[Bug 1581240] Review Request: pcb-rnd - Printed Circuit Board (PCB) editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1581240
--- Comment #9 from Alain V. ---
Sorry, I went too fast, did not mention the issue arises due to rpmlint error,
so please, rewind:
pcb-rnd.spec file, line 3, if I change %{_usr} to become %{_prefix}, line 3
reads now:
%global plugindir %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/plugins
then rpmlint complains with an error:
pcb-rnd.spec:3: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/plugins
When I wanted to solve this error (in rpmlint terms), the Fedora packaging
documentation instructs me to use the %{_libdir} macro which is expanded as
"lib64" on 64-bit system, and not as "lib" as I wish...
So, I should keep the current macro as
%global plugindir %{_usr}/lib/%{name}/plugins
My conclusion is still the same: I wish to install plugins files in
/usr/lib/pcb-rnd/plugins dir, and no other place, whatever arch.
HTH
Alain
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1613036] Review Request: oshinko-cli - Command line interface for spark cluster management app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613036
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #19 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Source has two lines:
Source0:https://%{goipath}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz
https://%{goipath}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.gz
Fix it.
Package otherwise 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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623731] Review Request: python-sphinxtesters - Utilities for testing Sphinx extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623731 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James --- Thank you for the review, Robert-André! I appreciate 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623730] Review Request: python-nose-ignore-docstring - Ignore docstring to name tests in nose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623730 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James --- Thank you! I will add the LICENSE file on 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1622789] Review Request: f29-backgrounds - Fedora 29 default desktop background
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1622789 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-08-31 21:47:45 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- desktop-backgrounds-29.0.0-1.fc29, f29-backgrounds-29.0.0-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623348] Review Request: golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj - Read and write Git objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623348 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj-0-0.1.20180831git5aa0c18.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-68766df319 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623348] Review Request: golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj - Read and write Git objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623348 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj-0-0.1.20180831git5aa0c18.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-1dbf317a58 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623348] Review Request: golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj - Read and write Git objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623348 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj-0-0.1.20180831git5aa0c18.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4bc45a3bc9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1613036] Review Request: oshinko-cli - Command line interface for spark cluster management app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613036 --- Comment #18 from Ricardo Martinelli de Oliveira --- Hope to have everything fixed: https://github.com/rimolive/oshinko-cli-rpm/commit/e9dcd008a5c0993244da89845aa451d98ff1c94b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623348] Review Request: golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj - Read and write Git objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623348 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623448] Review Request: elementary-print - Simple shim for printing support via Contractor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623448 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- elementary-print-0.1.3-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-94330e0083 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623448] Review Request: elementary-print - Simple shim for printing support via Contractor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623448 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- elementary-print-0.1.3-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-9ab906d30a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623448] Review Request: elementary-print - Simple shim for printing support via Contractor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623448 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- elementary-print-0.1.3-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-3e7f99cb02 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1582983] Review Request: termy-server - TermySequence terminal multiplexer server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1582983 --- Comment #16 from Rex Dieter --- I'll amend SHOULD item 1: 1. SHOULD use instead -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release then Release flags actually get used. In practice, that means mostly that -DNDEBUG gets added to compiler flags. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1582983] Review Request: termy-server - TermySequence terminal multiplexer server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1582983 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||termy-server -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1583798] Review Request: termy-qt - TermySequence terminal multiplexer client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1583798 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@gmail.com Alias||termy-qt Flags||fedora-review? 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1582983] Review Request: termy-server - TermySequence terminal multiplexer server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1582983 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Rex Dieter --- Thanks for the update, and apologies for my tardiness. Found some free time today finally. built/installed ok locally, $ sudo rpmlint termy-server 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. naming: ok sources: ok $ md5sum *.xz e8fdf6191c01d1eab2d0b968e42161f3 termysequence-server-1.1.0.tar.xz licensing: ok scriptlets: ok 1. SHOULD remove: # Build type "None" disables Release/Debug CFLAGS and LDFLAGS set by CMake. # Only the CFLAGS and LDFLAGS specified by rpmbuild will be used. ...# Build type "None" disables Release/Debug CFLAGS and LDFLAGS set by CMake. # Only the CFLAGS and LDFLAGS specified by rpmbuild will be used. #-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=None \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=None \ This does not appear to be true. and if it was, fixing or workaround here is the wrong place to do it (cmake and it's macros should be fixed instead). Please remove this. Otherwise, fairly simple and clean. APPROVED. I'll sponsor you shortly. 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1613036] Review Request: oshinko-cli - Command line interface for spark cluster management app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613036
--- Comment #17 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
(In reply to Ricardo Martinelli de Oliveira from comment #16)
> (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #15)
> > - I would switch 0%{?rhel} >= 7 to == 7, I hope for RHEL 8 we will have our
> > new Go packaging working.
> >
> > - Use a more meaningful name for your archive:
> >
> > Source0:%url/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
>
> Is it required the /archive/ part? This is what I have for URL:
> https://github.com/radanalyticsio/oshinko-cli/releases/download/v0.5.4/
> oshinko-cli-v0.5.4_linux_amd64.tar.gz
>
That's not the source code, source code is at the "/archive/" part.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1613036] Review Request: oshinko-cli - Command line interface for spark cluster management app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613036
--- Comment #16 from Ricardo Martinelli de Oliveira ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #15)
> - I would switch 0%{?rhel} >= 7 to == 7, I hope for RHEL 8 we will have our
> new Go packaging working.
>
> - Use a more meaningful name for your archive:
>
> Source0:%url/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Is it required the /archive/ part? This is what I have for URL:
https://github.com/radanalyticsio/oshinko-cli/releases/download/v0.5.4/oshinko-cli-v0.5.4_linux_amd64.tar.gz
>
> - Split the description to stay below 80 characters per line:
>
>
> oshinko-cli.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subdirectory ->
> sub directory, sub-directory, directory
> oshinko-cli.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The oshinko application
> manages Apache Spark clusters on OpenShift. The application
> oshinko-cli.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C consists of a REST server
> (oshinko-rest) and a web UI and is designed to run in an
> oshinko-cli.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C This repository contains
> tools to launch the oshinko application along with the source
> oshinko-cli.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C code for the oshinko REST
> server in the rest subdirectory. The source code for the web
>
>
> - Changelog entry is incorrect
>
> oshinko-cli.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.5.4
> ['0.5.4-0.fc30', '0.5.4-0']
>
>It should be
>
> * Thu Jul 26 2018 Ricardo Martinelli de Oliveira -
> 0.5.4-1
>
> - And Release should start at 1
>
> Release:1%{?dist}
>
>
> - Use %global not define:
>
> %global debug_package %{nil}
>
> Also only use it on EPEL since it's where it fails
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1624399] Review Request: perl-TestML1 - Generic software testing meta language (version 1)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624399 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- URL and Source addresses are Ok. Source archive (SHA-256: 5e90a82456e228fd946e50ac7847e3c3fbd923a76031d478ea61f95c1733) is original. Ok. Summary verified from lib/TestML1.pod. Ok. Description verified from lib/TestML1.pod. Ok. License verified from lib/TestML1.pod and README. Ok. No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-TestML1.spec review-perl-TestML1/results/perl-TestML1-0.57-1.fc30.noarch.rpm review-perl-TestML1/results/perl-TestML1-0.57-1.fc30.src.rpm perl-TestML1.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superset -> super set, super-set, supersede perl-TestML1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superset -> super set, super-set, supersede 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpm -q -lv -p perl-TestML1-0.57-1.fc30.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 août 31 20:00 /usr/share/doc/perl-TestML1 -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1263 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/doc/perl-TestML1/CONTRIBUTING -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3963 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/doc/perl-TestML1/Changes -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2823 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/doc/perl-TestML1/README drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 août 31 20:00 /usr/share/licenses/perl-TestML1 -rw-r--r--1 rootroot18352 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/licenses/perl-TestML1/LICENSE -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2464 août 31 20:00 /usr/share/man/man3/TestML1.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1510 août 31 20:00 /usr/share/man/man3/TestML1::Setup.3pm.gz drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 août 31 20:00 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1 -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1067 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2816 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1.pod -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1987 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Base.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 79 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Bridge.pm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 août 31 20:00 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Compiler -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3606 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Compiler.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 6186 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Compiler/Lite.pm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 août 31 20:00 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Compiler/Pegex -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1546 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Compiler/Pegex.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4443 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Compiler/Pegex/AST.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot10596 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Compiler/Pegex/Grammar.pm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 août 31 20:00 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Library -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 101 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Library.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 546 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Library/Debug.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4130 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Library/Standard.pm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 août 31 20:00 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Runtime -rw-r--r--1 rootroot12963 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Runtime.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2437 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Runtime/TAP.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3302 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Setup.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1183 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Setup.pod -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 495 juil. 28 17:01 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/TestML1/Util.pm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 août 31 20:00 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/auto drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 août 31 20:00 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/share drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot
[Bug 1624426] Review Request: python-django-debreach - Basic/ extra mitigation against the BREACH attack for Django projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624426
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} > 7
%global with_python3 1
%else
%global with_python2 1
%endif
- Use the bcond_with/bcond_without mechanism
%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} > 7
%bcond_withpython2
%bcond_without python3
%else
%bcond_without python2
%bcond_withpython3
%endif
Then just use:
%if %{with python2}
BuildRequires: python2-devel
BuildRequires: python2-django
BuildRequires: python2-setuptools
%endif
%if %{with python3}
BuildRequires: python3-devel
BuildRequires: python3dist(django)
BuildRequires: python3dist(setuptools)
BuildRequires: python3dist(sphinx)
%endif
And so on.
Package otherwise approved. Consider the above advice 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
(unspecified)". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-django-debreach
/review-python-django-debreach/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 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not conta
[Bug 1624426] Review Request: python-django-debreach - Basic/ extra mitigation against the BREACH attack for Django projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624426 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623448] Review Request: elementary-print - Simple shim for printing support via Contractor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623448 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elementary-print -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1540833] Review Request: racket - General-purpose programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540833 --- Comment #21 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/racket -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623448] Review Request: elementary-print - Simple shim for printing support via Contractor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623448 --- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks for the review! https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7938 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7939 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7940 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7941 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1613036] Review Request: oshinko-cli - Command line interface for spark cluster management app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613036
--- Comment #15 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- I would switch 0%{?rhel} >= 7 to == 7, I hope for RHEL 8 we will have our
new Go packaging working.
- Use a more meaningful name for your archive:
Source0:%url/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Split the description to stay below 80 characters per line:
oshinko-cli.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subdirectory -> sub
directory, sub-directory, directory
oshinko-cli.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The oshinko application
manages Apache Spark clusters on OpenShift. The application
oshinko-cli.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C consists of a REST server
(oshinko-rest) and a web UI and is designed to run in an
oshinko-cli.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C This repository contains
tools to launch the oshinko application along with the source
oshinko-cli.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C code for the oshinko REST
server in the rest subdirectory. The source code for the web
- Changelog entry is incorrect
oshinko-cli.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.5.4 ['0.5.4-0.fc30',
'0.5.4-0']
It should be
* Thu Jul 26 2018 Ricardo Martinelli de Oliveira -
0.5.4-1
- And Release should start at 1
Release:1%{?dist}
- Use %global not define:
%global debug_package %{nil}
Also only use it on EPEL since it's where it fails
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1624325] Review Request: php-mockery - Mockery is a simple but flexible PHP mock object framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624325
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Group: is not used in Fedora
- Not needed:
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or
generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 188 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
/php-mockery/review-php-mockery/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 184320 bytes in 46 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded f
[Bug 1540833] Review Request: racket - General-purpose programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540833 Igor Gnatenko 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1540833] Review Request: racket - General-purpose programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540833 Igor Gnatenko 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1624322] Review Request: php-hamcrest2 - PHP port of Hamcrest Matchers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624322
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Group: is not used in Fedora
- Not needed:
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
(unspecified)". 148 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-hamcrest2/review-php-
hamcrest2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Sourc
[Bug 1624322] Review Request: php-hamcrest2 - PHP port of Hamcrest Matchers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624322 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1613036] Review Request: oshinko-cli - Command line interface for spark cluster management app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613036 --- Comment #14 from Ricardo Martinelli de Oliveira --- https://github.com/rimolive/oshinko-cli-rpm/commit/4da4cebae1bb6e514a634a57e22a054c309d6fb9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1624325] Review Request: php-mockery - Mockery is a simple but flexible PHP mock object framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624325 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1622694] Review Request: discord-irc - Connects Discord and IRC channels by sending messages back and forth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1622694 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- discord-irc-2.6.1-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2018-08dffd2fd7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1622619] Review Request: nodejs-tweetnacl - Port of TweetNaCl cryptographic library to JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1622619 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-tweetnacl-1.0.0-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2018-079b310aca -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1622625] Review Request: nodejs-discord-js - Powerful JavaScript library for interacting with the Discord API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1622625 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-discord-js-11.4.2-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2018-8923da7292 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1622690] Review Request: nodejs-irc-upd - NodeJS IRC client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1622690 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-irc-upd-0.10.0-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2018-334cbfefe8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1624208] Review Request: parlatype - GNOME audio player for transcription
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624208
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Not needed:
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Not used anymore:
%post
/sbin/ldconfig
/bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
%postun
/sbin/ldconfig
if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then
/bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
fi
%posttrans
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
- subpackage -devel should require -libs, not the main package:
%packagedevel
Summary:Development files for %{name}
Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
- To avoid unintended soname bump, it is now forbidden to use a glob for the
major soname version, be more precise instead
%{_libdir}/libparlatype.so.1*
- You need to Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons directories
- Add gcc as a BR
- The license field should also mention CC-BY-SA and add a comment explaining
the license breakdown. Also install COPYING_CCBYSA with %license in %files.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- gtk-update-icon-cache must not be invoked in %post and %posttrans for
Fedora 26 and later.
Note: icons in parlatype
See:
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[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", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* CC by-sa
(v3.0)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v4.0)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "FSF
All Permissive", "*No copyright* CC by-nd (v4.0)", "GPL (v3 or
later)". 342 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/parlatype/review-
parlatype/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/glade/pixmaps/hicolor/16x16/actions(glade-libs),
/usr/share/glade/pixmaps/hicolor(glade-libs),
/usr/share/glade/pixmaps/hicolor/22x22(glade-libs),
/usr/share/glade/pixmaps/hicolor/16x16(glade-libs),
/usr/share/glade/pixmaps/hicolor/22x22/actions(glade-libs), /usr/share
/gtk-doc/html(harfbuzz-devel, intel-gpu-tools)
[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.
[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.
[-]: 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]: Pa
[Bug 1624208] Review Request: parlatype - GNOME audio player for transcription
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624208 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623731] Review Request: python-sphinxtesters - Utilities for testing Sphinx extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623731
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
(unspecified)". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-sphinxtesters
/review-python-sphinxtesters/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[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-sphinxtesters , python3-sphinxtesters
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include licen
[Bug 1623731] Review Request: python-sphinxtesters - Utilities for testing Sphinx extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623731 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623730] Review Request: python-nose-ignore-docstring - Ignore docstring to name tests in nose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623730
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Grab the license from upstream as Source1 and install it:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/schlamar/nose-ignore-docstring/master/LICENSE
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-nose-
ignore-docstring/review-python-nose-ignore-docstring/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.7/site-
packages/nose/plugins/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.7/site-
packages/nose/plugins, /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/nose
[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 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[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
[Bug 1581240] Review Request: pcb-rnd - Printed Circuit Board (PCB) editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1581240
--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
(In reply to Alain V. from comment #7)
> I propose those modifications in .spec file:
>
> 1. licenses breakdown: Add this comment line before the License: tag
> # For a license breakdown info, please refer to
> https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/p/pcb-rnd/pcb-rnd_2.0.
> 0-1_copyright
>
> 2. Delete the line
> %exclude %{_usr}/lib/debug/*
>
> 3. Use %{_prefix} instead of %{_usr} : I can't => No change.
> Cause %{_usr}/lib/pcb-rnd will become %{_prefix}/lib/pcb-rnd which in
> turn wants to be replaced by %{_libdir}/pcb-rnd which is /usr/lib64/... on
> 64bit system (obviously NOT /usr/lib/... !)
>
That doesn't make any sense, why would %{_prefix}/lib/pcb-rnd become
%{_libdir}/pcb-rnd?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623730] Review Request: python-nose-ignore-docstring - Ignore docstring to name tests in nose
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623730 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623448] Review Request: elementary-print - Simple shim for printing support via Contractor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623448
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |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]: 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/elementary-print/review-elementary-
print/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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 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
= 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
elementary-print-debuginfo , elementary-print-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is 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 o
[Bug 1623448] Review Request: elementary-print - Simple shim for printing support via Contractor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623448 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623348] Review Request: golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj - Read and write Git objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623348 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623348] Review Request: golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj - Read and write Git objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623348 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1624426] New: Review Request: python-django-debreach - Basic/ extra mitigation against the BREACH attack for Django projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624426 Bug ID: 1624426 Summary: Review Request: python-django-debreach - Basic/extra mitigation against the BREACH attack for Django projects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jp...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-django-debreach/python-django-debreach.spec SRPM URL: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/python-django-debreach/python-django-debreach-1.5.2-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Basic/extra mitigation against the BREACH attack for Django projects. When combined with rate limiting in your web-server, or by using something like django-ratelimit, the techniques here should provide at least some protection against the BREACH attack. Fedora Account System Username: jpena Koji scratch build available at https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29398269 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623469] Review Request: python-click-man - Generate man pages for click based CLI applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623469 --- Comment #13 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-click-man -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623220] Review Request: python-mmdzanata - Tools for working with translations of modulemd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623220 --- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-mmdzanata -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623295] Review Request: R-fontLiberation - Liberation Fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623295 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-fontLiberation -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1624399] New: Review Request: perl-TestML1 - Generic software testing meta language (version 1)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624399 Bug ID: 1624399 Summary: Review Request: perl-TestML1 - Generic software testing meta language (version 1) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-TestML1/perl-TestML1.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-TestML1/perl-TestML1-0.57-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: TestML is a generic, programming language agnostic, meta language for writing unit tests. The idea is that you can use the same test files in multiple implementations of a given programming idea. Then you can be more certain that your application written in, say, Python matches your Perl implementation. In a nutshell you write a bunch of data tests that have inputs and expected results. Using a simple syntax, you specify what functions the data must pass through to produce the expected results. You use a bridge class to write the data functions that pass the data through your application. In Perl 5, TestML is the evolution of the Test::Base module. It has a superset of Test:Base's goals. The data markup syntax is currently exactly the same as Test::Base. You may want to use perl-TestML instead that supports a new generation of the meta language. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar This packaged software is a fork of TestML (already packaged as perl-TestML) because TestML will be upgraded to an incompatible version in the future. Thus the code and the spec files are very similar. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623290] Review Request: R-fontBitstreamVera - Fonts with ' Bitstream Vera Fonts' License
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623290 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-fontBitstreamVera -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623469] Review Request: python-click-man - Generate man pages for click based CLI applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623469 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Petr Šabata --- Ack. Approving. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623469] Review Request: python-click-man - Generate man pages for click based CLI applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623469 --- Comment #11 from Stephen Gallagher --- Spec URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-click-man/python-click-man.spec SRPM URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-click-man/python-click-man-0.2.2-4.fc29.src.rpm COPR Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sgallagh/mmdzanata/build/793113/ Description is fixed and I made the setuptools BR consistent. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623469] Review Request: python-click-man - Generate man pages for click based CLI applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623469
Petr Šabata changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(psab...@redhat.co |fedora-review?
|m) |
--- Comment #10 from Petr Šabata ---
* The same problem with %{description} as in mmdzanata.
* It's also funny this one doesn't provide a manpage but given it's not your
package... :)
* mmdzanata BRs python?dist(setuptools) while this one python?-setuptools.
It doesn't matter but I'm just commenting on the inconsistency in packaging.
Just fix the description and we're good to go.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623220] Review Request: python-mmdzanata - Tools for working with translations of modulemd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623220 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Petr Šabata --- Ack. Approving. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623220] Review Request: python-mmdzanata - Tools for working with translations of modulemd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623220 --- Comment #9 from Stephen Gallagher --- Spec URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-mmdzanata/python-mmdzanata.spec SRPM URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-mmdzanata/python-mmdzanata-0.7-2.fc29.src.rpm COPR Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sgallagh/mmdzanata/package/python-mmdzanata/ I fixed the description. Regarding the binary directory purge, that's future-proof in case for some reason the python2 build ever produces different content from the python3 one. It was put there by pyp2rpm and I don't see a good reason to remove 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623220] Review Request: python-mmdzanata - Tools for working with translations of modulemd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623220
Petr Šabata changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(psab...@redhat.co |
|m) |
--- Comment #8 from Petr Šabata ---
Almost there!
%{description} isn't an expandable macro. If you want to re-use the
description text, define something else and use that. The current result is
you have the literal "%{description}" as your package description.
Also not sure whether you need line 74, doesn't the next step overwrite it?
Though I haven't tried that, just thinking.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1581240] Review Request: pcb-rnd - Printed Circuit Board (PCB) editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1581240
--- Comment #7 from Alain V. ---
I propose those modifications in .spec file:
1. licenses breakdown: Add this comment line before the License: tag
# For a license breakdown info, please refer to
https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/p/pcb-rnd/pcb-rnd_2.0.0-1_copyright
2. Delete the line
%exclude %{_usr}/lib/debug/*
3. Use %{_prefix} instead of %{_usr} : I can't => No change.
Cause %{_usr}/lib/pcb-rnd will become %{_prefix}/lib/pcb-rnd which in turn
wants to be replaced by %{_libdir}/pcb-rnd which is /usr/lib64/... on 64bit
system (obviously NOT /usr/lib/... !)
Now, please find in
http://repo.hu/projects/pcb-rnd/developer/packaging/lib64.txt
why we don't want to install the plugins elsewhere
What will be the next step ? Thanks for your help.
Best regards
Alain
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623295] Review Request: R-fontLiberation - Liberation Fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623295 Iñaki Ucar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Iñaki Ucar --- Ok, package approved. - No relevant rpmlint errors or warnings. - Requires, BuildRequires ok. - Compatible license, license included. - Files/dirs ok. - Fonts cannot be unbundled (version not present in Fedora), Provides ok. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1624325] Review Request: php-mockery - Mockery is a simple but flexible PHP mock object framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624325 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1624322 Alias||mockery/mockery Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624322 [Bug 1624322] Review Request: php-hamcrest2 - PHP port of Hamcrest Matchers -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1624322] Review Request: php-hamcrest2 - PHP port of Hamcrest Matchers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624322 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1624325 (mockery/mockery) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624325 [Bug 1624325] Review Request: php-mockery - Mockery is a simple but flexible PHP mock object framework -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623295] Review Request: R-fontLiberation - Liberation Fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623295 --- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- OK, I removed some of the redundant files, but not all of them. Since this package is bundling the font, I left the documentation files but marked them as %doc. Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/R-fontLiberation.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/R-fontLiberation-0.1.0-2.fc28.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1624325] New: Review Request: php-mockery - Mockery is a simple but flexible PHP mock object framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624325 Bug ID: 1624325 Summary: Review Request: php-mockery - Mockery is a simple but flexible PHP mock object framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/mockery/php-mockery.git/plain/php-mockery.spec?id=5a3df5f6fd9bb19ba884912cea4bb6797f0f502c SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-mockery-1.1.0-1.fedora.src.rpm Description: Mockery is a simple but flexible PHP mock object framework for use in unit testing. It is inspired by Ruby's flexmock and Java's Mockito, borrowing elements from both of their APIs. Autoloader: /usr/share/php/Mockery1/autoload.php Fedora Account System Username: remi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1624322] New: Review Request: php-hamcrest2 - PHP port of Hamcrest Matchers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624322 Bug ID: 1624322 Summary: Review Request: php-hamcrest2 - PHP port of Hamcrest Matchers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/hamcrest/php-hamcrest2.git/plain/php-hamcrest2.spec?id=1a3994b11428c719fd86cc38e68c6b7d9ebe SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-hamcrest2-2.0.0-1.fedora.src.rpm Description: Hamcrest is a matching library originally written for Java, but subsequently ported to many other languages. php-hamcrest2 is the official PHP port of Hamcrest and essentially follows a literal translation of the original Java API for Hamcrest, with a few Exceptions, mostly down to PHP language barriers. Autoloader: /usr/share/php/Hamcrest2/autoload.php Fedora Account System Username: remi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1623290] Review Request: R-fontBitstreamVera - Fonts with ' Bitstream Vera Fonts' License
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623290 Iñaki Ucar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Iñaki Ucar --- Thanks, package approved. - No relevant rpmlint errors or warnings. - Requires, BuildRequires ok. - Compatible license, license included. - Files/dirs ok. - Fonts unbundled, linking to system fonts. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
