulogic already packaged it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556362 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1556362 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1556362] Review Request: R-cli - Helpers for Developing Command Line Interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556362 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin --- *** Bug 1578913 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1560305] Review Request: R-rlang - Functions for Base Types and Core R and 'Tidyverse' Features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1560305 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #13 from Robert-André Mauchin --- *** Bug 1578923 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578923] Review Request: R-rlang - Functions for Base Types and Core R and 'Tidyverse' Features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578923 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2018-05-16 11:55:05 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Already packaged by Qulogic too: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1560305 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1560305 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578817] Review Request: python2-astroid - Common base representation of python source code for pylint and other projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578817 --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok --- Thank you! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578851] Review Request: python2-pylint - Analyzes Python code looking for bugs and signs of poor quality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578851 --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok --- Thank you! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577217 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - You've made a mistake here: BuildRequires: python3-devel BuildRequires: python3dist(requests) >= 1.0 BuildRequires: python3dist(setuptools) BuildRequires: python3dist(six) BuildRequires: python3dist(sphinx) BuildRequires: python3dist(httmock) BuildRequires: python2dist(mock) It should be python3dist(mock) Package otherwise accepted. Fix the above error before import. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578094] Review Request: rubygem-mini_mime - A lightweight mime type lookup toy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578094 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-mini_mime -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578094] Review Request: rubygem-mini_mime - A lightweight mime type lookup toy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578094 Pavel Valena changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||rubygem-mini_mime-1.0.0-1.f ||c29 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2018-05-16 12:39:42 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578961] New: Review Request: R-prettyunits - Pretty, Human Readable Formatting of Quantities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578961 Bug ID: 1578961 Summary: Review Request: R-prettyunits - Pretty, Human Readable Formatting of Quantities Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tcall...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-prettyunits.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-prettyunits-1.0.2-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Pretty, human readable formatting of quantities. Time intervals: 1337000 -> 15d 11h 23m 20s. Vague time intervals: 2674000 -> about a month ago. Bytes: 1337 -> 1.34 kB. Fedora Account System Username: spot Koji Rawhide Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26995406 Needed for R-blob, which is needed for R-RSQLite -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578963] New: Review Request: R-blob - A Simple S3 Class for Representing Vectors of Binary Data (' BLOBS')
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578963
Bug ID: 1578963
Summary: Review Request: R-blob - A Simple S3 Class for
Representing Vectors of Binary Data ('BLOBS')
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: tcall...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-blob.spec
SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-blob-1.1.1-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description: R's raw vector is useful for storing a single binary object. What
if you want
to put a vector of them in a data frame? The blob package provides the blob
object, a list of raw vectors, suitable for use as a column in data frame.
Fedora Account System Username: spot
Needed for R-RSQLite
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578961] Review Request: R-prettyunits - Pretty, Human Readable Formatting of Quantities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578961
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1578963
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578963
[Bug 1578963] Review Request: R-blob - A Simple S3 Class for Representing
Vectors of Binary Data ('BLOBS')
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578963] Review Request: R-blob - A Simple S3 Class for Representing Vectors of Binary Data (' BLOBS')
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578963 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1578961 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578961 [Bug 1578961] Review Request: R-prettyunits - Pretty, Human Readable Formatting of Quantities -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578923] Review Request: R-rlang - Functions for Base Types and Core R and 'Tidyverse' Features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578923 --- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Whee, one less that I need to do. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578963] Review Request: R-blob - A Simple S3 Class for Representing Vectors of Binary Data (' BLOBS')
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578963
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Group: is not needed
- According to https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/blob/index.html, the
license is GPLv3, not MIT.
Package is approved, but please don't forget to fix the aforementioned points
before import.
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.
[-]: 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: "Unknown or generated". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/R-blob/review-R-blob/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:
[!]: 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
[Bug 1578961] Review Request: R-prettyunits - Pretty, Human Readable Formatting of Quantities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578961
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
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". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/R-prettyunits/review-R-prettyunits/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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
[x]: Package requires R-core.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr
[Bug 1577198] Review Request: python-httmock - mocking library for requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577198 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- python-httmock-1.2.6-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-aac173a486 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1577198] Review Request: python-httmock - mocking library for requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577198 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 1577198] Review Request: python-httmock - mocking library for requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577198 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python-httmock-1.2.6-1.el7.1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-406667f991 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1579045] New: Review Request: virt-bootstrap - System container rootfs creation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1579045 Bug ID: 1579045 Summary: Review Request: virt-bootstrap - System container rootfs creation tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fiden...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://fidencio.fedorapeople.org/virt-bootstrap/virt-bootstrap.spec SRPM URL: https://fidencio.fedorapeople.org/virt-bootstrap/virt-bootstrap-1.0.0-1.fc28.src.rpm Patch0001: https://fidencio.fedorapeople.org/virt-bootstrap/0001-docker-source-Avoid-skopeo-copy-in-cache.patch Patch0002: https://fidencio.fedorapeople.org/virt-bootstrap/0002-docker-source-Get-list-of-layers-without-raw.patch Patch0003: https://fidencio.fedorapeople.org/virt-bootstrap/0003-docker-source-Support-blobs-without-.tar-ext.patch Patch0004: https://fidencio.fedorapeople.org/virt-bootstrap/0004-safe_untar-Check-for-permissions-to-set-attribs.patch Description: Provides a way to create the root file system to use for libvirt containers. Fedora Account System Username: fidencio -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1579045] Review Request: virt-bootstrap - System container rootfs creation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1579045 Fabiano Fidêncio changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1558683] Review Request: python-ucsmsdk - Python SDK for Cisco UCSM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558683 Alan Pevec changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1550514 (RDO-ROCKY) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550514 [Bug 1550514] Tracker: Blockers and Review requests for new RDO Rocky packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578847] Review Request: python-collectd_systemd - Collectd plugin to monitor systemd services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578847 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-collectd_systemd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577217 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-gitlab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578847] Review Request: python-collectd_systemd - Collectd plugin to monitor systemd services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578847 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 1578847] Review Request: python-collectd_systemd - Collectd plugin to monitor systemd services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578847 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- python-collectd_systemd-0.0.1-0.2.20180516gita7018ec.el7.2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-cdfb649e2d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1578847] Review Request: python-collectd_systemd - Collectd plugin to monitor systemd services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578847 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- python-collectd_systemd-0.0.1-0.2.20180516gita7018ec.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-53f4ab300e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 725292] Review Request: s3fs-fuse - FUSE-based file system backed by Amazon S3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725292 Andrew Gaul changed: What|Removed |Added CC||and...@gaul.org --- Comment #29 from Andrew Gaul --- I contribute to s3fs; is there anything I could do to move this along? s3fs has been releasing versions for the past few years and now Ubuntu packages it as "s3fs". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 725292] Review Request: s3fs-fuse - FUSE-based file system backed by Amazon S3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725292 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nhor...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #30 from Jason Tibbitts --- Well, first thing to do is see if Jorge is still willing to continue with this submission something like seven years after it was first opened. If so, I guess he just needs to present an updated package. If not, then this should be closed and someone else can open their own review. If someone else does have a package they wish to submit now, I think it would be fair (after 4.5 years without progress) to just close this ticket out and open a new one without waiting. Since Neil had closed this out and didn't clear the assignments or the flags when he did so, I've gone ahead and cleaned things up now. (I have no personal interest in s3fs; I'm just trying to indicate what needs to happen next. If there is anything I can do to facilitate, please feel free to contact me but I'm not CCing myself on this ticket.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1577404] Review Request: kaldi - A toolkit for speech recognition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577404
Darryl T. Agostinelli changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dagostine...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Darryl T. Agostinelli ---
This is an informal review.
- What files are installed?
In %files, it seems to be only specifying the COPYING file. Are there any
other files that get installed as part of this besides the license file? I saw
your response to Robert-André Mauchin, but I didn't see the file before now. It
still looks like files are missing.
- %prep
In %prep, consider using `autosetup` to handle the unzipping for you. autosetup
handles the peculiarities of how GitHub composes its zip files.
ex:
%prep
%autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}
- %build
In %build, it seems like the %configure/%make_build/%make_install macros might
simplify this.
- No:
%global debug_package %{nil}
Do your best to generate debug symbols.
- fedora-review fails with
$ fedora-review -b 1577404
INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 1577404
INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 1577404
INFO: --> SRPM url:
https://aacosta.fedorapeople.org/rpmdevel/kaldi-5.3-1.fc28.src.rpm
INFO: --> Spec url: https://aacosta.fedorapeople.org/rpmdevel/kaldi-5.3.spec
INFO: Using review directory: /home/dagostinelli/connections/1577404-kaldi-5.3
INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files
INFO: Downloading (Source0): https://github.com/kaldi-asr/kaldi/archive/5.3.zip
INFO: Running checks and generating report
INFO: Results and/or logs in:
/home/dagostinelli/connections/1577404-kaldi-5.3/results
INFO: WARNING: Probably non-rawhide buildroot used. Rawhide should be used for
most package reviews
INFO: Build completed
INFO: Installing built package(s)
INFO: Install command returned error code 30
INFO: Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Last metadata expiration check: 2:50:58 ago on Wed 16 May 2018 06:00:44 PM CDT.
Last metadata expiration check: 2:51:02 ago on Wed 16 May 2018 06:00:44 PM CDT.
Last metadata expiration check: 2:51:07 ago on Wed 16 May 2018 06:00:44 PM CDT.
Last metadata expiration check: 2:51:11 ago on Wed 16 May 2018 06:00:44 PM CDT.
Last metadata expiration check: 2:51:14 ago on Wed 16 May 2018 06:00:44 PM CDT.
Last metadata expiration check: 2:51:19 ago on Wed 16 May 2018 06:00:44 PM CDT.
Last metadata expiration check: 2:53:34 ago on Wed 16 May 2018 06:00:44 PM CDT.
Last metadata expiration check: 2:53:36 ago on Wed 16 May 2018 06:00:44 PM CDT.
INFO: ExclusiveArch dependency checking disabled, enable with EXARCH flag
- rpmlint has errors
Rpmlint
---
Checking: kaldi-5.3-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
kaldi-5.3-1.fc25.src.rpm
kaldi.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libtool
kaldi.x86_64: E: devel-dependency zlib-devel
kaldi.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Kaldi is a toolkit for speech
recognition, intended for use by speech recognition researchers and
professionals.
kaldi.x86_64: E: no-binary
kaldi.x86_64: W: no-documentation
kaldi.src: E: description-line-too-long C Kaldi is a toolkit for speech
recognition, intended for use by speech recognition researchers and
professionals.
kaldi.src: E: invalid-spec-name
kaldi.src:19: W: macro-in-comment %autosetup
kaldi.src:33: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
kaldi.src:33: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
kaldi.src:37: W: macro-in-comment %make
kaldi.src:39: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
kaldi.src:39: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 7 warnings.
- mock
fedora-review will run mock internally, but you can also run it standalone. It
has errors from the fedora-review. I got:
ERROR: Command failed:
# /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-25-x86_64/root/ --releasever
25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=False install
/home/dagostinelli/connections/1577404-kaldi-5.3/results/kaldi-5.3-1.fc25.x86_64.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 1565848] Review Request: Bear - Tool that generates a compilation database for clang tooling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1565848 Darryl T. Agostinelli changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dagostine...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Darryl T. Agostinelli --- This is an informal review - fedora-review fails locally You should update the SPEC and SRPM links in this bugzilla bug so that fedora-review can work automatically. It's a very helpful tool. $ fedora-review -b 1565848 INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 1565848 INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 1565848 INFO: --> SRPM url: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/defolos/devel/fedora-27-ppc64le/00739589-Bear/Bear-2.3.11-1.fc27.src.rpm INFO: --> Spec url: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/defolos/devel/Bear.git/tree/bear.spec INFO: Using review directory: /home/dagostinelli/projects/fedora/1565848-bear INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files ERROR: 'Error 404 downloading https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/defolos/devel/fedora-27-ppc64le/00739589-Bear/Bear-2.3.11-1.fc27.src.rpm' (logs in /home/dagostinelli/.cache/fedora-review.log) - package names SHOULD be lowercase > Package names SHOULD be in lower case and use dashes in preference to underscores. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming Consider just naming your package "bear". - Possible name conflict Are you affiliated with the existing package called "bear-devel"? `dnf info bear-devel` See: https://github.com/j-jorge/bear -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1577404] Review Request: kaldi - A toolkit for speech recognition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577404
--- Comment #4 from Alejandro Acosta ---
(In reply to Darryl T. Agostinelli from comment #3)
> This is an informal review.
>
> - What files are installed?
>
> In %files, it seems to be only specifying the COPYING file. Are there any
> other files that get installed as part of this besides the license file? I
> saw your response to Robert-André Mauchin, but I didn't see the file before
> now. It still looks like files are missing.
>
> - %prep
I went through the source and I couldn't find any other kind of documents.
Documentation exists mainly in project's website
> In %prep, consider using `autosetup` to handle the unzipping for you.
> autosetup handles the peculiarities of how GitHub composes its zip files.
>
> ex:
> %prep
> %autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}
I tried but I found this a bit hard to accomplish since the source is in .
directory inside the top-level structure (/src).
I followed this suggestion and this allowed me to build it
https://serverfault.com/questions/311440/build-rpm-using-source-directory-not-tarball
> - %build
>
> In %build, it seems like the %configure/%make_build/%make_install macros
> might simplify this.
Again, I wasn't able to build it with the macro due to differences in directory
levels. Also, as per the installation instructions, you only need to run
'make'. Not sure if macro would do
> - No:
>
> %global debug_package %{nil}
>
>Do your best to generate debug symbols.
I may need more insight on this. I'll research a bit more on this
> - fedora-review fails with
>
> $ fedora-review -b 1577404
> INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 1577404
> INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 1577404
> INFO: --> SRPM url:
> https://aacosta.fedorapeople.org/rpmdevel/kaldi-5.3-1.fc28.src.rpm
> INFO: --> Spec url:
> https://aacosta.fedorapeople.org/rpmdevel/kaldi-5.3.spec
> INFO: Using review directory:
> /home/dagostinelli/connections/1577404-kaldi-5.3
> INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files
> INFO: Downloading (Source0):
> https://github.com/kaldi-asr/kaldi/archive/5.3.zip
> INFO: Running checks and generating report
> INFO: Results and/or logs in:
> /home/dagostinelli/connections/1577404-kaldi-5.3/results
> INFO: WARNING: Probably non-rawhide buildroot used. Rawhide should be used
> for most package reviews
> INFO: Build completed
> INFO: Installing built package(s)
> INFO: Install command returned error code 30
> INFO: Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
> Last metadata expiration check: 2:50:58 ago on Wed 16 May 2018 06:00:44 PM
> CDT.
> Last metadata expiration check: 2:51:02 ago on Wed 16 May 2018 06:00:44 PM
> CDT.
> Last metadata expiration check: 2:51:07 ago on Wed 16 May 2018 06:00:44 PM
> CDT.
> Last metadata expiration check: 2:51:11 ago on Wed 16 May 2018 06:00:44 PM
> CDT.
> Last metadata expiration check: 2:51:14 ago on Wed 16 May 2018 06:00:44 PM
> CDT.
> Last metadata expiration check: 2:51:19 ago on Wed 16 May 2018 06:00:44 PM
> CDT.
> Last metadata expiration check: 2:53:34 ago on Wed 16 May 2018 06:00:44 PM
> CDT.
> Last metadata expiration check: 2:53:36 ago on Wed 16 May 2018 06:00:44 PM
> CDT.
> INFO: ExclusiveArch dependency checking disabled, enable with EXARCH flag
>
> - rpmlint has errors
>
> Rpmlint
> ---
> Checking: kaldi-5.3-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
> kaldi-5.3-1.fc25.src.rpm
> kaldi.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libtool
> kaldi.x86_64: E: devel-dependency zlib-devel
> kaldi.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Kaldi is a toolkit for speech
> recognition, intended for use by speech recognition researchers and
> professionals.
> kaldi.x86_64: E: no-binary
> kaldi.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> kaldi.src: E: description-line-too-long C Kaldi is a toolkit for speech
> recognition, intended for use by speech recognition researchers and
> professionals.
> kaldi.src: E: invalid-spec-name
> kaldi.src:19: W: macro-in-comment %autosetup
> kaldi.src:33: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
> kaldi.src:33: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
> kaldi.src:37: W: macro-in-comment %make
> kaldi.src:39: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
> kaldi.src:39: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 7 warnings.
>
> - mock
>
> fedora-review will run mock internally, but you can also run it standalone.
> It has errors from the fedora-review. I got:
>
> ERROR: Command failed:
> # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-25-x86_64/root/
> --releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=False install
> /home/dagostinelli/connections/1577404-kaldi-5.3/results/kaldi-5.3-1.fc25.
> x86_64.rpm
I will need to go through this more deeply to check this out
Thank you for taking your time to review this, any comments, suggestions or
hints are much appreciated
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
