[Bug 1677481] Review Request: R-askpass - Safe Password Entry for R, Git, and SSH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677481 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- R-askpass-1.1-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-789c9cc8d7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677481] Review Request: R-askpass - Safe Password Entry for R, Git, and SSH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677481 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- R-askpass-1.1-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-1081254806 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677834] New: Review Request: rust-x11 - X11 library bindings for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677834 Bug ID: 1677834 Summary: Review Request: rust-x11 - X11 library bindings for Rust Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-x11.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-x11-2.18.1-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: X11 library bindings for Rust. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1667661] Review Request: python-astunparse - An AST unparser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667661 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|ASSIGNED Assignee|zebo...@gmail.com |pkop...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #9 from Miro Hrončok --- Thanks Robert-André. However, there's the misleading license file problem. Also, Patrik is now a packager. I'd like him to finish this himself if possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1491492] Review Request: coturn - TURN/STUN & ICE Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491492 --- Comment #11 from Christian Glombek --- Spec URL: https://github.com/LorbusChris/coturn-rpm/blob/master/coturn.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lorbus/coturn/fedora-29-x86_64/00859135-coturn/coturn-4.5.1.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: Lorbus -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1672994] Review Request: spread-sheet-widget - A library for Gtk+ which provides a spread sheet widget
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672994 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- spread-sheet-widget-0.3-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-61fa9f7489 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677668] Review Request: coreos-installer - Installer for CoreOS systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677668 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- coreos-installer-0-1.git081d4be.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-b71e05bad3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1676300] Review Request: R-sys - Powerful and Reliable Tools for Running System Commands in R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676300 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- R-sys-2.1-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-9db18f862f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1674625] Review Request: python-operator-courier - Library and CLI tool to build, verify and push operator metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674625 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- python-operator-courier-1.0.1-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-72022ab81e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1671171] Review Request: auryn - Plastic Recurrent Network Simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671171
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 ---
- The documentation package should be noarch
%if %{with doc}
%packagedoc
Summary:Documentation for %{name}
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: doxygen
BuildRequires: /usr/bin/dot
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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 147 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/auryn/review-auryn/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.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: auryn-mpich (description), auryn-openmpi
(description)
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: 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 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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: auryn-mpich-devel, auryn-openmpi-devel.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are
[Bug 1661034] Review Request: python-edgegrid - Akamai {OPEN} Edgegrid authentication protocol for python-requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1661034
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 #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Add Python provide:
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}
- Remove Group: Development/Libraries
- Own
%dir %{python3_sitelib}/akamai
and replace %{python3_sitelib}/akamai/edgegrid/* with:
%{python3_sitelib}/akamai/edgegrid
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated",
"Apache License (v2.0)". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-edgegrid
/review-python-edgegrid/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.7/site-
packages/akamai/edgegrid, /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/akamai
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
[Bug 1670508] Review Request: ckb-next - driver for Corsair RGB keyboards and mice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670508 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Not needed: %defattr(-,root,root) - Please use "install -p" to keep timestamps - Please list the bundled libraries src/libs/quazip (LGPLv2+) and src/libs/kissfft (BSD) in License: and add the Provides: bundled() - Please add gcc-c++ as a BR -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1673214] Review Request: mandoc - A suite of tools for compiling mdoc and man
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673214 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2019-02-16 02:26:34 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- mandoc-1.14.4-1.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 1562526] Review Request: libfullock - A Fast User Level LOCK (FULLOCK) library for C and C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1562526 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1562526] Review Request: libfullock - A Fast User Level LOCK (FULLOCK) library for C and C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1562526 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1665749] Review Request: python-pipreqs - Generate requirements.txt file for any project based on imports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665749 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin --- CC me. Please address Hirotaka Wakabayashi's comments and I'll finish the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1467716] Review Request: reactfx - Reactive event streams for JavaFX
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467716
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 #11 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated".
244 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/reactfx/review-reactfx/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: 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
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
= 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 reactfx-
javadoc
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files
[Bug 1671064] Review Request: libldac - LDAC library from AOSP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671064 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com --- Comment #14 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to Pasi Karkkainen from comment #9) > Great to see libldac getting approved in Fedora! Thanks a lot everyone. > > Btw are you interested in packaging libopenaptx > (https://github.com/pali/libopenaptx) aswell? It's a separate LGPL library > which implements only the AptX and AptX-HD codecs. I believe the patents > around aptx expired last year.. > > It's possible to use libopenaptx instead of ffmpeg to get aptx/aptx-hd > codecs supported in pulseaudio/bluetooth. > (and there are patches for that on pulseaudio mailinglist already. patches > to bluez were already merged). Feel free to propose a package review request for it, and it can be looked at to bring into the distribution. See here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers And here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1415612] Review Request: sqlrelay - Database proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415612
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- make → %make_build
- make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install
- Not sure what you're doing here
%postun server-devel
rmdir %{_includedir}/%{name} 2> /dev/null || :
rmdir %{_includedir}/%{name}/private 2> /dev/null || :
instead you should own the dir:
%dir %{_includedir}/%{name}
%dir %{_includedir}/%{name}/private
- Same
%postun c++-devel
rmdir %{_includedir}/%{name} 2> /dev/null || :
rmdir %{_includedir}/%{name}/private 2> /dev/null || :
%postun c-devel
rmdir %{_includedir}/%{name} 2> /dev/null || :
rmdir %{_includedir}/%{name}/private 2> /dev/null || :
%postun -n python3-%{name}
rmdir %{python3_sitearch}/SQLRelay/__pycache__ 2> /dev/null || :
rmdir %{python3_sitearch}/SQLRelay 2> /dev/null || :
and so on
- You should not glob the major soname version to avoid accidentally bumping
the soname:
%{_libdir}/libsqlrserver.so.*
%{_libdir}/libsqlrutil.so.*
- /sbin/ldconfig is not needed anymore, remove them all
-
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1672274] Review Request: perl-Regexp-Trie - Build trie-ized regexp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672274 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2019-02-16 01:24:27 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Regexp-Trie-0.02-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1672313] Review Request: perl-Perl-PrereqScanner-NotQuiteLite - A tool to scan your Perl code for its prerequisites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672313 Bug 1672313 depends on bug 1672274, which changed state. Bug 1672274 Summary: Review Request: perl-Regexp-Trie - Build trie-ized regexp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672274 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1676300] Review Request: R-sys - Powerful and Reliable Tools for Running System Commands in R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676300 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- R-sys-2.1-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f3707f1d76 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1674625] Review Request: python-operator-courier - Library and CLI tool to build, verify and push operator metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674625 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-operator-courier-1.0.1-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-32a3a55a96 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1668271] Review Request: cppzmq - Header-only C++ binding for libzmq
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1668271
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 #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: 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* Expat License", "Expat License", "Unknown or
generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 25 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/cppzmq/review-cppzmq/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[Bug 1668799] Review Request: jnacl - Pure Java implementation of the NaCl: Networking and Cryptography library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1668799
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 use a more adequate name for your archive:
Source0:
https://github.com/neilalexander/jnacl/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Please add a comment above the patch to explain why it is needed
- Please address Hirotaka Wakabayashi's comments
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated". 3
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/jnacl/review-jnacl/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: 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
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use
[Bug 1668731] Review Request: joda-parent - Joda-Parent is the parent pom.xml for other Joda.org projects.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1668731
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 ---
- Please use a more adequate name for your archive:
Source0:
https://github.com/JodaOrg/joda-parent/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Build error:
[ERROR] UndeclaredThrowableException: InvocationTargetException: Plugin
org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-enforcer-plugin:3.0.0-M1 or one of its
dependencies could not be resolved: Cannot access central
(https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in offline mode and the artifact
org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-enforcer-plugin:jar:3.0.0-M1 has not been
downloaded from it before.
[ERROR] UndeclaredThrowableException: InvocationTargetException: Plugin
org.apache.felix:maven-bundle-plugin:4.1.0 or one of its dependencies could not
be resolved: Cannot access central (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in
offline mode and the artifact org.apache.felix:maven-bundle-plugin:jar:4.1.0
has not been downloaded from it before.
[ERROR]
Add:
BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-enforcer-plugin)
BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.felix:maven-bundle-plugin)
- Remove the dot at the end of the summary
W: summary-ended-with-dot C Joda-Parent is the parent pom.xml for other
Joda.org projects.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated".
5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/joda-parent/review-joda-
parent/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files
[Bug 1668515] Review Request: vagrant-vagrant_cloud - Vagrant Cloud API Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1668515
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 ---
- Is the Gem from https://rubygems.org/gems/vagrant_cloud
Source0: https://rubygems.org/gems/%{vagrant_plugin_name}-%{version}.gem
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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 10 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
/vagrant-vagrant_cloud/review-vagrant-vagrant_cloud/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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 vagrant-
vagrant_cloud-doc
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[Bug 1446005] Review Request: tikzit - Diagram editor for pgf/TikZ
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1446005
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #13 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use PREFIX=%{_prefix} not /usr
- Add gcc-c++ as a BR:
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
- Fix the line encoding:
W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/tikzit/README.md
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_DOS_line_endings
- Not ok and not needed:
%global debug_package %{nil}
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]: 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v3)", "Unknown or
generated", "GPL (v3 or later)". 60 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/tikzit
/review-tikzit/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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.
[!]: 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 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store
[Bug 1666493] Review Request: OpenLiberty - Server runtime for Java Developers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666493
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
This package doesn't conform to the the Fedora Packaging Guidelines, you should
read them
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
- Not needed:
%define _topdir
/home/travis/build/was-lighthouse/openliberty-rpmdeb/rpmbuild
%define nameopenliberty
%define version 18.0.0.4
%define buildroot %{_topdir}/BUILDROOT/%{name}-root
- Shouldn't be used:
#%define _rpmfilename %%{NAME}-%%{VERSION}.%%{ARCH}.rpm
AutoProv: no
%undefine __find_provides
AutoReq: no
%undefine __find_requires
# Do not try autogenerate prereq/conflicts/obsoletes and check files
%undefine __check_files
%undefine __find_prereq
%undefine __find_conflicts
%undefine __find_obsoletes
# Be sure buildpolicy set to do nothing - does not randomly compile the python
files
%define __spec_install_post %{nil}
# Remove missing file termination
%define _missing_doc_files_terminate_build 0
#BUILDHOST: IBM Linux Machine
#OS:linux
#ARCH: noarch
- Not needed
BuildRoot: %{buildroot}
Group: WAS/Development/Tools
Vendor: IBM
Packager: IBM
- Missing dist tag:
Release:1%{?dist}
- Description should be split to be under 80 characters per line
- The package should not be installed inder /opt
"All architecture-independent JAR files MUST go into %{_javadir} or its
subdirectory."
- You should provide SystemD files, not init.d ones
- You need to include a changelog entry
- It is forbidden to ship jar files directly:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#prebuilt-binaries-or-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 1666493] Review Request: OpenLiberty - Server runtime for Java Developers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666493 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com 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 1667935] Review request nodejs-mqtt - MQTT client library for nodejs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667935 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - You don't need to specify Requires for nodejs package https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Node.js/#_automatic_requires_and_provides -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1666545] Review Request: python-qdarkstyle - A dark stylesheet for Qt applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666545 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 #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- I'll approve this package once Hirotaka Wakabayashi's comments are addressed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1667680] Review Request: python-gast - Python AST that abstracts the underlying Python version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667680 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|pkop...@redhat.com |zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Approving Patrik's review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1667661] Review Request: python-astunparse - An AST unparser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667661 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|pkop...@redhat.com |zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Approving Patrik's review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1677668] Review Request: coreos-installer - Installer for CoreOS systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677668 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- coreos-installer-0-1.git081d4be.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-b71e05bad3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1662170] Review Request: ssh-tools - collection of various tools using ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662170
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use "install -p" to keep file timestamps
- Use a better name for your archive:
Source0:
https://github.com/vaporup/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Don't use the .gz extension but a glob for man pages, because compression
might change in the future:
%{_mandir}/man1/ssh-*.1.*
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: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ssh-tools/review-
ssh-tools/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: 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,
[Bug 1662170] Review Request: ssh-tools - collection of various tools using ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662170 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com 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 866265] Review Request: opentrep - C++ API for parsing travel-focused requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866265
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 #31 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Please don't glob the major soname version to avoid unintentional soname
bump:
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.0*
- The license file COPYING must be installed with %license, not %doc:
%files
%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog NEWS README.md
%license COPYING
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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.
Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: 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.
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", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser
General Public License", "Unknown or generated", "GNU Free
Documentation License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or
later)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GNU Free Documentation
License (v1.2 or later)", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License",
"NTP License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License". 447 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/opentrep/review-
opentrep/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 71680 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]: 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
[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 #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- There are no version specified in the source code so I can't know what it is. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1665563] Review Request: python-rangehttpserver - SimpleHTTPServer with support for Range requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665563 --- Comment #18 from Luis Bazan --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #15) > Well ... no. Why jump from one extreme to the other? In the previous version > of the spec file, %check was running properly with the one test disabled. I > object to the _comment_, which was obviously invalid. This version removes > the %check section completely. There's no reason for this. Please add back > the %check section, and in the comment, instead of saying "the test > server_test removed because need network", just add the URL to the upstream > issue. # the server_test removed because need network # Upstream Issue # https://github.com/danvk/RangeHTTPServer/issues/21 rm -rf tests/server_test.py chmod 0644 RangeHTTPServer/__init__.py RangeHTTPServer/__main__.py Spec URL: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-rangehttpserver.spec SRPM: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-rangehttpserver-1.2.0-4.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 1677787] Review Request: R-purrr - Functional Programming Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677787 --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32835921 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677787] New: Review Request: R-purrr - Functional Programming Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677787 Bug ID: 1677787 Summary: Review Request: R-purrr - Functional Programming Tools Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-purrr.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-purrr-0.3.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: A complete and consistent functional programming toolkit for R. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677481] Review Request: R-askpass - Safe Password Entry for R, Git, and SSH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677481 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-askpass -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1676912] Review Request: python-etcd3gw - An etcd3 gateway Python client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676912 John Eckersberg changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-etcd3gw-0.2.4-1.fc30 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2019-02-15 20:48:36 --- Comment #4 from John Eckersberg --- python-etcd3gw-0.2.4-1.fc30 - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1210992 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1676912] Review Request: python-etcd3gw - An etcd3 gateway Python client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676912 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-etcd3gw -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1676912] Review Request: python-etcd3gw - An etcd3 gateway Python client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676912 --- Comment #2 from John Eckersberg --- scm request, so I don't lose it :) - https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9728 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1676912] Review Request: python-etcd3gw - An etcd3 gateway Python client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676912
Alan Pevec changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Alan Pevec ---
APPROVED
nitpick: you might want to to change even if old URL does redirect:
-URL:https://pypi.python.org/pypi/%{srcname}
+URL:https://pypi.org/project/%{srcname}/
Package Review
==
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can
[Bug 1665563] Review Request: python-rangehttpserver - SimpleHTTPServer with support for Range requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665563 --- Comment #17 from Luis Bazan --- Spec URL: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-rangehttpserver.spec SRPM: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-rangehttpserver-1.2.0-4.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 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jared Smith --- I have manually reviewed this package, and it is APPROVED. It conforms to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines, and is under an acceptible license. It builds cleanly in Rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677668] Review Request: coreos-installer - Installer for CoreOS systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677668 --- Comment #5 from Mohan Boddu --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/coreos-installer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1665563] Review Request: python-rangehttpserver - SimpleHTTPServer with support for Range requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665563 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #16 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Zbigniew: since you're reviewing this already, would you be able to also please approve it when done and set the review-flag? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677481] Review Request: R-askpass - Safe Password Entry for R, Git, and SSH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677481 José Matos changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jama...@fc.up.pt Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jama...@fc.up.pt Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from José Matos --- The license is correct and appropriate. The spec file is simple and very readable. fedora-review has no significant complaint and so the package is approved. :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1671064] Review Request: libldac - LDAC library from AOSP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671064 --- Comment #13 from Peter Robinson --- > Does anyone know if there is a difference between F28 ppc64 and F29 ppc64 > byte order support? ppc64 is big endian, ppc64le is little endian. > I either have to exclude ppc64 or not release for F28, right? Which one is > the better choice in this case? I just wouldn't release for F-28, new functionality should really only be going to the newer releases. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1665563] Review Request: python-rangehttpserver - SimpleHTTPServer with support for Range requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665563 --- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Well ... no. Why jump from one extreme to the other? In the previous version of the spec file, %check was running properly with the one test disabled. I object to the _comment_, which was obviously invalid. This version removes the %check section completely. There's no reason for this. Please add back the %check section, and in the comment, instead of saying "the test server_test removed because need network", just add the URL to the upstream issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1665563] Review Request: python-rangehttpserver - SimpleHTTPServer with support for Range requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665563 --- Comment #14 from Luis Bazan --- Spec URL: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-rangehttpserver.spec SRPM: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-RangeHTTPServer-1.2.0-3.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 1665563] Review Request: python-rangehttpserver - SimpleHTTPServer with support for Range requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665563 --- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Please post an updated spec file with the other __main__.py restored (comment #10). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677291] Review Request: newsboat - An RSS/Atom feed reader for text terminals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677291
Igor Gnatenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Igor Gnatenko ---
> %{_mandir}/man1/*.1.gz
%{_mandir}/man1/*.1*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1665563] Review Request: python-rangehttpserver - SimpleHTTPServer with support for Range requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665563 --- Comment #12 from Luis Bazan --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #11) > Yep, test_range_request seems to hang here. I see "error: [Errno 98] Address > already in use" so it's some error in the tests. > I'd suggest opening an upstream issue. https://github.com/danvk/RangeHTTPServer/issues/21 I created the issue in upstream. Cheers, -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1670070] Review Request: cheat - Help for various commands and their usecases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670070 Gergely Gombos changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkor...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(tkor...@redhat.co ||m) --- Comment #4 from Gergely Gombos --- I'm taking this review, Tomas, I'm waiting for package updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1670070] Review Request: cheat - Help for various commands and their usecases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670070 Gergely Gombos changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|gomb...@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 1674625] Review Request: python-operator-courier - Library and CLI tool to build, verify and push operator metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674625 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-operator-courier-1.0.1-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-32a3a55a96 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677668] Review Request: coreos-installer - Installer for CoreOS systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677668 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa --- Review notes: [x]: Package follows Fedora package naming guidelines [x]: Package builds and installs correctly [x]: Package follows licensing guidelines and installs license content properly [x]: Package follows 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 1674625] Review Request: python-operator-courier - Library and CLI tool to build, verify and push operator metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674625 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-operator-courier-1.0.1-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-72022ab81e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677291] Review Request: newsboat - An RSS/Atom feed reader for text terminals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677291
--- Comment #4 from Jan Staněk ---
Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jstanek/package-reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00858984-newsboat/newsboat.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jstanek/package-reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00858984-newsboat/newsboat-2.14.1-1.fc30.src.rpm
> Use %set_build_flags instead, please.
TIL that exists, thanks.
> %{_mandir}/man1/*.1
Also TIL that rpm will auto-compress man pages, so the correct version is
`%{_mandir}/man1/*.1.gz`
Other changes should be integrated into the spec basically as suggested.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677668] Review Request: coreos-installer - Installer for CoreOS systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677668 --- Comment #3 from Dusty Mabe --- yeah there was a bit of overkill. I liked the structure so I copied it from another spec file. Addressed all the comments: https://github.com/dustymabe/coreos-installer-rpm/raw/1eec556ad36e7325659f80bc2cf7f84af9adfb18/coreos-installer.spec https://github.com/dustymabe/coreos-installer-rpm/raw/1eec556ad36e7325659f80bc2cf7f84af9adfb18/coreos-installer-0-1.git081d4be.fc29.src.rpm You can see the diff in the spec file here: https://github.com/dustymabe/coreos-installer-rpm/commit/1eec556ad36e7325659f80bc2cf7f84af9adfb18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 #12 from Gergely Gombos --- Thanks Dominik, I was just doing that. :) * Fri Feb 15 2019 Gergely Gombos - 2.0.2.2-4 - Add s390x ExcludeArch See #1677491. I don't have an s390x machine nor an actual LDAC headset to patch & test upstream code so I'm excluding this arch. :) Builds fine now: Rawhide https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32832242 F29 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32832365 This still fails for ppc64, with the same byte order error: F28 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32832369 (https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2399/32832399/build.log) Does anyone know if there is a difference between F28 ppc64 and F29 ppc64 byte order support? I either have to exclude ppc64 or not release for F28, right? Which one is the better choice in this case? (I'd rather not release for F28 since ppc64 works on F29+ and F28 would be EOL'd anyway soon.) Thanks for the help. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677668] Review Request: coreos-installer - Installer for CoreOS systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677668
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ---
So, here's a first pass...
> %global providergithub
> %global provider_tldcom
> %global project coreos
> %global repocoreos-installer
> # https://github.com/coreos/coreos-installer
> %global provider_prefix %{provider}.%{provider_tld}/%{project}/%{repo}
> %global import_path %{provider_prefix}
> %global commit 081d4bed42489a48e95f559022d96f4999e56cbd
> %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
Holy crap, this is so much overkill. You seem to only need %commit and
%shortcommit. All the rest could be flattened.
> URL: https://%{provider_prefix}
> Source0:
> https://%{provider_prefix}/archive/%{commit}/%{repo}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz
This can be simplified to the following:
URL: https://github.com/coreos/%{name}
Source0: %{url}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz
> # setup command reference:
> http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-macros.html
> # unpack source0 and apply patches
> %setup -T -b 0 -q -n %{repo}-%{commit}
This can be simplified to just "%autosetup -n %{name}-%{commit} -p1"
> Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
> Requires: coreos-installer
You already have "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}", you don't need
"Requires: coreos-installer" too.
The second "BuildArch: noarch" is redundant.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 #11 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- You can add # big endian is not supported https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677491 ExcludeArch: s390x and build anyway for now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1677668] Review Request: coreos-installer - Installer for CoreOS systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677668 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- Taking this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1671787] Review Request: python-cursor - python package for hiding terminal cursor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671787
Jan Macku changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pkop...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(pkop...@redhat.co
||m)
--- Comment #5 from Jan Macku ---
(In reply to Patrik Kopkan from comment #4)
> Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-cursor/raw/master/f/python-cursor.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://pagure.io/python-cursor/raw/master/f/python-cursor-1.2.0-1.fc29.src.
> rpm
Hi Patrik,
There are some issues:
* You can't use GitHub master branch as a source, because master is changing
with every commit. This cause that source hash and upstream hash doesn't match.
Also you link whole master branch only for two files (README and COPYING),
this cause growing of srpm file.
- Solution: Link README and COPYING files directly as Source X a Y and
instead of referencing to master branch refer to commit.
-
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GijsTimmers/cursor/f40edcd7677f9912a042fee76653a41fefe7dac7/LICENSE
-
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GijsTimmers/cursor/f40edcd7677f9912a042fee76653a41fefe7dac7/README.md
* Your spec file doesn't match spec file from srpm (different changelog).
* There is also problem with description. You use two different macros
%{summary} and %{Summary}. The problem is that %{Summary} macro doesn't exist.
If I run rpm -pqi python3-cursor-1.2.0-1.fc29.noarch.rpm, it shows:
"Description : %{Summary}".
- Solution: The best solution would be write an extended version of summary
instead of using macro.
* Remove (patch) shebang from cursor.py.
* Try to contact upstream via mail or create an Issue on GitHub and ask them
about man pages.
Full output from fedora-review tool:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/home/jamacku/Tmp/cursor/review/python-cursor/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Public
License (v2.5)", "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jamacku/Tmp/cursor/review/python-cursor/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: python3-cursor (description)
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package
[Bug 1671064] Review Request: libldac - LDAC library from AOSP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671064 Gergely Gombos 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 1671064] Review Request: libldac - LDAC library from AOSP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671064 Gergely Gombos changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1677491 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677491 [Bug 1677491] libldac doesn't support big-endian, s390x build fails -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1677491] libldac doesn't support big-endian, s390x build fails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677491 Gergely Gombos changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1671064 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671064 [Bug 1671064] Review Request: libldac - LDAC library from AOSP -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677668] New: Review Request: coreos-installer - Installer for CoreOS systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677668 Bug ID: 1677668 Summary: Review Request: coreos-installer - Installer for CoreOS systems Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dustym...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dustymabe/coreos-installer-rpm/master/coreos-installer.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/dustymabe/coreos-installer-rpm/raw/master/coreos-installer-0-1.git081d4be.fc29.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: dustymabe Description: This package contains the coreos-installer script used to install CoreOS disk images to bare metal machines. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1672994] Review Request: spread-sheet-widget - A library for Gtk+ which provides a spread sheet widget
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672994 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/spread-sheet-widget --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- spread-sheet-widget-0.3-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-61fa9f7489 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677291] Review Request: newsboat - An RSS/Atom feed reader for text terminals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677291 --- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko --- > BuildRequires: json-devel > BuildRequires: json-c-devel > BuildRequires: libcurl-devel > BuildRequires: libxml2-devel > BuildRequires: libxslt-devel > BuildRequires: ncurses-devel > BuildRequires: pkgconfig > BuildRequires: sqlite-devel > BuildRequires: stfl-devel BuildRequires: pkgconfig(sqlite3) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libcurl) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libxml-2.0) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(stfl) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(json-c) >= 0.11 BuildRequires: pkgconfig(ncursesw) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libcrypto) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677291] Review Request: newsboat - An RSS/Atom feed reader for text terminals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677291
--- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko ---
> %doc %attr(0644,root,root) %{_mandir}/man1/*
%{_mandir}/man1/*.1
> %doc %{_pkgdocdir}/*
%{_pkgdocdir}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1672903] Review Request: erlang-hex_core - Reference implementation of Hex specifications.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672903 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||erlang-hex_core-0.4.0-1.fc3 ||0 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-02-15 13:52:47 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677291] Review Request: newsboat - An RSS/Atom feed reader for text terminals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677291
--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko ---
> export CXXFLAGS="${CXXFLAGS:-%optflags}"
Use %set_build_flags instead, please.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677291] Review Request: newsboat - An RSS/Atom feed reader for text terminals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677291 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 1676914] Review Request: oraculum - Backend and API for Fedora QA Dashboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676914 František Zatloukal changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-02-15 13:39:02 --- Comment #26 from František Zatloukal --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #24) > Source checksums > > https://releases.pagure.org/fedora-qa/oraculum/oraculum-0.0.2.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > c0244fe490f99122726158362bb41cf347cc29b9796b6692067c73c298b1e077 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > c0244fe490f99122726158362bb41cf347cc29b9796b6692067c73c298b1e077 > > > Package APPROVED. > > Thanks everybody and sorry again for the undesired language. Thanks!!! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1676914] Review Request: oraculum - Backend and API for Fedora QA Dashboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676914 --- Comment #25 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/oraculum -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 #10 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gap-pkg-smallgrp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 #6 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gap-pkg-primgrp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1670656] Review Request: grafana - an open source, feature rich metrics dashboard and graph editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670656 --- Comment #16 from Xavier Bachelot --- Hi Mark, Glad Elliott commented about bundled go, I started to look at it too because of the weird issue with the debug package. I think more go packages can be unbundled and you missed some of them because at least some of the go packages name in the never unbundled list are wrong. I will try to tidy up this list with fixed packages names. Hopefully, the list will become short enough the missing deps can be packaged. On a more personal note, go stuff is scary, somewhat statically linking everything seems a maintenance and security nightmare. Regards, Xavier -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677265] Review Request: cekit - Container creation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677265 --- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann --- After python-pykwalify package was upgraded in Fedora Rawhide (build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1210132), to fix bug 1635216 it was possible to build this package for Rawhide too: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32830331. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1676914] Review Request: oraculum - Backend and API for Fedora QA Dashboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676914 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #24 from Miro Hrončok --- Source checksums https://releases.pagure.org/fedora-qa/oraculum/oraculum-0.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c0244fe490f99122726158362bb41cf347cc29b9796b6692067c73c298b1e077 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c0244fe490f99122726158362bb41cf347cc29b9796b6692067c73c298b1e077 Package APPROVED. Thanks everybody and sorry again for the undesired language. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1677491] libldac doesn't support big-endian, s390x build fails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677491 Hanns-Joachim Uhl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@danny.cz, ||hannsj_...@de.ibm.com OS|Unspecified |Linux -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1676914] Review Request: oraculum - Backend and API for Fedora QA Dashboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676914 --- Comment #23 from Lukas Brabec --- Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lbrabec/oraculum/fedora-29-x86_64/00858788-oraculum/oraculum.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lbrabec/oraculum/fedora-29-x86_64/00858788-oraculum/oraculum-0.0.2-1.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
