[Bug 1642219] Review Request: libbraiding - Library for computations on braid groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642219
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 ---
- Patch the incorrect FSF address with the new one and send it upstream:
libbraiding-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/braiding.h
libbraiding-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/cbraid.h
libbraiding-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/cbraid_implementation.h
libbraiding-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/cbraid_interface.h
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No
copyright* GNU General Public License", "Unknown or generated". 6
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/libbraiding/review-
libbraiding/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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
[Bug 1642736] Review Request: python-leveldb - Python bindings for leveldb database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642736
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 ---
- Your %changelog entry should be:
* Wed Oct 24 2018 Carl George - 0.194-1
- Remove the executable bits and notify upstream about it:
python3-leveldb.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/python3-leveldb/README
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-leveldb/review-
python-leveldb/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.
[-]: 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]: 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
[Bug 1643365] Review Request: python-json-minify - Python port of the JSON-minify utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643365 --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30468964 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1643365] New: Review Request: python-json-minify - Python port of the JSON-minify utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643365 Bug ID: 1643365 Summary: Review Request: python-json-minify - Python port of the JSON-minify utility Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//python-json-minify.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//python-json-minify-0.3.0-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: JSON-minify minifies blocks of JSON-like content into valid JSON by removing all whitespace *and* JS-style comments. With JSON-minify, you can maintain developer-friendly JSON documents, but minify them before parsing or transmitting them over-the-wire. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1642746] Review Request: libhomfly - Library to compute the homfly polynomial of a link
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642746
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "Expat License",
"Unknown or generated", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU
General Public License". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libhomfly/review-
libhomfly/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
[Bug 1643266] Review Request: python-libNeuroML - Python libNeuroML for working with neuronal models specified in NeuroML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643266 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(sanjay.ankur@gmai ||l.com) --- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #4) > + make html > sphinx-build -b html -d _build/doctrees . _build/html > BUILDSTDERR: make: sphinx-build: Command not found > BUILDSTDERR: make: *** [Makefile:45: html] Error 127 > > > This doesn't work in mock, but it works in Koji. Set > SPHINXBUILD=sphinx-build-3 to make it buildable. I cannot run the checks if I cannot build the package in mock. So This is what I'm waiting for now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1638768] Review Request: fmt - Small, safe and fast formatting library for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638768 --- Comment #10 from Kefu Chai --- rawhive package built: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fmt and https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30467968 i also started a thread at https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/Q4LJVZLHOQQFAY6TGYZ2LC4ZKGTHQKZ2/ for bumping up the fmt library. also, i contacted the kodi maintainers offline for the updated fmt library. currently, kodi is statically linked against libfmt.a at build-time, so this change should be invisible to the users which install existing kodi package(s). but once kodi is rebuilt with updated fmt-devel, kodi will depend on fmt which provides libfmt.so library. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1643345] Review Request: python-datadog - Python library for the Datadog API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643345 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa --- > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. The only issue here was the comment you used in your spec for your patch: > # 0001-setup.py-Rename-script-names-from-dog-to-dogshell.patch > Patch0001: 0001-setup.py-Rename-script-names-from-dog-to-dogshell.patch I think you meant to paste something about this pull request: https://github.com/DataDog/datadogpy/pull/305 As for the rpmlint errors, they're non-issues. Please fix the comment for the patch on import. 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 1643345] Review Request: python-datadog - Python library for the Datadog API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643345 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa --- Packager has been sponsored. 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 1643345] Review Request: python-datadog - Python library for the Datadog API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643345 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa --- Taking this review and sponsoring this packager. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1643345] Review Request: python-datadog - Python library for the Datadog API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643345
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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)". 75 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1643345-python-datadog/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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
[Bug 1643345] Review Request: python-datadog - Python library for the Datadog API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643345 --- Comment #1 from Dalton Miner --- Updated to fix a conflict with an existing package: Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dminer/python-datadog/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00815607-python-datadog/python-datadog.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dminer/python-datadog/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00815607-python-datadog/python-datadog-0.23.0-2.fc30.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 1643345] Review Request: python-datadog - Python library for the Datadog API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643345 Dalton Miner changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1643345] New: Review Request: python-datadog - Python library for the Datadog API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643345 Bug ID: 1643345 Summary: Review Request: python-datadog - Python library for the Datadog API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: daltonmi...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dminer/python-datadog/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00815604-python-datadog/python-datadog.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dminer/python-datadog/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00815604-python-datadog/python-datadog-0.23.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Datadogpy is a collection of tools suitable for inclusion in existing Python projects or for development of standalone scripts. It provides an abstraction on top of Datadog's raw HTTP interface and the Agent's StatsD metrics aggregation server, to interact with Datadog and efficiently report events and metrics. Fedora Account System Username: dminer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1636111] Review Request: glyr - Glyr is a music related metadata searchengine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636111 --- Comment #17 from Kefu Chai --- @Mukundan i didn't intend to hijack this preview request from you. was just trying to follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group , as i was trying to get myself sponsored by then. since i've been sponsored. i think i'd better stop here and find another bz to review. i am sorry if it's considered impolite to jump into an assigned review request in the middle. thanks @Matia, the last nit, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PatchUpstreamStatus . -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1530084] Review Request: numix-icon-theme-square - Numix Project square icon theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1530084 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- numix-icon-theme-square-0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1515053] Review Request: asv - Airspeed Velocity: A simple Python history benchmarking tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1515053
--- Comment #9 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #8)
> In general, the build is fine, but there are a few bundling issues that must
> be
> looked at.
>
> Issues:
> ===
> - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
> are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
> Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
>
> Please double check if g++ is required by this package.
That lint is outdated. gcc-c++ must be listed now.
> There are a few bundling issues here:
>
> - I'm not sure whether the various JS libraries that you're including can be
> bundled. The guidelines here say they must be packaged separately too:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JavaScript_libraries_packaging_guideline_draft
Unfortunately, the JS ecosystem never really seemed to have taken off as far as
packages go... As you can see that guideline has been a draft for 10 years.
> - extern/asizeof is part of Pympler which is in Fedora. So that should be
> used
> instead of the bundled copy:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-Pympler
It's a bundled library in pympler too.
> - extern/json-minify is bundled too. I expect this needs to be packaged
> separately also as I've not been able to find it in the repos:
> https://pypi.org/project/JSON_minify/
I think the package never existed before, so I will see if I can unbundle it
upstream.
> = SHOULD items =
>
> Generic:
> [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
> Note: Package contains font files
> I haven't been able to locate them. Please check for these.
I don't see any either.
> = EXTRA items =
>
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
>
> - This could be improved as "Documentation for %{name}" which would also get
> rid of this error.
> asv-doc.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C asv documentation
>
Will fix.
> - These should likely be removed (see comment on bundling above)
> asv.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter
> /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/asv/extern/asizeof.py /usr/bin/env python
> asv.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/asv/extern/asizeof.py 644 /usr/bin/env
> python
>
Will fix.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1642118] Review Request: strawberry - An audio player and music collection organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642118 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jerry James --- Okay, looks good. This package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1612092] Review Request: mailman3 - The GNU mailing list manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1612092 --- Comment #13 from Neal Gompa --- Created attachment 1497582 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1497582&action=edit mailman 3 mock build log The tests for mailman 3 are failing in my rawhide build. I've attached the log for your examination. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1641697] Review Request: fedora-toolbox - Toolbox containers & images for hacking on OSTree-based Fedoras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1641697 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- fedora-toolbox-0.0.1-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2325d567d7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1638968] Review Request: libneurosim - Common interfaces for neuronal simulators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638968 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- libneurosim-0-1.20181025.git7d074da.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-31177d5560 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1642570] Review Request: rclone-browser - Simple cross platform GUI for rclone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642570 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- rclone-browser-1.2-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-743780f598 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1641264] Review Request: rudeconfig - Library (C++ API) for reading and writing configuration/.ini files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1641264 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- rudeconfig-5.0.6-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-e442badc3f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1636111] Review Request: glyr - Glyr is a music related metadata searchengine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636111 --- Comment #16 from Mukundan Ragavan --- @kefu, do you want to take over the review formally? If yes, please assign the bug to yourself. I can sponsor matias after the package is approved unless you are also a sponsor (cannot find you on FAS with the details here). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1635422] Review Request: arc-kde - Port of the popular GTK theme Arc for the Plasma 5 desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1635422 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- arc-kde-20180614-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1546544] Review Request: bear-factory - renaming the bear package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1546544 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-10-25 18:11:09 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- bear-factory-0.7.0-0.23.20180825git2a78522.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1635422] Review Request: arc-kde - Port of the popular GTK theme Arc for the Plasma 5 desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1635422 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-10-25 18:00:02 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- arc-kde-20180614-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1642570] Review Request: rclone-browser - Simple cross platform GUI for rclone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642570 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- rclone-browser-1.2-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-41e0689cfb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1643266] Review Request: python-libNeuroML - Python libNeuroML for working with neuronal models specified in NeuroML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643266 --- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok --- (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #5) > Are these only to be used for testing Yes. > will koji add --with python2 when building for > F28/F29 No. > do I still have to flip the conditional for these branches? Yes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1641323] Review Request: rust-rustfix - Automatically apply the suggestions made by rustc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1641323 Josh Stone changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||jist...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2018-10-25 16:03:49 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1643266] Review Request: python-libNeuroML - Python libNeuroML for working with neuronal models specified in NeuroML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643266
--- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #3)
> Tip: If you use %bcond_with python2 and %if %{with python2}, the conditional
> is more easily tested, as it can be mockbuild --with python2.
That's neat! I wasn't aware of bcond.
Are these only to be used for testing, though, or can one use them in the scm
with koji too? I.e., will koji add --with python2 when building for F28/F29, or
do I still have to flip the conditional for these branches?
Thanks for taking this one up,
Ankur
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1643266] Review Request: python-libNeuroML - Python libNeuroML for working with neuronal models specified in NeuroML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643266 --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok --- + make html sphinx-build -b html -d _build/doctrees . _build/html BUILDSTDERR: make: sphinx-build: Command not found BUILDSTDERR: make: *** [Makefile:45: html] Error 127 This doesn't work in mock, but it works in Koji. Set SPHINXBUILD=sphinx-build-3 to make it buildable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1643266] Review Request: python-libNeuroML - Python libNeuroML for working with neuronal models specified in NeuroML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643266
--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok ---
Tip: If you use %bcond_with python2 and %if %{with python2}, the conditional is
more easily tested, as it can be mockbuild --with python2.
The spec looks reasonable, will run some checks.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1643266] Review Request: python-libNeuroML - Python libNeuroML for working with neuronal models specified in NeuroML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643266 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok --- I will review this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1643266] Review Request: python-libNeuroML - Python libNeuroML for working with neuronal models specified in NeuroML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643266 --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Updated spec/srpm: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-libNeuroML/python-libNeuroML.spec https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-libNeuroML/python-libNeuroML-0.2.45-2.fc29.src.rpm New rawhide scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30461994 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1643266] Review Request: python-libNeuroML - Python libNeuroML for working with neuronal models specified in NeuroML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643266 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1643266] New: Review Request: python-libNeuroML - Python libNeuroML for working with neuronal models specified in NeuroML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643266 Bug ID: 1643266 Summary: Review Request: python-libNeuroML - Python libNeuroML for working with neuronal models specified in NeuroML Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sanjay.an...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-libNeuroML/python-libNeuroML.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-libNeuroML/python-libNeuroML-0.2.45-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: This package provides Python libNeuroML, for working with neuronal models specified in NeuroML 2 (http://neuroml.org/neuromlv2). NeuroML provides an object model for describing neuronal morphologies, ion channels, synapses and 3D network structure. Documentation is available at http://readthedocs.org/docs/libneuroml/en/latest/ Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha Koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30461768 Koji scratch build for f29 with Python 2 enabled: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30461733 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1638968] Review Request: libneurosim - Common interfaces for neuronal simulators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638968 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- libneurosim-0-1.20181025.git7d074da.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-31177d5560 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1638968] Review Request: libneurosim - Common interfaces for neuronal simulators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638968 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- libneurosim-0-1.20181025.git7d074da.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-0ad868fca5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1636111] Review Request: glyr - Glyr is a music related metadata searchengine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636111 --- Comment #15 from mati8...@gmail.com --- Hi, New attempt.. Spec URL: https://services.delellis.com.ar/data/rpmbuild/SPECS/glyr.spec SRPM URL: https://services.delellis.com.ar/data/rpmbuild/SRPMS/glyr-1.0.10-8.20180824git618c418e.fc28.src.rpm Inline notes.. > > by default, it use "release" for its CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE, so no debug symbol is > > added. probably you could pass -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo and try > > again? > > Due how CMakeLists.txt is written any value other than "debug", is considered > a "release". > > If use "debug", the package is built correctly, and generates the debug. But > this > is compiled with -g3. and I understand that not need as much debug > information. Apply a patch to accept the -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo, so compile debug sub-packages. About test, just added as describe before. Regards, -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1638968] Review Request: libneurosim - Common interfaces for neuronal simulators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638968 --- Comment #13 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libneurosim -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1636111] Review Request: glyr - Glyr is a music related metadata searchengine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636111 --- Comment #14 from mati8...@gmail.com --- > > - could you justify why debug_package is disabled? > > sure. please see > https://github.com/sahib/glyr/blob/458f31838a7db1744b4ad0dfcd8433c92eee71f9/CMakeLists.txt#L63 > > by default, it use "release" for its CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE, so no debug symbol is > added. probably you could pass -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo and try > again? Due how CMakeLists.txt is written any value other than "debug", is considered a "release". If use "debug", the package is built correctly, and generates the debug. But this is compiled with -g3. and I understand that not need as much debug information. I leave to your discretion if I compile as "debug", or that you decide.. ;) > is this expected? Of course that not, but since it checks internet results, the API used may have changed. > does the upstream have an issue tracking this? i cannot find > it in https://github.com/sahib/glyr/issues though. I can post a bug, but the original developer says he is not maintained any more, although it accepts patches. -That's why I'm packaging a git version- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1638968] Review Request: libneurosim - Common interfaces for neuronal simulators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638968 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Antonio Trande --- 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 1641697] Review Request: fedora-toolbox - Toolbox containers & images for hacking on OSTree-based Fedoras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1641697 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- fedora-toolbox-0.0.1-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2325d567d7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1641697] Review Request: fedora-toolbox - Toolbox containers & images for hacking on OSTree-based Fedoras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1641697 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- fedora-toolbox-0.0.1-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-428a7cc868 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1641697] Review Request: fedora-toolbox - Toolbox containers & images for hacking on OSTree-based Fedoras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1641697 --- Comment #5 from Debarshi Ray --- Thanks, Gwyn. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1638968] Review Request: libneurosim - Common interfaces for neuronal simulators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638968 --- Comment #11 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Newer scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30456480 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1638968] Review Request: libneurosim - Common interfaces for neuronal simulators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638968 --- Comment #10 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Thanks for the review, Antonio. (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #9) > Issues: > === > - MPI compilers are not used I double checked. They are. The mpi compilers are wrapper scripts that invoke gcc while using the required flags: $ mpicc --help # gives gcc help $ mpicc -show gcc -m64 -O2 -fPIC -Wl,-z,noexecstack -I/usr/include/mpich-x86_64 -L/usr/lib64/mpich/lib -Wl,-rpath -Wl,/usr/lib64/mpich/lib -Wl,--enable-new-dtags -lmpi Autotools sets it all up for us correctly. > > - Package should not use obsolete m4 macros > Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. > See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools I've filed an issue upstream, and added a comment in the spec: https://github.com/INCF/libneurosim/issues/11 The FedoraReview wiki page is missing, since fedorahosted is no more. I haven't been able to find any other information, unfortunately. https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issue/309 > > - Python libraries are not installed into appropriate directories > (under pythonX-sitearch) I've corrected this. Also submitted a PR upstream: https://github.com/INCF/libneurosim/pull/14 > - Please, fix the 'incoherent-version-in-changelog' warning Done. Here's a scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30456134 Spec/srpm: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libneurosim/libneurosim.spec https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libneurosim/libneurosim-0-1.20181025.git7d074da.fc29.src.rpm Cheers, Ankur -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1636111] Review Request: glyr - Glyr is a music related metadata searchengine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636111
--- Comment #13 from Kefu Chai ---
(In reply to mati86dl from comment #12)
> > - could you justify why debug_package is disabled?
>
> If remove them just result on:
> >Empty %files file
> > /home/matias/Desarrollo/rpmbuild/BUILD/glyr/debugsourcefiles.list
>
> ..and honestly I can not find how to fix it. You can help me.? :disapointed:
sure. please see
https://github.com/sahib/glyr/blob/458f31838a7db1744b4ad0dfcd8433c92eee71f9/CMakeLists.txt#L63
by default, it use "release" for its CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE, so no debug symbol is
added. probably you could pass -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo and try again?
>
> > - could you link 0001-use-lastfm-getinfo-instead-getimages.patch to
> > upstream bugs/comments/lists,
> > or justify it in the header of the patch?
>
> Done. Just remove that. They were internal tests to try to solve a bug in
> libclastfm. Both libclastfm an libglyr in Pragha use queries in parallel
> with different private keys, then try to differentiate them.
>
> > - libglyr comes with a test suite, shall we have %check for exercising it
> > and for making sure all
> > tests pass? at least, capi could be tested, i guess.
>
> Well, check_api and check_dbc its ok, but check_opt fail..
> So, change '%{cmake}' to '%{cmake} -DTEST=true' to enable build test and
> append these:
> > > %check
> > > bin/check_api
> > > bin/check_dbc
> > > # This check fails so ignore that.
> > > # bin/check_opt
is this expected? does the upstream have an issue tracking this? i cannot find
it in https://github.com/sahib/glyr/issues though.
>
> It's ok?
>
> > - "Requires:libcurl" does not look right. please leave it to rpm, it is
> > able to figure out
> > the runtime dependency introduced by linked shared libraries.
>
> You are right. Also sqlite3.
>
> > - 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
>
> Done.. Is half strange to specify a particular compiler, but done.
> BuildRequires: gcc
yeah =) guess GCC is the de factor standard in the foreseeable future on
GNU/Linux.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1636111] Review Request: glyr - Glyr is a music related metadata searchengine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636111
--- Comment #12 from mati8...@gmail.com ---
Hi,
Except debug, I think it's all done.
Spec URL: https://services.delellis.com.ar/data/rpmbuild/SPECS/glyr.spec
SRPM URL:
https://services.delellis.com.ar/data/rpmbuild/SRPMS/glyr-1.0.10-7.20180824git618c418e.fc28.src.rpm
Inline comments to fixes..
> please remove "Group: " tag, see
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
Done.
> - the "License:" field is not correct anymore. see "COPYING", the license has
> been changed to LGPLv3.
D'Oh!. Never see the licence change. Done.
> - instead of "BuildRequires: glib2-devel >= 2.10", might want to
> * "BuildRequires: pkgconfig(glib-2.0) > 2.10" and
> * "BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gthread-2.0)"
> see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PkgConfigBuildRequires
Done. I knew these recommendations, but I took them as optional, and continued
with other priorities.
> - nit, might want to patch the `CMakeLists.txt`, as its version number is
> still
> 1.0.9. please 'grep GLYR_VERSION_MICRO' in the source tree for more details.
Done.. Add a patch to fix the version.
It was a recurring problem with the versions in this project. :disapointed:
> - in %description section, it'd be better to add hypyen between "easy to use"
> so
> it looks like "easy-to-use". because it helps user to digest it. see also:
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punctuation/hyphen
Done.. Thanks fo the tip.
> - could you justify why debug_package is disabled?
If remove them just result on:
>Empty %files file
> /home/matias/Desarrollo/rpmbuild/BUILD/glyr/debugsourcefiles.list
..and honestly I can not find how to fix it. You can help me.? :disapointed:
> - could you link 0001-use-lastfm-getinfo-instead-getimages.patch to upstream
> bugs/comments/lists,
> or justify it in the header of the patch?
Done. Just remove that. They were internal tests to try to solve a bug in
libclastfm. Both libclastfm an libglyr in Pragha use queries in parallel with
different private keys, then try to differentiate them.
> - libglyr comes with a test suite, shall we have %check for exercising it and
> for making sure all
> tests pass? at least, capi could be tested, i guess.
Well, check_api and check_dbc its ok, but check_opt fail..
So, change '%{cmake}' to '%{cmake} -DTEST=true' to enable build test and append
these:
> > %check
> > bin/check_api
> > bin/check_dbc
> > # This check fails so ignore that.
> > # bin/check_opt
It's ok?
> - "Requires:libcurl" does not look right. please leave it to rpm, it is
> able to figure out
> the runtime dependency introduced by linked shared libraries.
You are right. Also sqlite3.
> - 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
Done.. Is half strange to specify a particular compiler, but done.
BuildRequires: gcc
I await your comments,
Regards
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1642570] Review Request: rclone-browser - Simple cross platform GUI for rclone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642570 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- rclone-browser-1.2-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-41e0689cfb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1642570] Review Request: rclone-browser - Simple cross platform GUI for rclone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642570 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- rclone-browser-1.2-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-743780f598 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1642570] Review Request: rclone-browser - Simple cross platform GUI for rclone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642570 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- rclone-browser-1.2-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-98377e2c58 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1641697] Review Request: fedora-toolbox - Toolbox containers & images for hacking on OSTree-based Fedoras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1641697 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-toolbox -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1640640] Review Request: perl-Convert-Base32 - Encoding and decoding of base32 strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1640640 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Convert-Base32 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1642570] Review Request: rclone-browser - Simple cross platform GUI for rclone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642570 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rclone-browser -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1641697] Review Request: fedora-toolbox - Toolbox containers & images for hacking on OSTree-based Fedoras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1641697 --- Comment #3 from Debarshi Ray --- Thanks for the review, Robert-André! I have requested a fedora-toolbox repository: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/8602 ... and branches for F29 and F28: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/8603 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/8604 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1643041] Review Request: google-benchmark - A microbenchmark support library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643041 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vasc...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vasc...@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 1643041] New: Review Request: google-benchmark - A microbenchmark support library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643041 Bug ID: 1643041 Summary: Review Request: google-benchmark - A microbenchmark support library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vit...@easycoding.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://github.com/EasyCoding/google-benchmark/raw/master/google-benchmark.spec SRPM URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/google-benchmark-1.4.1-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: A library to support the benchmarking of functions, similar to unit-tests Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1642570] Review Request: rclone-browser - Simple cross platform GUI for rclone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642570 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1515053] Review Request: asv - Airspeed Velocity: A simple Python history benchmarking tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1515053
--- Comment #8 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
In general, the build is fine, but there are a few bundling issues that must be
looked at.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
Please double check if g++ is required by this package.
There are a few bundling issues here:
- I'm not sure whether the various JS libraries that you're including can be
bundled. The guidelines here say they must be packaged separately too:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JavaScript_libraries_packaging_guideline_draft
- extern/asizeof is part of Pympler which is in Fedora. So that should be used
instead of the bundled copy:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-Pympler
- extern/json-minify is bundled too. I expect this needs to be packaged
separately also as I've not been able to find it in the repos:
https://pypi.org/project/JSON_minify/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Expat License",
"Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 188 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/asinha/1515053-asv/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
May change after unbundling. Please re-check.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
- Bundles JS bits
[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.
- Python, but an application so it does not need a python- prefix.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 exi
[Bug 1642118] Review Request: strawberry - An audio player and music collection organizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642118 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/strawberry.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/strawberry-0.3.3-1.fc30.src.rpm Thanks for the review! I have detailed the licenses as much as I can and installed the 3rd pasty license files. I have fix the description so that it stays below 80 characters per line. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
