[Bug 1342815] Review Request: openmp - Support for the OpenMP language in LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342815 --- Comment #5 from Darcy --- I think so too. OpenMP works on clang if you install libomp-devel from the repo. -- 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 1661034] Review Request: python-edgegrid - Akamai {OPEN} Edgegrid authentication protocol for python-requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1661034 --- Comment #3 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi --- Hello, this is an unofficial review. Please read this for your reference. Summary === 1. rpmlint success 2. The 'Group' tag should not be used 3. Other suggestions 4. Appendix 1: Koji scratch build succeeded 5. Appendix 2: dependency generator no problems Details === 1. rpmlint success -- No problems. Here is the output:: $ rpmlint -i /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python3-edgegrid-1.1.1-1.fc29.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint -i python-edgegrid.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint -i /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-edgegrid-1.1.1-1.fc29.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. 2. The 'Group' tag should not be used The Group: tag should not be used. Here is the guideline. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections 3. Other suggestions The 'URL:' tag might be better than the 'Url:' tag for legibility. I found a 'URL:' tag in the following example spec file while it's just an example and it might not be a part of guidelines. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_example_python_spec_file The following python guideline says the %python_provide macro should be used. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_reviewer_checklist Currently I found no %python_provide in the spec file although generated provides are correct:: ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch $ rpm -q --provides ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python3-edgegrid-1.1.1-1.fc29.noarch.rpm python3-edgegrid = 1.1.1-1.fc29 python3.7dist(edgegrid-python) = 1.1.1 python3dist(edgegrid-python) = 1.1.1 Appendix 1: Koji scratch build succeeded https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32679130 Appendix 2: dependency generator no problems Generated requires are correct:: [vagrant@localhost python-edgegrid]$ find ~/rpmbuild/|grep edgegrid|grep requires.txt| xargs cat requests>=2.3.0 pyOpenSSL>=0.13 ndg-httpsclient pyasn1 urllib3 [vagrant@localhost python-edgegrid]$ rpm -q --requires ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python3-edgegrid-1.1.1-1.fc29.noarch.rpm |grep python3.*dist python3.7dist(ndg-httpsclient) python3.7dist(pyasn1) python3.7dist(pyopenssl) >= 0.13 python3.7dist(requests) >= 2.3.0 python3.7dist(urllib3) -- 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 1658199] Review Request: netatalk - Open Source Apple Filing Protocol(AFP) File Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1658199 --- Comment #28 from Andrew Bauer --- I have edited the ldconfig macro to point to /sbin/ldconfig, rather than /usr/sbin/ldconfig. Note that on Fedora, this change won't make a difference because %ldconfig is not defined. This is by design for fedora >= f28. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Shared_Libraries Updated SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knight-of-ni/specfiles/master/netatalk.spec Update Source RPM: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9806/32679806/netatalk-3.1.12-2.fc30.src.rpm Observe successful installation of the package on fedora 29: >$ sudo dnf install netatalk-3.1.12-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm >Last metadata expiration check: 0:08:08 ago on Fri 08 Feb 2019 07:28:18 PM CST. >Dependencies resolved. > > Package Arch Version RepositorySize > >Installing: > netatalk x86_64 5:3.1.12-2.fc29 @commandline 534 k >Installing dependencies: > dconfx86_64 0.30.1-1.fc29 updates 93 k > perl-Socket6 x86_64 0.29-1.fc29 updates 30 k > perl-IO-Socket-INET6 noarch 2.72-14.fc29fedora28 k > >Transaction Summary > >Install 4 Packages > >Total size: 685 k >Total download size: 151 k >Installed size: 2.0 M >Is this ok [y/N]: y >Downloading Packages: >(1/3): perl-Socket6-0.29-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm 112 kB/s | 30 kB 00:00 >(2/3): perl-IO-Socket-INET6-2.72-14.fc29.noarch 103 kB/s | 28 kB 00:00 >(3/3): dconf-0.30.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm 230 kB/s | 93 kB 00:00 > >Total46 kB/s | 151 kB 00:03 > >Running transaction check >Transaction check succeeded. >Running transaction test >Transaction test succeeded. >Running transaction > Preparing: > 1/1 > Installing : perl-Socket6-0.29-1.fc29.x86_64 > 1/4 > Installing : perl-IO-Socket-INET6-2.72-14.fc29.noarch > 2/4 > Installing : dconf-0.30.1-1.fc29.x86_64 > 3/4 > Installing : netatalk-5:3.1.12-2.fc29.x86_64 > 4/4 > Running scriptlet: netatalk-5:3.1.12-2.fc29.x86_64 > 4/4 > Running scriptlet: dconf-0.30.1-1.fc29.x86_64 > 4/4 > Running scriptlet: netatalk-5:3.1.12-2.fc29.x86_64 > 4/4 > Verifying: dconf-0.30.1-1.fc29.x86_64 > 1/4 > Verifying: perl-Socket6-0.29-1.fc29.x86_64 > 2/4 > Verifying: perl-IO-Socket-INET6-2.72-14.fc29.noarch > 3/4 > Verifying: netatalk-5:3.1.12-2.fc29.x86_644/4 > >Installed: > netatalk-5:3.1.12-2.fc29.x86_64dconf-0.30.1-1.fc29.x86_64 > > perl-Socket6-0.29-1.fc29.x86_64perl-IO-Socket-INET6-2.72-14.fc29.noarch > > >Complete! Also note the latest package has no dependencies on ldconfig when built on Fedora, which is what we want: >$ rpm -qpR netatalk-3.1.12-2.fc29.x86_64.rpm |grep ldconfig >$ -- 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 1667278] Review Request: python3-cups - Python 3 bindings for CUPS API, known as pycups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667278 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2019-02-09 01:43:21 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python3-cups-1.9.74-3.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 1655338] Review Request: rmlint - Finds space waste and other broken things on your filesystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655338 --- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- Looks like a typo in the URL. Bundled provides should state a version. I'll look into the rest later. -- 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 1671064] Review Request: libldac - LDAC library from AOSP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671064 --- Comment #6 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Can you do at least one non-trivial unofficial package review while we're waiting for the FE-Legal block to be lifted (ping Tom if it doesn't happen soon)? Please pick something recent from https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html This package is technically APPROVED. I'll change the review flag status once FE-Legal is lifted. -- 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 1342815] Review Request: openmp - Support for the OpenMP language in LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342815 --- Comment #4 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Looks like this is obsolete: https://openmp.llvm.org/ ... Status With the release of Clang 3.8.0, OpenMP 3.1 support is enabled in Clang by default, and the OpenMP runtime is therefore built as a normal part of the Clang build, and distributed with the binary distributions.You do not, therefore, need explicitly to check out this code, or build it out of tree; a normal Clang check out and build will automatically include building these runtime libraries. -- 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 1529824] Review Request: awx - AWX, Ansible Management GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529824 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||domi...@greysector.net --- Comment #11 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Oh cool, Ansible Tower is getting packaged. @Martin please make any reviews for unpackaged dependencies block this one so that prospective reviewers can see what is still pending. Also, for Fedora this should use python3. Why are you saying it doesn't build on Fedora? Is there an upstream bug report about 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 1662526] Review Request: neuron - A flexible and powerful simulator of neurons and networks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662526
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski ---
Wouldn't it make sense to move
%{_includedir}/nrnconf.h
into
%{_includedir}/%{tarname}
I don't know where packages that will BuildRequires: neuron-devel expect these
files to be, so I'll leave this up to you to decide.
Also, I wouldn't define a macro that is longer than what it expands into, i.e.
I'd just use "nrn" everywhere instead of %{tarname}.
None of the above are blockers and the package looks good otherwise, so
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 1655338] Review Request: rmlint - Finds space waste and other broken things on your filesystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655338 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Thanks for the review. I've updated the files in place. Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/rmlint.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/rmlint-2.8.0-1.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 1665504] Review Request: qt5-qtnetworkauth - Qt5 - NetworkAuth component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665504
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Add an explicit BR for gcc-c++
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Free Documentation License", "GNU
Free Documentation License (v1.3)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "GNU General Public License (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3)". 63
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/qt5-qtnetworkauth/review-
qt5-qtnetworkauth/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/lib64/qt5/examples(qt5
-qtxmlpatterns-examples, qt5-qt3d-examples, qt5-qtwebchannel-examples,
qt5-qtserialbus-examples, qt5-qtwebsockets-examples, qt5-qtscript-
examples, qt5-qtenginio-examples, qt5-qtconnectivity-examples, qt5
-qtdeclarative-examples, qt5-qtspeech-examples, qt5-qtsensors-
examples, qt5-qttools-examples, qt5-qtmultimedia-examples, qt5
-qtdatavis3d-examples, qt5-qtserialport-examples, qt5-qtwebengine-
examples, qt5-qtwebview-examples, qt5-qtcharts-examples, qt5
-qtquickcontrols-examples, qt5-qtgamepad-examples, qt5-qtlocation-
examples, qt5-qtvirtualkeyboard-examples, qt5-qtremoteobjects-
examples, qt5-qtscxml-examples, qt5-qtsvg-examples, qt5-qtbase-
examples)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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 %make
[Bug 1469767] Review Request: systemd-swap - Creating hybrid swap space from zram swaps, swap files and swap partitions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469767
--- Comment #13 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Sorry
%make_install PREFIX=%{buildroot}
--
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 1469767] Review Request: systemd-swap - Creating hybrid swap space from zram swaps, swap files and swap partitions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469767
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Fix:
BuildRequires: systemd-units
Requires(post): systemd-sysv
Requires(post): systemd-units
Requires(preun): systemd-units
Requires(postun): systemd-units
Requires: systemd
Use:
BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros
%{?systemd_requires}
- make install PREFIX=%{buildroot} → %make_install
- Fix the Version-Release in your %changelog entry
--
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 1666221] Review Request: golang-github-burntsushi-locker - Simple package for conveniently using named read/write locks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666221 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1666285] Review Request: golang-github-mitchellh-hashstructure - Get hash values for arbitrary values in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666285 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1671701] Review Request: libmypaint2 - MyPaint brush engine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671701 --- Comment #2 from Sergey Avseyev --- Thanks for review. I've fixed your notes: Spec URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/libmypaint2/1/libmypaint2.spec SRPM URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/libmypaint2/1/libmypaint2-2.0.0-0.1.alpha.0.fc29.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32671345 -- 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 1665614] Review Request: libsecp256k1 - Optimized C library for EC operations on curve secp256k1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665614
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Heggheim ---
Thanks for the review. I have updated the files.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2)
> - Please don't use a glob for the major soname version to avoid
> unintentional soname bump:
>
> %{_libdir}/%{name}.so.0*
Great, I did not consider that.
> - Pre-Release should start at 0.1
I would not classify it as a pre-release, upstream have never released a
version and there are no signs that they are planning a release.
I feel it falls between:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_upstream_has_never_chosen_a_version
and
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots
> - Please add the Version-Release info in your %changelog entry:
>
> * Fri Jan 11 2019 Jonny Heggheim -
> 0-0.1.20181126gite34ceb3
Thanks, missed that one.
--
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 1660440] Review Request: wl-clipboard - Command-line copy/paste utilities for Wayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1660440
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Glob the .gz as the compression might change in the future:
%{_mandir}/man1/wl-clipboard.1.gz
%{_mandir}/man1/wl-copy.1.gz
%{_mandir}/man1/wl-paste.1.gz
- The license should be: GPLv3+
- The Release should start with 0.1
Release:0.1.%{gitdate}git%{gitshortcommit}%{?dist}
- You need to specify the Version-Release in your %changelog entry
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]: 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: "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown
or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/wl-clipboard/review-wl-
clipboard/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]: 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).
[-]:
[Bug 1517451] Review Request: gnome-internet-radio-locator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1517451
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #24 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Add gcc as a BR:
BuildRequires: gcc
- This is the same file:
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_bindir}/gnome-internet-radio-locator
- The Version-Release in your %changelog entry should be 1.6.0-1
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: BUILDSTDERR: warning: File listed twice: /usr/bin/gnome-internet-
radio-locator
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
= 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]: 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: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License (v3)", "FSF All
Permissive License", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)",
"Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or
later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "Expat
License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public
License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)". 88 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/gnome-internet-radio-locator/review-gnome-
internet-radio-locator/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/icons/hicolor/1024x1024/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/1024x1024
[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 5 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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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 bu
[Bug 1665614] Review Request: libsecp256k1 - Optimized C library for EC operations on curve secp256k1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665614
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Please don't use a glob for the major soname version to avoid unintentional
soname bump:
%{_libdir}/%{name}.so.0*
- Pre-Release should start at 0.1
- Please add the Version-Release info in your %changelog entry:
* Fri Jan 11 2019 Jonny Heggheim - 0-0.1.20181126gite34ceb3
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 All Permissive License", "Expat License", "Unknown or
generated", "Apache License (v2.0)". 81 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/libsecp256k1/review-
libsecp256k1/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 items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query
[Bug 1663283] Review Request: php-zendframework-zenddiagnostics - set of components for performing diagnostic tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663283 --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- I've got a test error: Time: 1.57 seconds, Memory: 10.00MB There was 1 error: 1) ZendDiagnosticsTest\DiskUsageTest::testCheck InvalidArgumentException: Invalid warningThreshold argument - expecting an integer between 1 and 100 /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-zendframework-zenddiagnostics-1.4.0-1.fc30.x86_64/usr/share/php/ZendDiagnostics/Check/DiskUsage.php:68 /builddir/build/BUILD/zend-diagnostics-79d0b7d0a1cab8f18e73d76ff1c2ec028f113840/test/DiskUsageTest.php:40 -- 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 1402656] Review Request: bdsync - Remote sync for block devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402656
--- Comment #8 from Michael Hampton ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #7)
> - Not needed:
>
> %defattr(-,root,root)
>
> %attr(755,root,root)
>
>It is the default already.
>
> - Build are by default hardened as well: %global _hardened_build 1
>
> - use %set_build_flags to set Fedora default flags:
>
> %build
> %set_build_flags
> %make_build
>
> - Give your archive a better name:
>
> Source:
> https://github.com/TargetHolding/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-
> %{version}.tar.gz
Spec URL: https://error.fedorapeople.org/bdsync.spec
SRPM URL: https://error.fedorapeople.org/bdsync-0.10.2-2.fc29.src.rpm
All of these changes have been made now, in 0.10.2-2
--
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 1663221] Review Request: php-doctrine-migrations - PHP Doctrine Migrations project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663221
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified) GNU Lesser General Public
License", "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 191 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/php-doctrine-migrations/review-php-
doctrine-migrations/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[-]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use
[Bug 1649059] Review Request: golang-contrib-opencensus-exporter - OpenCensus Go exporters for OpenCensus Agent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649059 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Thanks for the review. > golang-contrib-opencensus-exporter.src: E: invalid-spec-name ^ This needs correction. I don't have this error in fedora-review on my end and I'm pretty sure the name is correct. It is automatically derived from the goipath. Did you build on Rawhide? Are you using older Go macros? -- 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 1663283] Review Request: php-zendframework-zenddiagnostics - set of components for performing diagnostic tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663283 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- My bad' didn't see the deps. -- 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 1663283] Review Request: php-zendframework-zenddiagnostics - set of components for performing diagnostic tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663283 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Build error: DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: No matching package to install: '(php-composer(doctrine/migrations) >= 1.0 with php-composer(doctrine/migrations) < 2)' DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: No matching package to install: '(php-composer(sensiolabs/security-checker) >= 5.0 with php-composer(sensiolabs/security-checker) < 6)' DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: Not all dependencies satisfied DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: Error: Some packages could not be found. -- 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 1402656] Review Request: bdsync - Remote sync for block devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402656
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Not needed:
%defattr(-,root,root)
%attr(755,root,root)
It is the default already.
- Build are by default hardened as well: %global _hardened_build 1
- use %set_build_flags to set Fedora default flags:
%build
%set_build_flags
%make_build
- Give your archive a better name:
Source:
https://github.com/TargetHolding/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
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]: 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 General Public License", "Unknown or generated". 27 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/bdsync/review-bdsync/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.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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]: 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 bdsync-
debuginfo , bdsync-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
tran
[Bug 1663348] Review Request: blogilo - Blogging Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #6)
> (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
> > - Use %bcond_with/%bcond_without for this:
> >
> > # uncomment to enable bootstrap mode
> > %global bootstrap 1
> >
> > %if !0%{?bootstrap}
> > %global tests 1
> > %endif
>
> I don't think that this is a requirement, is it? As far as I know, all the
> Qt/KDE packages that require bootstrapping use the %global bootstrap 1 idiom
> for bootstrapping, so I'd rather be consistent.
>
> > - Please don't glob the major soname version to avoid unintentional soname
> > bump:
> >
> > %{_kf5_libdir}/libcomposereditorwebengineprivate.so.5*
>
> This is a private library, so why do we care what the soversion is? No other
> package uses this library, ever.
Noted.
--
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 1662550] Review Request: shadowsocks-qt5 - A cross-platform shadowsocks GUI client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662550 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Sorry, what's missing to get this approved? You want be to build the binary for check? -- 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 1643960] Review Request: golang-github-datadog-zstd - Zstd wrapper for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643960 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- I don't see how I would be able to do 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 1673995] Review Request: qml-box2d - plugin to expose Box2D as a QML plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673995 Matthew Crews changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|qml-box2d - plugin to |Review Request: qml-box2d - |expose Box2D as a QML |plugin to expose Box2D as a |plugin |QML plugin -- 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 1673995] New: qml-box2d - plugin to expose Box2D as a QML plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673995 Bug ID: 1673995 Summary: qml-box2d - plugin to expose Box2D as a QML plugin Product: Fedora Version: 29 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: low Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mattcr...@mattcrews.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: The Fedora version of Gcompris-QT has an unmet soft dependency for qml-box2d (see Fedora bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673970). This causes some activities within Gcompris to not be included. Adding qml-box2d to the Fedora repos will allow Gcompris to be rebuilt with these activities. qml-box2d can be found here: https://github.com/qml-box2d/qml-box2d/ -- 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 1664399] Review Request: mp3gain - Lossless MP3 volume adjustment tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1664399
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- %{__sed} → sed
- Provide the manpaqe unzipped: the build will take care of compressing it.
Also glob the .gz extension as the compression method might change in the
future.
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]: 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 (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown
or generated". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mp3gain/review-
mp3gain/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]: 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 mp3gain-
debuginfo , mp3gain-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
[Bug 1673969] New: Review Request: rust-once_cell - Rust library for single assignment cells and lazy statics without macros
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673969 Bug ID: 1673969 Summary: Review Request: rust-once_cell - Rust library for single assignment cells and lazy statics without macros Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jsta...@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/jstanek/package-reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00856395-rust-once_cell/rust-once_cell.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jstanek/package-reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00856395-rust-once_cell/rust-once_cell-0.1.8-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Rust library for single assignment cells and lazy statics without macros. Fedora Account System Username: jstanek -- 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 1659556] Review Request: cockpit-composer - Composer GUI for use with Cockpit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1659556 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - You need to add a comment detailing how to generate the archive - You need to validate the metainfo data: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data_validate_usage - add a %changelog section -- 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 1663668] Review Request: python-k2hr3-osnl - K2hR3 OpenStack Notification Listener
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663668
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- The configuration file %{_sysconfdir}/k2hr3/k2hr3-osnl.conf should be
inrtalled with %config(noreplace)
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/k2hr3/k2hr3-osnl.conf
- The last %changelog entry is not matching the Version-Release in the header,
it should be 0.0.14-1
- The package can't build:
DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: Error:
DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: package
python3-oslo-messaging-8.0.0-1.fc29.noarch requires python3-pika_pool, but none
of the providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: - conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing provides python3.7dist(pika) <
0.11 needed by python3-pika-pool-0.1.3-14.fc30.noarch
You should ask the maintainer of pika-pool to relax the dependency on pika
(which is constrained to pika < 0.11 while the rawhide version is 0.12)
--
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 1663633] Review Request: clojure-maven-plugin - maven plugin to build Clojure programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663633
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- You must install the license file with %license, not %doc:
%files -f .mfiles
%license epl-v10.html
%doc README.markdown
- Why did you add an Epoch: 1 ? It doesn't seem needed.
- Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
- Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
- Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
Note: No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for
Fedora versions >= 21
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* Eclipse Public License", "Eclipse Public
License (v1.0)", "*No copyright* Eclipse Public License (v1.0)",
"Unknown or generated". 107 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/clojure-maven-
plugin/review-clojure-maven-plugin/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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
Java:
[
[Bug 1673956] New: Review Request: octave-openems - An electromagnetic field solver for octave
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673956 Bug ID: 1673956 Summary: Review Request: octave-openems - An electromagnetic field solver for octave Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~sailer/octave-openems.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~sailer/octave-openems-0.0.35-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: openEMS is a free and open electromagnetic field solver using the FDTD method. Octave is used as an easy and flexible scripting interface. It features: * fully 3D Cartesian and cylindrical coordinates graded mesh. * Multi-threading, SIMD (SSE) support for high speed FDTD. Fedora Account System Username: sailer COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sailer/radiofrequency/build/856375/ -- 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 1663245] Review Request: php-sensiolabs-security-checker - A security checker for your composer.lock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663245 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- php-sensiolabs-security-checker-5.0.3-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-2702088484 -- 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 1663168] Review Request: php-league-tactician - A small, flexible command bus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663168 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- php-league-tactician-1.0.3-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-0d5a571798 -- 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 1663245] Review Request: php-sensiolabs-security-checker - A security checker for your composer.lock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663245 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-sensiolabs-security-checker -- 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 1663168] Review Request: php-league-tactician - A small, flexible command bus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663168 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-league-tactician -- 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 1673854] Review Request: ephemeral - A private-by-default, always-incognito browser. Inspired by Firefox Focus.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673854 --- Comment #5 from Artem --- Spec file fixes #2: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/atim/ephemeral/ephemeral.git/plain/ephemeral.spec?h=f29 SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/ephemeral/fedora-29-x86_64/00856360-ephemeral/ephemeral-4.0.3-7.fc29.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 1662550] Review Request: shadowsocks-qt5 - A cross-platform shadowsocks GUI client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662550 --- Comment #5 from sensor@gmail.com --- Thanks. fixed. https://github.com/FZUG/repo/commit/5120066983a6355162a29d18966cc788e9539ad6 -- 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 1673854] Review Request: ephemeral - A private-by-default, always-incognito browser. Inspired by Firefox Focus.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673854 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- (In reply to Artem from comment #3) > (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #1) > > Hi Artem, > > > > I see this is your first package submission. > > I've already packaged some other "made for elementary" applications, so if > > you need help, feel free to ask me, as well :) > > Hi, sure appreciate this! Thank you. What is preferable method for > communication in general? IRC or email? E-Mail is fine. I'm not available on IRC most times, but if you see me online, that's fine too (decathorpe on freenode) -- 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 1673854] Review Request: ephemeral - A private-by-default, always-incognito browser. Inspired by Firefox Focus.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673854 --- Comment #3 from Artem --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #1) > Hi Artem, > > I see this is your first package submission. > I've already packaged some other "made for elementary" applications, so if > you need help, feel free to ask me, as well :) Hi, sure appreciate this! Thank you. What is preferable method for communication in general? IRC or email? -- 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 1673854] Review Request: ephemeral - A private-by-default, always-incognito browser. Inspired by Firefox Focus.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673854 --- Comment #2 from Artem --- Spec file fixes: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/atim/ephemeral/ephemeral.git/plain/ephemeral.spec?h=f29 SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/ephemeral/fedora-29-x86_64/00856320-ephemeral/ephemeral-4.0.3-5.fc29.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 1672863] Review Request: gap-pkg-transgrp - Transitive groups library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672863 --- Comment #3 from J. Scheurich --- rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/gap-pkg-transgrp-doc-2.0.4-1.fc30.noarch.rpm ... gap-pkg-transgrp-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/gap/pkg/transgrp/doc/._manual.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 1672862] Review Request: gap-pkg-smallgrp - Small groups library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672862 --- Comment #4 from J. Scheurich --- $ rpmlint /home/mufti/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/gap-pkg-smallgrp-1.3-1.fc30.noarch.rpm ... gap-pkg-smallgrp.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib/gap/pkg/SmallGrp-1.3/id10/idgrp10.g.gz gap-pkg-smallgrp.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib/gap/pkg/SmallGrp-1.3/id9/idgrp9.g.gz -- 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 1673854] Review Request: ephemeral - A private-by-default, always-incognito browser. Inspired by Firefox Focus.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673854 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||decatho...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini --- Hi Artem, I see this is your first package submission. I've already packaged some other "made for elementary" applications, so if you need help, feel free to ask me, as well :) -- 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 1672862] Review Request: gap-pkg-smallgrp - Small groups library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672862 --- Comment #3 from J. Scheurich --- rpmbuild -ba gap-pkg-smallgrp.spec ... + /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh -j4 --strict-build-id -m -i --build-id-seed 1.3 -1.fc30 --unique-debug-suffix -1.3-1.fc30.x86_64 --unique-debug-src-base gap-pkg -smallgrp-1.3-1.fc30.x86_64 --run-dwz --dwz-low-mem-die-limit 1000 --dwz-max -die-limit 11000 -S debugsourcefiles.list /home/mufti/rpmbuild/BUILD/SmallGr p-1.3 find: 'debug': No such file or directory Maybe harmless... -- 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 1673854] Review Request: ephemeral - A private-by-default, always-incognito browser. Inspired by Firefox Focus.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673854 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1673854] Review Request: ephemeral - A private-by-default, always-incognito browser. Inspired by Firefox Focus.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673854 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |29 -- 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 1673854] Review Request: ephemeral - A private-by-default, always-incognito browser. Inspired by Firefox Focus.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673854 Artem 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 1673854] New: Review Request: ephemeral - A private-by-default, always-incognito browser. Inspired by Firefox Focus.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673854 Bug ID: 1673854 Summary: Review Request: ephemeral - A private-by-default, always-incognito browser. Inspired by Firefox Focus. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.corda...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/atim/ephemeral/ephemeral.git/tree/ephemeral.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/ephemeral/fedora-29-x86_64/00856283-ephemeral/ephemeral-4.0.3-4.fc29.src.rpm Description: Browse the Internet in private without leaving a trace of history on your computer. Ephemeral is a stripped down private browser that's perfect for avoiding persistent cookies or web trackers. Close the window and all traces of your browsing are removed from your device. Fedora Account System Username: atim Fedora badges: https://badges.fedoraproject.org/user/atim I am also contributed translation for this package: https://github.com/cassidyjames/ephemeral/pull/99 -- 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 1672861] Review Request: gap-pkg-primgrp - Primitive permutation groups library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672861 --- Comment #3 from J. Scheurich --- $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/gap-pkg-primgrp-3.3.2-1.fc30.noarch.rpm ... gap-pkg-primgrp.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib I have to admit, i don't understand this warning 8-( A bug in rpmlint ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1671665] Review Request: phpunit8 - The PHP Unit Testing framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671665 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet --- Updated to 8.0.2: Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/phpunit/phpunit8.git/plain/phpunit8.spec?id=ef55cbef62da1f64bbb07254eb474d8991b8276c SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/phpunit8-8.0.2-1.remi.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
