[Bug 1645294] Review Request: delve - Debugger for Go programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645294 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com --- Comment #17 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- You can change %forgesetup to %autoforgesetup -p1 and then drop the %patch lines. With all dependencies built, you should be able to run a koji scratch build now, I think. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1654881] Review Request: golang-rsc-pdf - PDF Reader for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654881 --- Comment #10 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- I just ran the build and didn't seem to have any issues; maybe it was the last whitespace change you made? https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32080719 Can you also request and build f29 and f28 branches? golang-x-arch is built on the those branches and uninstallable there too. PS, please add Go packages to the @go-sig group on src.fp.o. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1666888] Review Request: flatpak-xdg-utils - Command-line tools for use inside Flatpak sandboxes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666888 --- Comment #2 from Tomas Popela --- It's also missing BuildRequires for gcc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1666888] Review Request: flatpak-xdg-utils - Command-line tools for use inside Flatpak sandboxes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666888
--- Comment #3 from Tomas Popela ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Wrongly specified forge macros
- Missing BR for gcc
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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: "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "GNU Lesser
General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 7
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/tpopela/rpmbuild/flatpak-xdg-utils/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 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 exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in flatpak-
xdg-utils-debuginfo , flatpak-xdg-utils-debugsource
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[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
[Bug 1666888] Review Request: flatpak-xdg-utils - Command-line tools for use inside Flatpak sandboxes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666888
--- Comment #1 from Tomas Popela ---
I'm having problems with downloading the source tarball from github
0 $ spectool -g -R flatpak-xdg-utils.spec
Getting
https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak-xdg-utils/archive/v1.0.0.tar.xz#/flatpak-xdg-utils-1.0.0.tar.xz
to /home/tpopela/rpmbuild/SOURCES/flatpak-xdg-utils-1.0.0.tar.xz
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current
Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed
0 00 00 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0
curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
I had to apply the following to get it working:
0 $ diff -ENwbur flatpak-xdg-utils.spec.orig flatpak-xdg-utils.spec
--- flatpak-xdg-utils.spec.orig 2019-01-17 06:59:23.542748816 +0100
+++ flatpak-xdg-utils.spec 2019-01-17 06:57:05.817655524 +0100
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
%global forgeurlhttps://github.com/flatpak/flatpak-xdg-utils
-%global archiveext tar.xz
+%global archiveext tar.gz
Version:1.0.0
+%global tag %{version}
%forgemeta -i
I will continue with the review with my patch applied.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1666888] Review Request: flatpak-xdg-utils - Command-line tools for use inside Flatpak sandboxes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666888 Tomas Popela changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tpop...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tpop...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1666942] Review Request: R-IRkernel - Native R Kernel for the 'Jupyter Notebook'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666942 --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32075342 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1666942] New: Review Request: R-IRkernel - Native R Kernel for the 'Jupyter Notebook'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666942
Bug ID: 1666942
Summary: Review Request: R-IRkernel - Native R Kernel for the
'Jupyter Notebook'
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-IRkernel.spec
SRPM URL: http://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-IRkernel-0.8.15-1.fc29.src.rpm
Description:
The R kernel for the 'Jupyter' environment executes R code which the front-end
('Jupyter Notebook' or other front-ends) submits to the kernel via the network.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1666299] Review Request: python-tomlkit - Style preserving TOML library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666299 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-tomlkit-0.5.3-1.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-2019-b185c06d88 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1666299] Review Request: python-tomlkit - Style preserving TOML library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666299 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python-tomlkit-0.5.3-1.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-2019-467901d7a0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1654881] Review Request: golang-rsc-pdf - PDF Reader for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654881 --- Comment #9 from Derek Parker --- I'm trying to build using `fedpkg build` but I get the following error: error: line 12: Unknown tag: %gometa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1666299] Review Request: python-tomlkit - Style preserving TOML library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666299 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python-tomlkit-0.5.3-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-b185c06d88 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1666299] Review Request: python-tomlkit - Style preserving TOML library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666299 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python-tomlkit-0.5.3-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-467901d7a0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1666888] Review Request: flatpak-xdg-utils - Command-line tools for use inside Flatpak sandboxes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666888 Owen Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: -|Command-line tools for use ||inside Flatpak sandboxes -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1666888] New: Review Request: -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666888 Bug ID: 1666888 Summary: Review Request: - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: otay...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~otaylor/flatpak-xdg-utils.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~otaylor/flatpak-xdg-utils-1.0.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: This package contains a number of command-line utilities for use inside Flatpak sandboxes. They work by talking to portals. Fedora Account System Username: otaylor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1663642] Review Request: python-asynctest - Enhance the standard unittest package with features for testing asyncio libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663642 Carl George changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Carl George --- 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 1666299] Review Request: python-tomlkit - Style preserving TOML library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666299 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-tomlkit -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1666299] Review Request: python-tomlkit - Style preserving TOML library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666299 --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini --- dist-git requests: master: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9456 f29:https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9457 f28:https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9458 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1666299] Review Request: python-tomlkit - Style preserving TOML library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666299 --- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1666291] Review Request: python-cachy - Simple yet effective caching library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666291
--- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini ---
Concerning the extra dependencies, you mean those, right?
{'memcached': ['python-memcached>=1.59.0.0,<2.0.0.0'],
'msgpack': ['msgpack-python>=0.5.0.0,<0.6.0.0'],
'redis': ['redis>=2.10.0.0,<3.0.0.0']}
However, the memcached python package in fedora is too old (1.58), and msgpack
isn't packaged yet - so only the redis dependency can be satisfied on fedora
right now.
So, should I add only this line to the python3 sub-package?
Recommends: python3dist(redis) >= 2.10.0.0
Concerning the license file missing from the PyPI sources, I've opened an issue
with the upstream project about this:
https://github.com/sdispater/cachy/issues/2
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1662170] Review Request: ssh-tools - collection of various tools using ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662170 --- Comment #3 from Markku Korkeala --- The new version fixed rpmlint errors , now there is few warning left (see below). Otherwise the package looks good to be approved from my part. Rpmlint --- Checking: ssh-tools-1.5-1.fc29.noarch.rpm ssh-tools-1.5-1.fc29.src.rpm ssh-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostkeys -> hotkeys, host keys, host-keys ssh-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostkeys -> hotkeys, host keys, host-keys ssh-tools.src:28: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 28, tab: line 1) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1654881] Review Request: golang-rsc-pdf - PDF Reader for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654881 --- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-rsc-pdf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1665480] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-mantle - Collection of tools for managing cloud images.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665480 David Michael changed: What|Removed |Added CC||damic...@redhat.com --- Comment #8 from David Michael --- Since cork is excluded due to being CL-specific, you might want to drop gangue as well (unless there is some specific FCOS plan for it that I'm missing). It's a fetch command for the Gentoo package manager that can verify binary package signatures (which Gentoo does not support on its own) and make authenticated requests for private objects (e.g. for security embargoed binaries). It *could* be used unconfigured as some type of public GCS wget, but there are alternatives for parts of its functionality (gsutil, wget2) that might make more sense for general use. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 866265] Review Request: opentrep - C++ API for parsing travel-focused requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866265 --- Comment #30 from Denis Arnaud --- Upstream update: Spec URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/opentrep/opentrep.spec (and https://github.com/fedorapackaging/fedorareviews/blob/trunk/reviews/opentrep/opentrep_866265/opentrep.spec) SRPM URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/opentrep/opentrep-0.07.1-1.fc30.src.rpm --- Successful builds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32069647 --- The Python part is now aligned with the latest packaging guidelines, as for instance seen on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1630837 . The Python scripts work out of the box, including with pipenv. Test: 1. sudo dnf -y install https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9648/32069648/opentrep-0.07.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9648/32069648/opentrep-data-0.07.1-1.fc30.noarch.rpm https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9648/32069648/opentrep-devel-0.07.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9648/32069648/python3-opentrep-0.07.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm 2. pip3 install --user simplejson 3. opentrep-indexer 4. du -hs /tmp/opentrep/ 92M /tmp/opentrep/ 5. opentrep-searcher # No Python 6. pyopentrep # With the Python wrapper ORI-maintained list of POR (points of reference): '/usr/share/opentrep/data/por/optd_por_public.csv' Xapian-based travel database/index: '/tmp/opentrep/xapian_traveldb0' SQLite database: '/tmp/opentrep/sqlite_travel.db' searchString: sna francicso rio de janero lso angles reykyavki Compact format => recognised place (city/airport) codes: SFO RIO LAX REK -- So, it works! It could eventually been approved, then :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1654881] Review Request: golang-rsc-pdf - PDF Reader for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654881 Derek Parker changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(deparker@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #7 from Derek Parker --- Yes I will build today. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1666844] New: Review Request: perl-Archive-Cpio - Perl library for accessing Cpio archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666844 Bug ID: 1666844 Summary: Review Request: perl-Archive-Cpio - Perl library for accessing Cpio archives Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: timothee.flo...@fnux.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fnux.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/perl-Archive-Cpio/perl-Archive-Cpio.spec SRPM URL: https://fnux.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/perl-Archive-Cpio/perl-Archive-Cpio-0.10-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Archive::Cpio provides a few functions to read and write cpio files. Fedora Account System Username: fnux -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1666836] New: Review Request: rocminfo - ROCm system info utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666836 Bug ID: 1666836 Summary: Review Request: rocminfo - ROCm system info utility Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tstel...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tstellar/rocm-2.0/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00847119-rocminfo/rocminfo.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tstellar/rocm-2.0/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00847119-rocminfo/rocminfo-1.0.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: ROCm system info utility Fedora Account System Username: tstellar This is a prerequisite for hcc: bug 1545479 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1661602] Review Request: procyon - suite of Java metaprogramming tools focused on code generation and analysis.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1661602 --- Comment #4 from Petra Alice Mikova --- Also notice that only the main package requires javapackages-tools, the others do not, but they do not require the main package either. Please, require the javapackages-tools in each package, or add require for main package. Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1661602] Review Request: procyon - suite of Java metaprogramming tools focused on code generation and analysis.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1661602
--- Comment #3 from Petra Alice Mikova ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
- Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
Note: No javadoc html files found in procyon-compilertools-javadoc
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
- Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Note: Jar files in source (see attachment)
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-
built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software'
- There is number of fails in the rpmlint output, please fix as many as you
can.
- no documentation whatsoever, even though the source zip contains a readme
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License
(v2.1 or later)", "Apache License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache
License", "Apache License (v2.0.10)", "*No copyright* Apache License
(v2.0)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GPL (v2)". 103 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/pmikova/fedora_repos/fedora-
reviews/1661602-procyon/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java,
/usr/share/java/procyon
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
Note: See rpmlint output - the versions do not match.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: procyon-decompiler (description)
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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.
Sources contain some documentation. Please, package it with it.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
Note: More than one javadoc package
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[-]: If package c
[Bug 1661602] Review Request: procyon - suite of Java metaprogramming tools focused on code generation and analysis.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1661602 Petra Alice Mikova changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pmik...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1198760] Review Request: mitmproxy - An interactive SSL-capable intercepting HTTP proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198760 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||domi...@greysector.net --- Comment #17 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- There's version 4.0.4 out and 5.0.0 is in development. I found myself in need of this package, so I'm preparing one and will open a new review bug when done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1663504] Review Request: mbrola - speech synthetizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663504 --- Comment #1 from Tomas Korbar --- Both of my patches have been merged into upstream. So here are updated links. Updated Spec URL: https://tkorbar.fedorapeople.org/mbrola.spec Updated SRPM URL: https://tkorbar.fedorapeople.org/mbrola-20190116git1f80fb0-1.fc29.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32066468 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1661863] Review Request: smc-raghumalayalamsans-fonts - Open Type Fonts for Malayalam script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1661863 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-raghumalayalamsans-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
[Bug 1663586] Review Request: python-kaitaistruct - A new way to develop parsers for binary structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663586 --- Comment #2 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #1) > This is probably mostly okay, but the spec and srpm do not match. Sorry, reuploaded. They should match now. Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-kaitaistruct/python-kaitaistruct.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-kaitaistruct/python-kaitaistruct-0.8-2.fc30.src.rpm * Mon Jan 14 2019 Dominik Mierzejewski 0.8-2 - use pypi_source macro - drop initial newline from description -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1663642] Review Request: python-asynctest - Enhance the standard unittest package with features for testing asyncio libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663642 --- Comment #7 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-asynctest/python-asynctest.spec https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-asynctest/python-asynctest-0.12.2-4.fc30.src.rpm * Wed Jan 16 2019 Dominik Mierzejewski 0.12.2-4 - reintroduce python_provide macro call - put python3-setuptools into BR, even though it's redundant now - shorten Summary: to fit in 80 characters -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1661657] Review Request: helm - A free polyphonic synth with lots of modulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1661657 --- Comment #3 from MartinKG --- @Elliott helm does not provide font files in the binary package. [martin@fc29 RPMS]$ rpm -q --provides x86_64/helm-1.0.0-0.1.20180708gitabdedd5.fc29.x86_64.rpm application() application(helm.desktop) helm = 1.0.0-0.1.20180708gitabdedd5.fc29 helm(x86-64) = 1.0.0-0.1.20180708gitabdedd5.fc29 mimehandler(text/helm) [martin@fc29 RPMS]$ rpm -q --provides noarch/helm-common-1.0.0-0.1.20180708gitabdedd5.fc29.noarch.rpm helm-common = 1.0.0-0.1.20180708gitabdedd5.fc29 helm also compiles if the fonts directory has been deleted. which parts in the 'other licenses' comment should be removed ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1654881] Review Request: golang-rsc-pdf - PDF Reader for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654881 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182 [Bug 182] Cannot install: missing golang-rsc-pdf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1665287] Review Request: rust-hexyl - A command-line hex viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665287 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- - Latest version is 0.4.0 - I would expand the description a bit; see the first paragraph in the readme. 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: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in 1665287-rust-hexyl/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/.build-id(R-date, kde-platform-plugin, libreport-plugin-kerneloops, libhbalinux, cups- client, efivar-libs, netcdf, python3-cffi, librsync, qemu-block- gluster, perl-Cpanel-JSON-XS, rpm-plugin-selinux, abrt, ghc- transformers, ghc-parallel, libmediaart, cygwin64-gcc-gfortran, python3-qt5-webkit, libimagequant, giflib, libreoffice-graphicfilter, openmpi, xsel, libfaketime, trousers, dirac-libs, gst-devtools, qemu- ui-gtk, python2-h5py, libdb-utils, tracker-miners, xorg-x11-font- utils, PackageKit-command-not-found, OpenEXR-libs, ghc-monad-par- extras, libcom_err, libseccomp, double-conversion, flare-engine, ksysguardd, mingw64-qt-qmake, openblas-openmp64_, p11-kit, fcgi, libabw, ghc-wai-extra, libvirt-daemon-driver-storage-iscsi, libid3tag, libmodman, ghc-semigroups, telepathy-gabble, cfitsio, argyllcms, parted, gnome-disk-utility, libdvdread, zstd, bluez-libs, xml- security-c, kf5-kjobwidgets, ghc-uniplate, libwebp, libxslt, quesoglc, herqq, netty-tcnative, system-config-printer-udev, python3-netifaces, ghc-criterion, python2-nss, mingw64-gcc, libverto-libev, python2-cryptography, kf5-kdeclarative, libevdev, libgpg-error, libmaxminddb, lvm2-libs, kf5-sonnet-core, libpurple, perl-Digest-SHA, abrt-gui, perl-Params-Classify, libmicrohttpd, portmidi, med, R-httpuv, mlt, python3-unbound, ghc-prelude-extras, kf5-solid, libzstd, ghc-bsb-http-chunked, wxBase, libdazzle, xdg-desktop-portal- gtk, ghc-mmorph, lua-lpeg, symlinks, python3-simplejson, perl-Unicode- String, python3-crypto, armacycles-ad, libcdr, ghc-shakespeare, e2fsprogs-libs, pulseaudio-libs, libdwarf, wxGTK3-webview, tpm2-tools, lcms2, docker-rhel-push-plugin, python3-Bottleneck, avra, qemu-guest- agent, annobin, ntfs-3g, python3-pycosat, libxcb, texlive-chktex, freexl, libyubikey, remmina-plugins-st, libbdplus, python3-pycurl, python3-brlapi, postgresql-libs, mingw64-binutils, CUnit, xcb-util- keysyms, angelscript, celestia, ghc-data-default-instances-dlist, m4, python26, perl-GSSAPI, ghc-StateVar, sushi, libgphoto2, festival-lib, libsavitar, R-XML, R-fansi, festival, tinyxml, xcb-util, libwmf-lite, clutter-gtk, icoutils, python3-PyQt4-webkit, python3-coverage, ghc- cpphs, krb5-devel, gcc-objc++, python2-wrapt, poppler-qt, alsa- plugins-pulseaudio, http-parser, qt5-qtspeech, R-fts, pulseaudio- utils, perl-Sub-Identify, R-openssl, llvm5.0-libs, rubygem-hpricot, perl-PerlIO-utf8_strict, kf5-kdelibs4support-libs, python2-pyqt4-sip, pyorbit, openjpeg2-tools, ImageMagick-c++, ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema, uniconvertor, brasero-libs, gstreamermm, polyclipping, kf5-kpackage, kf5-kfilemetadata, texlive-pdftex, perl-Ref-Util-XS, python3-scipy, ghc-base-unicode-symbols, gperf, kile, perl-Time-Piece, ghc-old-time, dbusmenu-qt, qca-qt5, ncurses-libs, libidn2, perl-Crypt-SSLeay, checkpolicy, rubygem-io-console, perl-Sys-Syslog, ghc-adjunctions, liblo, assimp, xorg-x11-xkb-utils, ibus-hangul, native-platform, NetworkManager-openvpn, rubygem-redcarpet, libxkbfile, ghc-cairo, hplip-libs, libwvstreams, rustfmt, ghc-binary, freerdp-libs, xmlrpc-c-client, ghc-libxml-sax, sane-backends-drivers-cameras, libwpg, libwpd,
[Bug 1666082] Review Request: rust-hashbrown - Rust port of Google's SwissTable hash map
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666082
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
APPROVED
You should send a patch upstream to exclude .travis.yml.
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: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Expat License",
"Unknown or generated". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in 1666082-rust-hashbrown/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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]: 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 rust-
hashbrown-devel , rust-hashbrown+default-devel , rust-hashbrown+rayon-
devel , rust-hashbrown+serde-devel
[?]: 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
[Bug 1655338] Review Request: rmlint - Finds space waste and other broken things on your filesystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655338 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- - Use https for the URL. - There are various Python files with needless shebangs. - There are bundled libraries (e.g., blake2, etc.) and the license and Provides don't reflect this. If you can get upstream to build against libb2, that is already packaged in Fedora. Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has *.gschema.xml files. Note: gschema file(s) in rmlint See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#GSettings_Schema - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in rmlint See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Expat License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Apache License (v2.0)". 147 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in 1655338-rmlint/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/lib/.build-id(R-date, kde-platform-plugin, libreport-plugin-kerneloops, libhbalinux, cups- client, efivar-libs, netcdf, python3-cffi, librsync, qemu-block- gluster, perl-Cpanel-JSON-XS, rpm-plugin-selinux, abrt, ghc- transformers, ghc-parallel, libmediaart, cygwin64-gcc-gfortran, python3-qt5-webkit, libimagequant, giflib, libreoffice-graphicfilter, openmpi, xsel, libfaketime, trousers, dirac-libs, gst-devtools, qemu- ui-gtk, python2-h5py, libdb-utils, tracker-miners, xorg-x11-font- utils, PackageKit-command-not-found, OpenEXR-libs, ghc-monad-par- extras, libcom_err, libseccomp, double-conversion, flare-engine, ksysguardd, mingw64-qt-qmake, openblas-openmp64_, p11-kit, fcgi, libabw, ghc-wai-extra, libvirt-daemon-driver-storage-iscsi, libid3tag, libmodman, ghc-semigroups, telepathy-gabble, cfitsio, argyllcms, parted, gnome-disk-utility, libdvdread, zstd, bluez-libs, xml- security-c, kf5-kjobwidgets, ghc-uniplate, libwebp, libxslt, quesoglc, herqq, netty-tcnative, system-config-printer-udev, python3-netifaces, ghc-criterion, python2-nss, mingw64-gcc, libverto-libev, python2-cryptography, kf5-kdeclarative, libevdev, libgpg-error, libmaxminddb, lvm2-libs, kf5-sonnet-core, libpurple, perl-Digest-SHA, abrt-gui, perl-Params-Classify, libmicrohttpd, portmidi, med, R-httpuv, mlt, python3-unbound, ghc-prelude-extras, kf5-solid, libzstd, ghc-bsb-http-chunked, wxBase, libdazzle, xdg-desktop-portal- gtk, ghc-mmorph, lua-lpeg, symlinks, python3-simplejson, perl-Unicode- String, python3-crypto, armacycles-ad, libcdr, ghc-shakespeare, e2fsprogs-libs, pulseaudio-libs, libdwarf, wxGTK3-webview, tpm2-tools, lcms2, docker-rhel-push-plugin, python3-Bottleneck, avra, qemu-guest- agent, annobin, ntfs-3g, python3-pycosat, libxcb, texlive-chktex, freexl, libyubikey, remmina-plugins-st, libbdplus, python3-pycurl, python3-brlapi, postgresql-libs, mingw64-binutils, CUnit, xcb-util- keysyms, angelscript, celestia, ghc-data-default-instances-dlist, m4, python26, perl-GSSAPI, ghc-StateVar, sushi, libgphoto2, festival-lib, libsavitar, R-XML, R-fansi, festival, tinyxml, xcb-util, libwmf-lite, clutter-gtk, icoutils, python3-PyQt4-webkit, python3-coverage, ghc- cpphs, krb5-devel, gcc-objc++, python2-wrapt, poppler-qt, alsa- plugins-pulseaudio, http-parser, qt5-qtspeech, R-fts, pulseaudio- utils, perl-Sub-Identify, R-openssl, llvm5.0-libs, rubygem-hpricot, perl-PerlIO-utf8_strict, kf5-kdelibs4support-libs, python2-pyqt4-sip, pyorbit, openjpeg2-tools, ImageMagick-c++, ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema,
[Bug 1171746] Review Request: garmon - Gnome/GTK+ Car Monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171746 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2019-01-16 10:00:02 --- Comment #6 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- Closing out as it seems submitter is gone. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1663710] Review Request: golang-github-exoscale-egoscale - A wrapper for the Exoscale public cloud API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663710
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
The latest version is 0.13.2.
Also github.com/satori/go.uuid is kind of semi-dead, but that's something
for upstream to deal with (if they want to.)
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: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated".
122 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
1663710-golang-github-exoscale-egoscale/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src,
/usr/share/gocode
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-inconshreveable-
mousetrap-devel, golang-github-davecgh-go-spew-devel, golang, golang-
github-pelletier-go-toml-devel, golang-github-hashicorp-hcl-devel,
golang-github-magiconair-properties-devel, golang-github-stretchr-
testify-devel, golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-devel, golang-gopkg-yaml-
devel-v2, golang-github-spf13-pflag-devel, golang-github-urfave-cli-
devel, golang-github-mitchellh-go-homedir-devel, golang-github-kr-fs-
devel, golang-github-kr-pretty-devel, golang-github-kr-pty-devel,
golang-github-spf13-cobra-devel, golang-github-peterh-liner-devel,
golang-github-mattn-go-runewidth-devel, golang-github-pmezard-go-
difflib-devel, golang-github-spf13-cast-devel, golang-github-kr-text-
devel, golang-github-pkg-errors-devel, golang-github-blang-semver-
devel, golang-github-pelletier-go-buffruneio-devel, golang-github-
spf13-viper-devel, golang-github-olekukonko-ts-devel, golang-github-
cpuguy83-go-md2man-devel, golang-github-mitchellh-mapstructure-devel,
golang-github-cheggaaa-pb-devel, golang-github-pkg-sftp-devel)
[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.
[?]: 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]: 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]: 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]: P
[Bug 1663708] Review Request: golang-github-jawher-mow-cli - Versatile library for building CLI applications in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663708
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 54 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
1663708-golang-github-jawher-mow-cli/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src,
/usr/share/gocode
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-inconshreveable-
mousetrap-devel, golang-github-davecgh-go-spew-devel, golang, golang-
github-pelletier-go-toml-devel, golang-github-hashicorp-hcl-devel,
golang-github-magiconair-properties-devel, golang-github-stretchr-
testify-devel, golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-devel, golang-gopkg-yaml-
devel-v2, golang-github-spf13-pflag-devel, golang-github-urfave-cli-
devel, golang-github-mitchellh-go-homedir-devel, golang-github-kr-fs-
devel, golang-github-kr-pretty-devel, golang-github-kr-pty-devel,
golang-github-spf13-cobra-devel, golang-github-peterh-liner-devel,
golang-github-mattn-go-runewidth-devel, golang-github-pmezard-go-
difflib-devel, golang-github-spf13-cast-devel, golang-github-kr-text-
devel, golang-github-pkg-errors-devel, golang-github-blang-semver-
devel, golang-github-pelletier-go-buffruneio-devel, golang-github-
spf13-viper-devel, golang-github-olekukonko-ts-devel, golang-github-
cpuguy83-go-md2man-devel, golang-github-mitchellh-mapstructure-devel,
golang-github-cheggaaa-pb-devel, golang-github-pkg-sftp-devel)
[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.
[?]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 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]: 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 al
[Bug 1663709] Review Request: vultr - Vultr CLI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663709 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- Can you expand on the description a bit? Like mention it's for accessing a website or something. The Usage section of the README seems useful. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1648593] Review Request: golang-github-mattn-tty - Simple tty utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1648593
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
I would build the files in the _example directory as a check, but otherwise
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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
1648593-golang-github-mattn-tty/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src,
/usr/share/gocode
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/mattn(golang-github-mattn-go-
runewidth-devel), /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-
inconshreveable-mousetrap-devel, golang-github-davecgh-go-spew-devel,
golang, golang-github-pelletier-go-toml-devel, golang-github-
hashicorp-hcl-devel, golang-github-magiconair-properties-devel,
golang-github-stretchr-testify-devel, golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-
devel, golang-gopkg-yaml-devel-v2, golang-github-spf13-pflag-devel,
golang-github-urfave-cli-devel, golang-github-mitchellh-go-homedir-
devel, golang-github-kr-fs-devel, golang-github-kr-pretty-devel,
golang-github-kr-pty-devel, golang-github-spf13-cobra-devel, golang-
github-peterh-liner-devel, golang-github-mattn-go-runewidth-devel,
golang-github-pmezard-go-difflib-devel, golang-github-spf13-cast-
devel, golang-github-kr-text-devel, golang-github-pkg-errors-devel,
golang-github-blang-semver-devel, golang-github-pelletier-go-
buffruneio-devel, golang-github-spf13-viper-devel, golang-github-
olekukonko-ts-devel, golang-github-cpuguy83-go-md2man-devel, golang-
github-mitchellh-mapstructure-devel, golang-github-cheggaaa-pb-devel,
golang-github-pkg-sftp-devel)
[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.
[?]: 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]: 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]: 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 %make
[Bug 1661863] Review Request: smc-raghumalayalamsans-fonts - Open Type Fonts for Malayalam script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1661863 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Thanks for the update. The new srpm looks good. 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 1648584] Review Request: golang-github-dgryski-bitstream - Read and write bits from io.Reader and io.Writer streams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1648584
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
Would pass, but as Manas says, the spec in the SRPM is incorrect.
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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat
License". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in 1648584-golang-github-dgryski-bitstream/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src,
/usr/share/gocode
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-inconshreveable-
mousetrap-devel, golang-github-davecgh-go-spew-devel, golang, golang-
github-pelletier-go-toml-devel, golang-github-hashicorp-hcl-devel,
golang-github-magiconair-properties-devel, golang-github-stretchr-
testify-devel, golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-devel, golang-gopkg-yaml-
devel-v2, golang-github-spf13-pflag-devel, golang-github-urfave-cli-
devel, golang-github-mitchellh-go-homedir-devel, golang-github-kr-fs-
devel, golang-github-kr-pretty-devel, golang-github-kr-pty-devel,
golang-github-spf13-cobra-devel, golang-github-peterh-liner-devel,
golang-github-mattn-go-runewidth-devel, golang-github-pmezard-go-
difflib-devel, golang-github-spf13-cast-devel, golang-github-kr-text-
devel, golang-github-pkg-errors-devel, golang-github-blang-semver-
devel, golang-github-pelletier-go-buffruneio-devel, golang-github-
spf13-viper-devel, golang-github-olekukonko-ts-devel, golang-github-
cpuguy83-go-md2man-devel, golang-github-mitchellh-mapstructure-devel,
golang-github-cheggaaa-pb-devel, golang-github-pkg-sftp-devel)
[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.
[?]: 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]: 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]: 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
[Bug 1662573] Review Request: python-aiorpcx - Generic async RPC implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662573 --- Comment #8 from Igor Gnatenko --- New Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-aiorpcx.spec New SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-aiorpcx-0.10.2-1.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 1662573] Review Request: python-aiorpcx - Generic async RPC implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662573 --- Comment #7 from Igor Gnatenko --- I've changed package names to be in lower case. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1644010] Review Request: golang-github-pierrec-lz4 - LZ4 compression and decompression in pure Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644010 --- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- Note, the binary would conflict with lz4, so I guess it would be mostly a compile check. I *think* there'd be no need to install 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 1644010] Review Request: golang-github-pierrec-lz4 - LZ4 compression and decompression in pure Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644010
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
Is there any use to building the lz4c binary here?
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 "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
generated". 520 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in 1644010-golang-github-pierrec-lz4/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src,
/usr/share/gocode
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-inconshreveable-
mousetrap-devel, golang-github-davecgh-go-spew-devel, golang, golang-
github-pelletier-go-toml-devel, golang-github-hashicorp-hcl-devel,
golang-github-magiconair-properties-devel, golang-github-stretchr-
testify-devel, golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-devel, golang-gopkg-yaml-
devel-v2, golang-github-spf13-pflag-devel, golang-github-urfave-cli-
devel, golang-github-mitchellh-go-homedir-devel, golang-github-kr-fs-
devel, golang-github-kr-pretty-devel, golang-github-kr-pty-devel,
golang-github-spf13-cobra-devel, golang-github-peterh-liner-devel,
golang-github-mattn-go-runewidth-devel, golang-github-pmezard-go-
difflib-devel, golang-github-spf13-cast-devel, golang-github-kr-text-
devel, golang-github-pkg-errors-devel, golang-github-blang-semver-
devel, golang-github-pelletier-go-buffruneio-devel, golang-github-
spf13-viper-devel, golang-github-olekukonko-ts-devel, golang-github-
cpuguy83-go-md2man-devel, golang-github-mitchellh-mapstructure-devel,
golang-github-cheggaaa-pb-devel, golang-github-pkg-sftp-devel)
[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.
[?]: 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]: 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]: 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 u
