[Bug 1592905] exercism - Binary in package fails to run
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1592905 --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- I don't think I will be able to update this in Fedora 28, as it requires new spf13/viper, which requires go 1.11. Things should be better in Fedora 29 where exercism 3.0.11 is in testing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1677941] New: Review Request: python-more-executors - A library of composable Python executors and futures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677941 Bug ID: 1677941 Summary: Review Request: python-more-executors - A library of composable Python executors and futures Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ro...@mcgovern.id.au QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~rohanpm/python-more-executors/1/python-more-executors.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~rohanpm/python-more-executors/1/python-more-executors-1.20.1-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: This library is intended for use with the concurrent.futures module. It includes a collection of Executor implementations in order to extend the behavior of Future objects. Fedora Account System Username: rohanpm Additional info: There's one outstanding rpmlint warning for the RPM which I was not able to resolve - the warning appears to be wrong: python3-more-executors.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1661034] Review Request: python-edgegrid - Akamai {OPEN} Edgegrid authentication protocol for python-requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1661034
Rohan McGovern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro...@mcgovern.id.au
--- Comment #5 from Rohan McGovern ---
Thank you both. I've prepared an update with fixes for all issues mentioned
above.
Spec URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~rohanpm/python-edgegrid/2/python-edgegrid.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~rohanpm/python-edgegrid/2/python-edgegrid-1.1.1-2.fc30.src.rpm
Fixes:
> 2. The 'Group' tag should not be used
> - Remove Group: Development/Libraries
Done.
> The 'URL:' tag might be better than the 'Url:' tag for legibility.
Done.
> The following python guideline says the %python_provide macro should be used.
> - Add Python provide:
Done.
> - Own
>
> %dir %{python3_sitelib}/akamai
>
> and replace %{python3_sitelib}/akamai/edgegrid/* with:
>
> %{python3_sitelib}/akamai/edgegrid
Done.
Thanks again.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.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 #16 from Gergely Gombos --- Wrapping up my first package's release! I decided not to release this for F28 due to ppc64 (big-endian) failing. From F29+ apparently pp64le is default, which works. F29 build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1210898 Rawhide build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1210896 F29 update: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-90c880c7cc This still depends on the s390x exclusion bug (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677491), but there's not much to do since the upstream code throws an error on big-endian systems. Let me know if some further actions are needed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- libldac-2.0.2.2-4.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-90c880c7cc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1671234] Review Request: mpris-scrobbler - User daemon to submit currently playing song to LastFM, LibreFM, ListenBrainz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671234 --- Comment #6 from Justin W. Flory --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5) > - It seems you are already member of the packager group so you don't need a > sponsor > > - You need to add the SystemD scriptlets: > Thanks for catching this. I added them in this commit [1]. I built a new SRPM [2] and tested in Koji [3][4][5] and COPR [6]. --- [1] https://pagure.io/jflory7-rpm-specs/c/4b10e204257e0aa3e27d2ab041b50120031df01a?branch=master [2] https://pagure.io/jflory7-rpm-specs/blob/master/f/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mpris-scrobbler-0.3.1-2.fc29.src.rpm [3] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32855917 [4] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32855924 [5] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32855931 [6] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jflory7/mpris-scrobbler/build/859336/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.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 #7 from Fedora Update System --- R-askpass-1.1-1.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-2019-789c9cc8d7 -- 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 1662526] Review Request: neuron - A flexible and powerful simulator of neurons and networks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662526 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- neuron-7.5-4.20181214git5687519.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-aef28e1e3d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1669913] Review Request: python-pyscaffold - Template tool for putting up the scaffold of a Python project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2019-02-17 02:27:15 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- python-pyscaffold-3.1-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1662526] Review Request: neuron - A flexible and powerful simulator of neurons and networks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662526 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- neuron-7.5-4.20181214git5687519.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-2019-214c9d5a07 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.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 #11 from Fedora Update System --- spread-sheet-widget-0.3-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-82708a56e1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.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|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- R-askpass-1.1-1.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-2019-1081254806 -- 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 1668271] Review Request: cppzmq - Header-only C++ binding for libzmq
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1668271 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||cppzmq-4.3.0-1.fc30 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-02-17 00:37:58 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1676999] Review Request: rogue - The original graphical adventure game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676999
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 ---
export CFLAGS="%{optflags}"
export LDFLAGS="%{?__global_ldflags}"
→ Use %set_build_flags
- make %{_smp_mflags} → %make_build
- make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install
- Use:
Source0:
https://github.com/phs/rogue/archive/v5.4.4/%{name}-5.4.4.tar.gz
- I don't get why this would be needed:
Requires(post): coreutils
Requires(post): desktop-file-utils
Requires(postun): coreutils
Requires(postun): desktop-file-utils
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: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Expat License", "Unknown
or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 49 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/rogue/review-rogue/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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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
[Bug 1676987] Review Request: python-ipmi - Pure Python IPMI Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676987
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 ---
Requires: python3dist(future)
Requires: python3dist(markdown)
Requires: python3dist(setuptools)
- Requires are not needed on F30. For F29/F28 use
%?python_enable_dependency_generator
- You could use %pypi_source for Source0
- Run tests with nosetests-%{python3_version} -v ?
BuildRequires: python3dist(mock)
BuildRequires: python3dist(nose)
[…]
%check
nosetests-%{python3_version} -v
It's missing tests/fru_bin and tests/hpm_bin folders, you'll need to add
them separately or use the archive from github instead of pypi.
- In prep, remove the shebangs from:
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyipmi/fields.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyipmi/fields.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyipmi/ipmitool.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyipmi/ipmitool.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyipmi/msgs/session.py
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/interfaces/test_aardvark.py /usr/bin/env
python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/interfaces/test_aardvark.py 644
/usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/interfaces/test_ipmb.py /usr/bin/env
python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/interfaces/test_ipmb.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/interfaces/test_ipmitool.py /usr/bin/env
python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/interfaces/test_ipmitool.py 644
/usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/interfaces/test_rmcp.py /usr/bin/env
python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/interfaces/test_rmcp.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_bmc.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_bmc.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_chassis.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_chassis.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_device_messaging.py
/usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_device_messaging.py 644
/usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_event.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_event.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_fru.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_fru.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_hpm.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_hpm.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_message.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_message.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_picmg.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_picmg.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tests/msgs/test_sdr.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-ipmi.noarch: E: non-executable-script
[Bug 1373007] Review Request: rubygem-cool.io - A cool framework for doing high performance I/O in Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373007 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #6) > Anyone willing to continue on this? You should close as DeadReview and open a new bug for your SPEC. CC me for 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 1676742] Review Request: python-pytest-repeat - A pytest plugin for repeating test execution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676742
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- You don't need to specify Requires for F30. For F28/F29, use
%?python_enable_dependency_generator. For EPEL7, use Requires. You could use a
conditional see if python_enable_dependency_generator is defined to keep one
SPEC.
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License (v2.0)", "Unknown or
generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pytest-rerunfailures
/review-python-pytest-rerunfailures/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and
[Bug 1676730] Review Request: python-pytest-rerunfailures - A py.test plugin that re-runs failed tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676730
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Specifying Requires is not needed anymore on F30. For 29 and earlier use:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EnablingPythonGenerators#How_To_Test
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License (v2.0)", "Unknown or
generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pytest-rerunfailures
/review-python-pytest-rerunfailures/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]:
[Bug 1491492] Review Request: coturn - TURN/STUN & ICE Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491492 --- Comment #13 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_64/00859281-coturn/coturn-4.5.1.0-2.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 1674240] Review Request: golang-github-tdewolff-test - Go test helper functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674240 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1674242] Review Request: golang-github-bep-debounce - A debouncer written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674242 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1674444] Review Request: golang-github-wellington-libsass - Go wrapper for libsass
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=167 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Not installable: DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: Error: DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing provides golang(github.com/wellington/spritewell) needed by golang-github-wellington-libsass-devel-0.9.2-1.fc30.noarch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.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 --- Comment #13 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/reactfx -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1675937] Review Request: golang-github-transip-gotransip - TransIP API client for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1675937 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1675074] Review Request: golang-gopkg-ns1-2 - Golang API client for NS1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1675074 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 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|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1674936] Review Request: golang-github-opendns-vegadns2client - Go client for VegaDNS-API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674936 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 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|ON_QA |MODIFIED --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- spread-sheet-widget-0.3-2.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-82708a56e1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1676455] Review Request: rust-dns-parser - Pure-rust DNS protocol parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676455 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1676455] Review Request: rust-dns-parser - Pure-rust DNS protocol parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676455 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1467716] Review Request: reactfx - Reactive event streams for JavaFX
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467716 --- Comment #12 from Jonny Heggheim --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #11) > Package approved. Thanks for the review. Repo have been requested https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9741 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1674510] Review Request: rust-chainerror - Make chaining errors easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674510 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-02-16 18:06:00 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1677894] Review Request: python-text-unidecode - The most basic Text::Unidecode port
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677894 Juan Orti changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2019-02-16 17:30:10 --- Comment #1 from Juan Orti --- Just realized the license is Artistic 1.0, so it is not FSF free. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1677894] Review Request: python-text-unidecode - The most basic Text::Unidecode port
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677894 Juan Orti changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|1662619 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662619 [Bug 1662619] python-faker missing dependency 'text_unidecode' -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1662526] Review Request: neuron - A flexible and powerful simulator of neurons and networks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662526 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- neuron-7.5-4.20181214git5687519.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-aef28e1e3d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1662526] Review Request: neuron - A flexible and powerful simulator of neurons and networks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662526 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- neuron-7.5-4.20181214git5687519.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-214c9d5a07 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1677894] Review Request: python-text-unidecode - The most basic Text::Unidecode port
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677894 Juan Orti changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1662619 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662619 [Bug 1662619] python-faker missing dependency 'text_unidecode' -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1677894] New: Review Request: python-text-unidecode - The most basic Text::Unidecode port
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677894 Bug ID: 1677894 Summary: Review Request: python-text-unidecode - The most basic Text::Unidecode port Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: juan.o...@miceliux.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jorti.fedorapeople.org/python-text-unidecode/python-text-unidecode.spec SRPM URL: https://jorti.fedorapeople.org/python-text-unidecode/python-text-unidecode-1.2-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: text-unidecode is the most basic port of the Text::Unidecode Perl library. Fedora Account System Username: jorti -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.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 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Thanks for the review Robert. I've updated the spec and enabled unit tests. Updated spec/srpm: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/auryn/auryn-0.8.1-3.fc29.src.rpm https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/auryn/auryn.spec Cheers, Ankur -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1677834] Review Request: rust-x11 - X11 library bindings for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677834 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-02-16 17:12:07 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1674945] Review Request: rust-erased-serde - Type-erased Serialize and Serializer traits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674945 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-02-16 17:11:59 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1674510] Review Request: rust-chainerror - Make chaining errors easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674510 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-chainerror -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1662526] Review Request: neuron - A flexible and powerful simulator of neurons and networks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662526 --- Comment #11 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/neuron -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.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 --- Comment #5 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cppzmq -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1674510] Review Request: rust-chainerror - Make chaining errors easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674510 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1673995] Review Request: qml-box2d - plugin to expose Box2D as a QML plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673995 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- This place is to review package, not request them. If you want to package it, post your SPEC and SRPM. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1673400] Review Request: nodejs-antora-site-generator-default - The default site generator pipeline for producing and publishing static documentation sites with Antora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673400
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Shouldn't be commented out:
#%{nodejs_symlink_deps}
- You need to install the LICENSE file with %license in %install:
%license LICENSE
- The Summary should not end with a dot
- You did not link the src rpm but the noarch one
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1671450] Review Request: golang-github-thorduri-libusb - Idiomatic Go bindings for libusb-1.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671450
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- SPEC should be named golang-github-thorduri-libusb.spec
Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
Note: golang-github-thorduri-go-libusb.spec should be golang-github-
thorduri-libusb.spec
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
Package approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1673052] Review Request: libfixposix - Thin wrapper over POSIX syscalls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673052
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSL", "*No copyright* BSL", "Expat License", "GPL (v3 or
later)", "Unknown or generated". 31 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/libfixposix/review-
libfixposix/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
libfixposix-debuginfo , libfixposix-debugsource
[?]:
[Bug 1672978] Review Request: python-collectd_puppet - Publishes puppet status to collectd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672978
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- The manual requires on Python packages are unnecessary on Rawhide.
You can opt in for this on older Fedoras:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_automatically_generated_dependencies
Package approved. Please fix the above issue before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated",
"Apache License (v2.0)". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-collectd_puppet
/review-python-collectd_puppet/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 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
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]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: 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
[Bug 1491492] Review Request: coturn - TURN/STUN & ICE Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491492
--- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Package can't install:
DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: Error:
DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing provides coturn-database =
4.5.1.0-1.fc30 needed by coturn-4.5.1.0-1.fc30.x86_64
- Typo in dist tag:
Release:1%{?dist}
- Use a more appropriate name for your archive:
Source0:
https://github.com/coturn/coturn/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Don't use %attr(0755,-,-) %attr(0644,-,-) everywhere, ef there is truly
permission issues, chmod them in install or better, patch the install script
- Here GROUPNAME and USERNAME should be replaced weth the correct group and
user:
# NOTE: Use the sysusers.d macro when available
getent group GROUPNAME >/dev/null || groupadd -r coturn
getent passwd USERNAME >/dev/null || \
useradd -r -g coturn -d %{_datadir}/%{name} -s /sbin/nologin \
-c "TURN Server daemon" coturn
exit 0
- You did not apply the patch0 you added
- Fix the changelog entry Version-Release info
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- Dist tag is present.
= 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Expat License",
"Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 103 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/coturn/review-coturn/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[/]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 235520 bytes in 53 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the
[Bug 1672047] Review Request: smoldyn - A particle-based spatial stochastic simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672047 --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- fedora-review doesn't say anything new, so the comments above are all that we need to do now. A few rpmlint issues still there: smoldyn-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/smoldyn-devel/examples/S94_archive/Andrews_2018/note2_transposase/transposase.txt smoldyn-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/smoldyn-devel/examples/S94_archive/Andrews_2018/note4_MinD/MinDdimer.txt smoldyn-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/smoldyn-devel/examples/S98_utilityprograms/wrl2smol/sample-surface.wrl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1672659] Review Request: rh-python36-adal - The ADAL for Python library - Ansible AWX Dependency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672659 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Are you sure this is the right place to submit a SCL package??? I've never seen one before. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1672601] Review Request: rubygem-bcrypt_pbkdf - OpenBSD's bcrypt_pdkfd (a variant of PBKDF2 with bcrypt-based PRF)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672601
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 ---
- Source0 should be a URL
Source0: https://rubygems.org/downloads/%{gem_name}-%{version}.gem
- Some of the code is ASD and ISC: add it to the license field and add a
comment explaining the license breakdown:
BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License
-
bcrypt_pbkdf-1.0.0/ext/mri/hash_sha512.c
BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License
bcrypt_pbkdf-1.0.0/ext/mri/blf.h
bcrypt_pbkdf-1.0.0/ext/mri/blowfish.c
ISC License
---
bcrypt_pbkdf-1.0.0/ext/mri/bcrypt_pbkdf.c
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License", "BSD 2-clause
"Simplified" License", "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "ISC
License". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-bcrypt_pbkdf
/review-rubygem-bcrypt_pbkdf/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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: 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
[Bug 1672272] Review Request: tpm2-pkcs11 - PKCS#11 interface for TPM 2.0 hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672272
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 ---
- For a development snapshot the Release info should contain the snapshot date
and the shortcommit:
Release:0.1.%{snapshotdate}git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist}
- The description should be split to stay below 80 characters per line:
%description
PKCS #11 is a Public-Key Cryptography Standard that defines a standard method
to access cryptographic services from tokens/ devices such as hardware security
modules (HSM), smart cards, etc. In this project we intend to use a TPM2 device
as the cryptographic token.
- The LICENSE file must be installed with %license in %files
%license LICENSE
- These files should be in a -devel subpackage:
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/tpm2-pkcs11.pc
%{_libdir}/pkcs11/libtpm2_pkcs11.so
- There's a typo in the Source0 URL (%{commit} instead of %{commit0}, it
should be:
Source0:
https://github.com/tpm2-software/tpm2-pkcs11/archive/%{commit0}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}-git%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "FSF Unlimited License
(with Retention)", "*No copyright* BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
"Unknown or generated". 87 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/tpm2-pkcs11/review-
tpm2-pkcs11/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/pkcs11(opensc, p11
-kit-trust, coolkey)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[!]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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
[Bug 1671665] Review Request: phpunit8 - The PHP Unit Testing framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671665
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 =
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", "*No copyright* BSD
3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or generated". 891
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/phpunit8/review-phpunit8/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in
[Bug 1669793] Review Request: python-vpoller - Distributed vSphere API Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669793 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Also add a comment explaining why the patch is needed/what does it do. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1671234] Review Request: mpris-scrobbler - User daemon to submit currently playing song to LastFM, LibreFM, ListenBrainz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671234
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 #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- It seems you are already member of the packager group so you don't need a
sponsor
- You need to add the SystemD scriptlets:
BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros
%{?systemd_requires}
[...]
%post
%systemd_user_post %{name}.service
%preun
%systemd_user_preun %{name}.service
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun
for Systemd user units service files.
Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in mpris-scrobbler
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#User_units
= 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 36 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
/mpris-scrobbler/review-mpris-scrobbler/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: 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: 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]: 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
[Bug 1677874] New: Review Request: python-migen - Milkymist generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677874 Bug ID: 1677874 Summary: Review Request: python-migen - Milkymist generator Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: so...@cmu.edu QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~somlo/python-migen-rpm/python-migen.spec SRPM URL: http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~somlo/python-migen-rpm/python-migen-0.8-0.20190212gitafe4405.fc28.src.rpm Description: A Python toolbox for building complex digital hardware. Fedora Account System Username: somlo migen enables hardware designers to take advantage of the richness of Python - object oriented programming, function parameters, generators, operator overloading, libraries, etc. - to build well organized, reusable and elegant digital hardware designs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1662526] Review Request: neuron - A flexible and powerful simulator of neurons and networks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662526
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
--- Comment #10 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #9)
> Wouldn't it make sense to move
> %{_includedir}/nrnconf.h
> into
> %{_includedir}/%{tarname}
>
> I don't know where packages that will BuildRequires: neuron-devel expect
> these files to be, so I'll leave this up to you to decide.
I've not seen too many refer to that header so I'll leave it for the time being
and change it later if required.
>
> Also, I wouldn't define a macro that is longer than what it expands into,
> i.e. I'd just use "nrn" everywhere instead of %{tarname}.
Ah, yes XD
>
> None of the above are blockers and the package looks good otherwise, so
> approved.
Thanks very much! SCM requested:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9737
Cheers,
Ankur
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1565848] Review Request: bear - Tool that generates a compilation database for clang tooling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1565848 --- Comment #29 from Till Hofmann --- Since we can't add this package to Fedora releases older than F30 (due to the renaming), I set up a COPR so we can have bear for those releases: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/thofmann/bear/ I think this ticket can be closed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.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] Review Request: rust-x11 - X11 library bindings for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677834 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-x11 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1672863] Review Request: gap-pkg-transgrp - Transitive groups library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672863 --- Comment #7 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gap-pkg-transgrp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.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] Review Request: rust-x11 - X11 library bindings for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677834 Ilya Gradina changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ilya Gradina --- Package looks good. 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 1677834] Review Request: rust-x11 - X11 library bindings for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677834 Ilya Gradina 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 1677834] Review Request: rust-x11 - X11 library bindings for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677834 Ilya Gradina changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ilya.grad...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ilya.grad...@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 1665563] Review Request: python-rangehttpserver - SimpleHTTPServer with support for Range requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665563 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|sanjay.an...@gmail.com |zbys...@in.waw.pl Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #19 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Thanks. Looks good. 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 1671665] Review Request: phpunit8 - The PHP Unit Testing framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671665 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet --- Updated to 8.0.3 Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/phpunit/phpunit8.git/plain/phpunit8.spec?id=bec2e4355e6d1f7316d97a82dbbaa594d4338138 SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/phpunit8-8.0.3-1.remi.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
