[Bug 1684612] Review Request: f30-backgrounds - Fedora 30 default desktop background

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684612



--- Comment #7 from Luya Tshimbalanga  ---
(In reply to Chris Murphy from comment #5)
> Should this be set to Fedora 30 instead of Rawhide?

No necessary. The better practice is to set on Rawhide first when it comes to
import a new package.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684437] Review Request: php-mkopinsky-zxcvbn-php - Realistic password strength estimation PHP library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684437



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Thanks for the fast review

SCM requests
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10107
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10108
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10109

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1672598] Review Request: golang-github-spf13-jwalterweatherman - So you always leave a note

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672598

Elliott Sales de Andrade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1567909




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567909
[Bug 1567909] hugo-0.54.0 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684612] Review Request: f30-backgrounds - Fedora 30 default desktop background

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684612



--- Comment #6 from Luya Tshimbalanga  ---
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #4)
> Package approved, please upload the source to github before you import and
> build for fedora.

Whoops! Thanks for catching that. The source is now uploaded on
https://github.com/fedoradesign/backgrounds/releases/tag/v30.0.0

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1683867] Review Request: deepin-screensaver - Screensaver Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683867

Robin Lee  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||deepin-screensaver-0.0.7-1.
   ||fc30
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2019-03-02 03:34:49



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1465889] Tracking: Deepin Desktop related package review tracker

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465889
Bug 1465889 depends on bug 1683867, which changed state.

Bug 1683867 Summary: Review Request: deepin-screensaver - Screensaver Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683867

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684346] Review Request: ocaml-dune - A composable build system for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684346



--- Comment #10 from Robin Lee  ---
(In reply to Andy Li from comment #9)
> Assigning to Robin as required by
> https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10074

I am sorry. You may have to open a new issue.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1677259] Review Request: pspg - A unix pager optimized for psql

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677259



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
pspg-1.6.3-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 1677259] Review Request: pspg - A unix pager optimized for psql

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677259



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
pspg-1.6.3-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1678884] Review Request: perl-File-Rsync - Perl module interface to rsync

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678884



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-File-Rsync-0.49-1.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 1655338] Review Request: rmlint - Finds space waste and other broken things on your filesystem

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655338



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
rmlint-2.8.0-1.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 1676742] Review Request: python-pytest-repeat - A pytest plugin for repeating test execution

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676742



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pytest-repeat-0.7.0-1.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 1671450] Review Request: golang-github-thorduri-libusb - Idiomatic Go bindings for libusb-1.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671450

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2019-03-02 01:46:49



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-thorduri-libusb-0-0.1.20190219gitbbed4ca.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 1677445] Review Request: python-fields - Container class boilerplate killer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677445

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2019-03-02 01:46:54



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-fields-5.0.0-1.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 1679191] Review Request: yubihsm-connector - Backend to talk to YubiHSM 2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1679191
Bug 1679191 depends on bug 1671450, which changed state.

Bug 1671450 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-thorduri-libusb - Idiomatic 
Go bindings for libusb-1.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671450

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1676742] Review Request: python-pytest-repeat - A pytest plugin for repeating test execution

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676742

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2019-03-02 01:20:37



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pytest-repeat-0.7.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1678884] Review Request: perl-File-Rsync - Perl module interface to rsync

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678884

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2019-03-02 01:20:36



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-File-Rsync-0.49-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1655338] Review Request: rmlint - Finds space waste and other broken things on your filesystem

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655338

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2019-03-02 01:20:13



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
rmlint-2.8.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684726] Review Request: ghc-megaparsec - Monadic parser combinators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684726

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - From your Koji build it should be:

BuildRequires:  ghc-hspec-discover



Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.




Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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 (unspecified)", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
 "Unknown or generated". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output
 of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-megaparsec/review-
 ghc-megaparsec/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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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]: 

[Bug 1683621] Review Request: python-ogr - One API for multiple git forges

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683621

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-ogr-0.0.3-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c93312a4fb

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1683968] Review Request: golang-github-bep-tocss - A simple to use Go API for LibSass

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683968

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-bep-tocss-0.6.0-1.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-2019-765a62b211

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1683793] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-svg2pdfconverter - Sphinx SVG to PDF Converter Extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683793



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-sphinxcontrib-svg2pdfconverter-0.1.0-1.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-2019-402df241b1

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684726] Review Request: ghc-megaparsec - Monadic parser combinators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684726

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Latest version is 7.0.4

 - The conditional %bcond_without tests is not used around %check:

%check
%cabal_test

 - Build error:

DEBUG util.py:490:  BUILDSTDERR: No matching package to install:
'hspec-discover'
DEBUG util.py:490:  BUILDSTDERR: Not all dependencies satisfied
DEBUG util.py:490:  BUILDSTDERR: Error: Some packages could not be found.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1680043] Review Request: toolbox - Unprivileged development environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1680043



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
toolbox-0.0.6-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-59304a081d

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684625] Review Request: ghc-th-expand-syns - Expands type synonyms in Template Haskell ASTs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684625

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  ---
Package approved.


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
 generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-th-expand-syns/review-
 ghc-th-expand-syns/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.
[-]: 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 174080 bytes in 15 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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x

[Bug 1684719] Review Request: netdata - Real-time performance monitoring

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684719

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---

 - You need to specify if 0%{?rhel}, otherwise it will evaluate as 0  and thus
true on non-RHEL system:

%if 0%{?rhel} <= 7 → %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 7

 - You could use bcond_with/bcond_without here
(http://rpm.org/user_doc/conditional_builds.html):

%if 0%{?fedora} >= 17 || 0%{?rhel} >= 7
%global with_systemd 1
%else
%global with_systemd 0
%endif

 - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build

 - make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install

 - Don't use these macros which don't bring anything more:

%{__mkdir_p} → mkdir -p

%{__install} → install

%{__mv} → mv

 - Use install -p to keep timestamps

 - Use the needed Requires for systemd macros:

BuildRequires:  systemd

→

BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros
%{?systemd_requires}


The rest looks ok but I haven't run fedora-review yet, I'll wait for an update
of the SPEC to address the aformentioned issues.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1680043] Review Request: toolbox - Unprivileged development environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1680043



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
toolbox-0.0.6-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-7a77a138f9

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684624] Review Request: ghc-th-orphans - Orphan instances for TH datatypes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684624

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  ---
Package approved.



Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
 generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-th-orphans/review-ghc-
 th-orphans/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.
[-]: 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 245760 bytes in 15 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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Pack

[Bug 1683793] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-svg2pdfconverter - Sphinx SVG to PDF Converter Extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683793

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-sphinxcontrib-svg2pdfconverter-0.1.0-1.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-c6ced14cb6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684623] Review Request: ghc-th-reify-many - Recurseively reify template haskell datatype info

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684623



--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen  ---
Thank you, Robert

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10102

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684622] Review Request: ghc-haskell-src-meta - Parse source to template-haskell abstract syntax

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684622



--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen  ---
Thank you very much

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10101

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684620] Review Request: ghc-cabal-doctest - A Setup.hs helper for doctests running

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684620



--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen  ---
Thank you!  This is used by quite a few packages actually.

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10100

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1678752] Review Request: ghc-pcap - A system-independent interface for user-level packet capture

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678752

Jens Petersen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1678684] Review Request: ghc-fgl - Martin Erwig's Functional Graph Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678684

Jens Petersen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1678677] Review Request: ghc-setlocale - A Haskell interface to setlocale

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678677

Jens Petersen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684623] Review Request: ghc-th-reify-many - Recurseively reify template haskell datatype info

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684623

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  ---
Package approved.


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
  BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
  Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
 generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-th-reify-many/review-
 ghc-th-reify-many/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.
[-]: 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 153600 bytes in 15 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]: Packa

[Bug 1684622] Review Request: ghc-haskell-src-meta - Parse source to template-haskell abstract syntax

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684622

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  ---
 - Bump to latest version 0.8.2

Package approved.


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
 generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-haskell-src-meta
 /review-ghc-haskell-src-meta/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
 Note: Macros in: ghc-haskell-src-meta (description)
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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 655360 bytes in 25 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the pac

[Bug 1684726] Review Request: ghc-megaparsec - Monadic parser combinators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684726



--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen  ---
This is to unsubpackage from hledger - also needed by idris.

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33135193

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684620] Review Request: ghc-cabal-doctest - A Setup.hs helper for doctests running

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684620

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  ---
Package approved.


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
 generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-cabal-doctest/review-
 ghc-cabal-doctest/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.
[-]: 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 163840 bytes in 15 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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]:

[Bug 1684726] New: Review Request: ghc-megaparsec - Monadic parser combinators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684726

Bug ID: 1684726
   Summary: Review Request: ghc-megaparsec - Monadic parser
combinators
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: peter...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora




Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-megaparsec.spec
SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-megaparsec-6.5.0-1.fc29.src.rpm

Description:
This is an industrial-strength monadic parser combinator library.
Megaparsec is a feature-rich package that strikes a nice balance between speed,
flexibility, and quality of parse errors.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684416] Review Request: ghc-hgettext - Haskell binding to libintl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684416



--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2)
> DEBUG util.py:490:  BUILDSTDERR: No matching package to install:
> 'ghc-setlocale-devel'
> DEBUG util.py:490:  BUILDSTDERR: Not all dependencies satisfied
> DEBUG util.py:490:  BUILDSTDERR: Error: Some packages could not be found.
> 
> Seems it's in F30-GHC…

Yes, sorry, that's right - I hadn't done a f30+ build of ghc-setlocale yet,
since f30-ghc will replace it soon hopefully anyway.

Thanks for the timely review :-)

https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8184

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684611] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-applehelp - Sphinx extension for Apple help books

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684611

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 =

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 (unspecified)", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
 "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 65 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/python-sphinxcontrib-applehelp/review-
 python-sphinxcontrib-applehelp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/cak/LC_MESSAGES,
 /usr/share/locale/cak
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.7/site-
 packages/sphinxcontrib(python3-sphinxcontrib-spelling, python3
 -sphinxcontrib-bibtex, python3-sphinxcontrib-seqdiag, python3
 -sphinxcontrib-adadomain, python3-sphinxcontrib-programoutput, python3
 -sphinxcontrib-fulltoc, python3-sphinxcontrib-actdiag, python3
 -sphinxcontrib-issuetracker, python3-sphinxcontrib-blockdiag, python3
 -sphinxcontrib-autoprogram, python3-sphinxcontrib-phpdomain, python3
 -sphinxcontrib-httpdomain)
[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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 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- pr

[Bug 1684314] Review Request: ghc-base-compat-batteries - Base-compat with extra batteries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684314



--- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen  ---
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10099

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684314] Review Request: ghc-base-compat-batteries - Base-compat with extra batteries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684314



--- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen  ---
Thank you for the reviews, this one is particular has effectively been blocking
quite a number of f30-ghc builds.

I prefer to update to 0.10.5 when we move to Stackage LTS 13 (ghc-8.6) later:
LTS 12 is still on 0.10.1 - though I probably could get away with newer, not
sure.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684345] Review Request: ghc-th-lift-instances - Lift instances for template-haskell for common data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684345



--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen  ---
Thank you, Robert-André

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10098

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684328] Review Request: ghc-th-lift - Derive Template Haskell's Lift class for datatypes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684328



--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
>  - It says either BSD or  GPLv2:
> http://hackage.haskell.org/package/th-lift-0.7.11/src/COPYING 
> 
>  Please add or GPLv2 to the License: field.
> 
>  - Notify upstream about the obsolete FSF address:
> 
> E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/ghc-th-lift/GPL-2
> 
> 
>  Package approved, please fix the License: issue before import.

Sure, thank you I will take care of that.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684437] Review Request: php-mkopinsky-zxcvbn-php - Realistic password strength estimation PHP library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684437

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 =

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". 51 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
 /php-mkopinsky-zxcvbn-php/review-php-mkopinsky-zxcvbn-
 php/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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Ge

[Bug 1684328] Review Request: ghc-th-lift - Derive Template Haskell's Lift class for datatypes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684328



--- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen  ---
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10097

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1677067] Review Request: python-vcstool - Tool to invoke vcs commands on multiple repositories

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677067



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-vcstool-0.1.39-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1677259] Review Request: pspg - A unix pager optimized for psql

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677259



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
pspg-1.6.3-3.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684416] Review Request: ghc-hgettext - Haskell binding to libintl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684416

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  ---
DEBUG util.py:490:  BUILDSTDERR: No matching package to install:
'ghc-setlocale-devel'
DEBUG util.py:490:  BUILDSTDERR: Not all dependencies satisfied
DEBUG util.py:490:  BUILDSTDERR: Error: Some packages could not be found.

Seems it's in F30-GHC…



Package approved.


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
 generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-hgettext/review-ghc-
 hgettext/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/ghc-8.4.4/package.conf.d,
 /usr/lib64/ghc-8.4.4
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 266240 bytes in 19 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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 attachm

[Bug 1684719] New: Review Request: netdata - Real-time performance monitoring

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684719

Bug ID: 1684719
   Summary: Review Request: netdata - Real-time performance
monitoring
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: didier.fab...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tartare/netdata/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00863836-netdata/netdata.spec

SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tartare/netdata/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00863836-netdata/netdata-1.12.2-1.fc30.src.rpm

Description: netdata is the fastest way to visualize metrics. It is a resource
efficient, highly optimized system for collecting and visualizing any type of
realtime time-series data, from CPU usage, disk activity, SQL queries, API
calls, web site visitors, etc.
netdata tries to visualize the truth of now, in its greatest detail, so that
you can get insights of what is happening now and what just happened, on your
systems and applications.

Fedora Account System Username: tartare

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684401] Review Request: ocaml-merlin - Context sensitive completion for OCaml in Vim and Emacs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684401

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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "*No copyright* Expat License", "GNU Lesser General Public
 License (v2.1)", "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "Q Public
 License (v1.0) GNU Lesser General Public License (v2)", "Q Public
 License (v1.0)", "Q Public License". 1488 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ocaml-
 merlin/review-ocaml-merlin/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/syntax_checkers/ocaml(vim-syntastic-ocaml),
 /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/autoload/ctrlp(vim-go)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 133120 bytes in 14 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 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

Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in su

[Bug 1684524] Review Request: swid-tools - Tools for producing SWID tags for rpm packages and inspecting the SWID tags

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684524



--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/swid-tools

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684284] Review Request: FAudio - FNA is a reimplementation of the Microsoft XNA Game Studio 4.0 Refresh libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684284

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FAudio-19.03-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-191d2c919b

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684314] Review Request: ghc-base-compat-batteries - Base-compat with extra batteries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684314

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 #5 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Please bump to 0.10.5

Package approved.


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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". 131 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
 /ghc-base-compat-batteries/review-ghc-base-compat-
 batteries/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/ghc-8.4.4/package.conf.d,
 /usr/lib64/ghc-8.4.4
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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 a

[Bug 1684524] Review Request: swid-tools - Tools for producing SWID tags for rpm packages and inspecting the SWID tags

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684524

Stephen Gallagher  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Stephen Gallagher  ---
LGTM. 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 1684524] Review Request: swid-tools - Tools for producing SWID tags for rpm packages and inspecting the SWID tags

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684524



--- Comment #6 from Jan Pazdziora  ---
https://adelton.fedorapeople.org/swid-tools.spec and
https://adelton.fedorapeople.org/swid-tools-0.7.2-1.fc31.src.rpm respun. I've
also run a scratch build at
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33132471.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1680145] Review Request: mozilla-iot-gateway-addon-node - Node bindings for Mozilla IoT Gateway

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1680145

Troy Dawson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2019-03-01 21:36:15



--- Comment #7 from Troy Dawson  ---
Built and in Rawhide
Thank you very much for the review.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1680043] Review Request: toolbox - Unprivileged development environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1680043

Debarshi Ray  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2019-03-01 21:31:38



--- Comment #12 from Debarshi Ray  ---
Thanks everybody. Closing.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1680043] Review Request: toolbox - Unprivileged development environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1680043



--- Comment #11 from Debarshi Ray  ---
I have now built it in master and f30:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1218244
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1218509

Builds for f29 and f28 need to wait until the planned Fedora Infrastructure
outage is over.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684345] Review Request: ghc-th-lift-instances - Lift instances for template-haskell for common data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684345

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  ---
 - Please bump to 0.1.12

Package approved.



Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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", "Unknown or generated". 8
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-th-lift-instances/review-ghc-th-lift-
 instances/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.
[-]: 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 112640 bytes in 14 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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English 

[Bug 1684328] Review Request: ghc-th-lift - Derive Template Haskell's Lift class for datatypes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684328

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  ---
 - It says either BSD or  GPLv2:
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/th-lift-0.7.11/src/COPYING 

 Please add or GPLv2 to the License: field.

 - Notify upstream about the obsolete FSF address:

E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/ghc-th-lift/GPL-2


 Package approved, please fix the License: issue before import.



Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
 generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-th-lift/review-ghc-th-
 lift/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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 174080 bytes in 14 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 describ

[Bug 1680145] Review Request: mozilla-iot-gateway-addon-node - Node bindings for Mozilla IoT Gateway

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1680145



--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mozilla-iot-gateway-addon-node

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684524] Review Request: swid-tools - Tools for producing SWID tags for rpm packages and inspecting the SWID tags

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684524



--- Comment #5 from Stephen Gallagher  ---
(In reply to Jan Pazdziora from comment #4)
> Should I respin the .spec and .src.rpm on the existing URLs from comment 0?

Those changes look like everything I spotted, so yes. Respin it, I'll
double-check them and then approve it.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684524] Review Request: swid-tools - Tools for producing SWID tags for rpm packages and inspecting the SWID tags

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684524



--- Comment #4 from Jan Pazdziora  ---
Thanks. So my current list of changes to address the issues is

diff --git a/swid-tools.spec b/swid-tools.spec
index 703c2cd..d4ca641 100644
--- a/swid-tools.spec
+++ b/swid-tools.spec
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@

-%define upstream_name rpm2swidtag
+%global upstream_name rpm2swidtag

 Summary: Tools for producing SWID tags for rpm packages and inspecting the
SWID tags
 Name: swid-tools
@@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ BuildRequires: python3-dnf-plugins-core
 BuildRequires: gzip
 BuildRequires: gnupg2

-Requires: fedora-release-common
 Requires: python3-rpm
 Requires: python3-lxml
 Requires: xmlsec1-openssl
@@ -39,7 +38,7 @@ and inspecting SWID tags, including supplemental tag
resolution.
 %package -n dnf-plugin-swidtags
 Summary: DNF plugin for keeping SWID tags up-to-date
 Requires: python3-dnf-plugins-core
-Requires: swid-tools
+Requires: swid-tools = %{version}-%{release}
 Recommends: dnf

 %description -n dnf-plugin-swidtags
@@ -67,6 +66,7 @@ or producing them locally.
 %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/rpm2swidtag/rpm2swidtag.conf.d/*
 %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/rpm2swidtag/*.xml
 %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/rpm2swidtag/*.xslt
+%dir %{_sysconfdir}/swid
 %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/swid/swidq.conf
 %dir %{_datarootdir}/swidq
 %{_datarootdir}/swidq/stylesheets

Should I respin the .spec and .src.rpm on the existing URLs from comment 0?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1680145] Review Request: mozilla-iot-gateway-addon-node - Node bindings for Mozilla IoT Gateway

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1680145

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
LGTM, 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 1684524] Review Request: swid-tools - Tools for producing SWID tags for rpm packages and inspecting the SWID tags

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684524



--- Comment #3 from Stephen Gallagher  ---
(In reply to Jan Pazdziora from comment #2)
> (In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #1)
> > tl;dr: Minor issues, see the "Issues" section below.
> > 
> > 
> > Package Review
> > ==
> > 
> > Legend:
> > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> > [ ] = Manual review needed
> > 
> > 
> > Issues:
> > ===
> > - The package has `Requires: fedora-release-common` which means that it
> >   cannot be installed on a Fedora Remix. This should be
> >   `Requires: system-release`
> 
> The primary reason for the Requires: fedora-release-common is to pull
> in a package which owns /etc/swid, to which we put the swidq.conf config
> file.
> Currently,
> 
> # rpm -qf /etc/swid
> fedora-release-common-30-0.24.noarch
> 
> How does the same work on Fedora Remix?

A Fedora Remix is required to reimplement anything provided by the
fedora-release package in a way that is applicable to their remix. That's why I
recommended that you should move your dependency to the `system-release`
virtual Provides.

Also, you really don't want to be directly depending on fedora-release-common
in any case; it's an implementation detail of the fedora-release-FOO packages.
It's not really intended to be depended on by itself.

Stephen Tweedie suggested elsewhere that this might also be a soft dependency.
If this package doesn't strictly need this for any reason other than the
directory, I'd say that the better approach would just be to drop the
dependency entirely and just co-own the /etc/swid directory. This is an
acceptable packaging practice (for example, it's used commonly for packages
that drop bash-completion content into those paths but don't want to force
bash-completion to be installed). In this case, it's kind of a moot point,
because it's impossible for any Fedora system to exist that doesn't have a
system-release package installed.

> 
> > - The dnf-plugin-swidtags subpackage has an unversioned `Requires:
> > swid-tools`
> >   This should be `Requires: swid-tools = %{version}-%{release}` to ensure
> > they
> >   are always updated together.
> > - Use %global upstream_name, not %define
> 
> Will fix these, thanks.

Any time.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684524] Review Request: swid-tools - Tools for producing SWID tags for rpm packages and inspecting the SWID tags

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684524

Jan Pazdziora  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(jpazdziora@redhat |
   |.com)   |



--- Comment #2 from Jan Pazdziora  ---
(In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #1)
> tl;dr: Minor issues, see the "Issues" section below.
> 
> 
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> Issues:
> ===
> - The package has `Requires: fedora-release-common` which means that it
>   cannot be installed on a Fedora Remix. This should be
>   `Requires: system-release`

The primary reason for the Requires: fedora-release-common is to pull
in a package which owns /etc/swid, to which we put the swidq.conf config file.
Currently,

# rpm -qf /etc/swid
fedora-release-common-30-0.24.noarch

How does the same work on Fedora Remix?

> - The dnf-plugin-swidtags subpackage has an unversioned `Requires:
> swid-tools`
>   This should be `Requires: swid-tools = %{version}-%{release}` to ensure
> they
>   are always updated together.
> - Use %global upstream_name, not %define

Will fix these, thanks.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1683621] Review Request: python-ogr - One API for multiple git forges

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683621



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-ogr-0.0.3-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c93312a4fb

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684612] Review Request: f30-backgrounds - Fedora 30 default desktop background

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684612

Chris Murphy  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bugzi...@colorremedies.com



--- Comment #5 from Chris Murphy  ---
Should this be set to Fedora 30 instead of Rawhide?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684612] Review Request: f30-backgrounds - Fedora 30 default desktop background

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684612

leigh scott  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|leigh123li...@googlemail.co
   ||m
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from leigh scott  ---
Package approved, please upload the source to github before you import and
build for fedora.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684612] Review Request: f30-backgrounds - Fedora 30 default desktop background

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684612

Miro Hrončok  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mhron...@redhat.com



--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok  ---
$ spectool -g f30-backgrounds.spec 
Getting
https://github.com/fedoradesign/backgrounds/releases/download/v30.0.0/f30-backgrounds-30.0.0.tar.xz
to ./f30-backgrounds-30.0.0.tar.xz
  % Total% Received % Xferd  Average Speed   TimeTime Time  Current
 Dload  Upload   Total   SpentLeft  Speed
  0 00 00 0  0  0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0
curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684524] Review Request: swid-tools - Tools for producing SWID tags for rpm packages and inspecting the SWID tags

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684524

Stephen Gallagher  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jpazdzi...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(jpazdziora@redhat
   ||.com)



--- Comment #1 from Stephen Gallagher  ---
tl;dr: Minor issues, see the "Issues" section below.


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- The package has `Requires: fedora-release-common` which means that it
  cannot be installed on a Fedora Remix. This should be
  `Requires: system-release`
- The dnf-plugin-swidtags subpackage has an unversioned `Requires: swid-tools`
  This should be `Requires: swid-tools = %{version}-%{release}` to ensure they
  are always updated together.
- Use %global upstream_name, not %define


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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]: 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]: 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 store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dnf-
 plugin-swidtags
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upst

[Bug 1684625] Review Request: ghc-th-expand-syns - Expands type synonyms in Template Haskell ASTs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684625



--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33124323

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684625] New: Review Request: ghc-th-expand-syns - Expands type synonyms in Template Haskell ASTs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684625

Bug ID: 1684625
   Summary: Review Request: ghc-th-expand-syns - Expands type
synonyms in Template Haskell ASTs
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: peter...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora




Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-th-expand-syns.spec
SRPM URL:
http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-th-expand-syns-0.4.4.0-1.fc29.src.rpm

Description:
Expands type synonyms in Template Haskell ASTs.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684624] Review Request: ghc-th-orphans - Orphan instances for TH datatypes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684624



--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33124218

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684624] New: Review Request: ghc-th-orphans - Orphan instances for TH datatypes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684624

Bug ID: 1684624
   Summary: Review Request: ghc-th-orphans - Orphan instances for
TH datatypes
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: peter...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora




Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-th-orphans.spec
SRPM URL:
http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-th-orphans-0.13.6-1.fc29.src.rpm

Description:
Orphan instances for TH datatypes. In particular, instances for Ord and Lift,
as well as a few missing Show / Eq. These instances used to live in
haskell-src-meta, and that's where the version number started.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684623] New: Review Request: ghc-th-reify-many - Recurseively reify template haskell datatype info

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684623

Bug ID: 1684623
   Summary: Review Request: ghc-th-reify-many - Recurseively reify
template haskell datatype info
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: peter...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora




Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-th-reify-many.spec
SRPM URL:
http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-th-reify-many-0.1.8-1.fc29.src.rpm

Description:
'th-reify-many' provides functions for recursively reifying top level
declarations. The main intended use case is for enumerating the names of
datatypes reachable from an initial datatype, and passing these names to some
function which generates instances.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684623] Review Request: ghc-th-reify-many - Recurseively reify template haskell datatype info

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684623



--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33124236

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684622] Review Request: ghc-haskell-src-meta - Parse source to template-haskell abstract syntax

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684622



--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33124039

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684622] New: Review Request: ghc-haskell-src-meta - Parse source to template-haskell abstract syntax

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684622

Bug ID: 1684622
   Summary: Review Request: ghc-haskell-src-meta - Parse source to
template-haskell abstract syntax
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: peter...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora




Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-haskell-src-meta.spec
SRPM URL:
http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-haskell-src-meta-0.8.0.3-1.fc29.src.rpm

Description:
The translation from haskell-src-exts abstract syntax to template-haskell
abstract syntax isn't 100% complete yet.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684346] Review Request: ocaml-dune - A composable build system for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684346

Andy Li  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|robinlee.s...@gmail.com



--- Comment #9 from Andy Li  ---
Assigning to Robin as required by
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10074

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684620] Review Request: ghc-cabal-doctest - A Setup.hs helper for doctests running

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684620



--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33123979

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684620] New: Review Request: ghc-cabal-doctest - A Setup.hs helper for doctests running

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684620

Bug ID: 1684620
   Summary: Review Request: ghc-cabal-doctest - A Setup.hs helper
for doctests running
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: peter...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora




Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-cabal-doctest.spec
SRPM URL:
http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-cabal-doctest-1.0.6-1.fc29.src.rpm

Description:
Currently (beginning of 2017), there isn't 'cabal doctest' command.
Yet, to properly work doctest needs plenty of configuration. This library
provides the common bits for writing custom Setup.hs See
 for the progress of
'cabal doctest', i.e. whether this library is obsolete.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684346] Review Request: ocaml-dune - A composable build system for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684346



--- Comment #8 from Andy Li  ---
Hi Ben,

I added the prefix to be consistent with openSUSE's ocaml-dune package.
I've no objection against adding a provides on "dune", or even just name it as
"dune" instead of "ocaml-dune".
For the record, Debian currently package it without any prefix, but also
considered adding one as discussed in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=919953:

> ---DRAFT---DRAFT---DRAFT---DRAFT---DRAFT---DRAFT---DRAFT---DRAFT---
> 
> 1. Dune (numerics) does not see a good enough reason to stop dune (ocaml)
>taking the /usr/bin/dune filename.
> 
> 2. Dune (numerics) does not see a problem in dune (ocaml) using "dune" or
>"libdune" in package names, as long as "ocaml" also appears in the package
>name.
> 
> ---DRAFT---DRAFT---DRAFT---DRAFT---DRAFT---DRAFT---DRAFT---DRAFT---

Best,
Andy

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1680043] Review Request: toolbox - Unprivileged development environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1680043



--- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/toolbox

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1680043] Review Request: toolbox - Unprivileged development environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1680043



--- Comment #9 from Debarshi Ray  ---
I have requested a toolbox repository:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10084

... and branches for F30, F29 and F28:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10085
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10086
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10087

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684612] Review Request: f30-backgrounds - Fedora 30 default desktop background

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684612

Fedora Blocker Bugs Application  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||l...@fedoraproject.org
 Blocks||1574713
   ||(BetaBlocker,F30BetaBlocker
   ||)



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Blocker Bugs Application 
 ---
Proposed as a Blocker for 30-beta by Fedora user luya using the blocker
tracking app because:

 Default desktop backgrounds for the beta release of Fedora 30.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1574713
[Bug 1574713] Fedora 30 Beta blocker bug tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1670441] Review Request: setconf - Tool for changing values of parameters in text files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670441

Patrik Kopkan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(pkop...@redhat.co |
   |m)  |



--- Comment #27 from Patrik Kopkan  ---
I think that package is good to be in Fedora

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
 licenses manually.
[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.
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
 Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[-]: 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

= 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.
[?]: 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 prese

[Bug 1684612] Review Request: f30-backgrounds - Fedora 30 default desktop background

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684612



--- Comment #1 from Luya Tshimbalanga  ---
Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/f30-backgrounds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00863805-f30-backgrounds/f30-backgrounds.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/f30-backgrounds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00863805-f30-backgrounds/f30-backgrounds-30.0.0-1.fc30.src.rpm
Description: This package contains desktop backgrounds for the Fedora 30
default theme.  Pulls in themes for GNOME, KDE, Mate and Xfce desktops.
Fedora Account System 
Username: luya

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684612] New: Review Request: f30-backgrounds - Fedora 30 default desktop background

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684612

Bug ID: 1684612
   Summary: Review Request: f30-backgrounds - Fedora 30 default
desktop background
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: luya_...@thefinalzone.net
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/f30-backgrounds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00863805-f30-backgrounds/f30-backgrounds.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/f30-backgrounds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00863805-f30-backgrounds/f30-backgrounds-30.0.0-1.fc30.src.rpm
Description: This package contains desktop backgrounds for the Fedora %{relnum}
default theme.  Pulls in themes for GNOME, KDE, Mate and Xfce desktops.
Fedora Account System Username:

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684611] New: Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-applehelp - Sphinx extension for Apple help books

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684611

Bug ID: 1684611
   Summary: Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-applehelp -
Sphinx extension for Apple help books
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mhron...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-sphinxcontrib-applehelp.spec
SRPM URL:
https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-sphinxcontrib-applehelp-1.0.1-1.fc29.src.rpm

Description:
sphinxcontrib-applehelp is a sphinx extension which outputs Apple help books.

Fedora Account System Username: churchyard

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684603] Review Request: bCNC - GRBL CNC command sender, autoleveler and G-code editor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684603

Miro Hrončok  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mhron...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok  ---
You need a FESCo exception for python2 only.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1680043] Review Request: toolbox - Unprivileged development environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1680043



--- Comment #8 from Debarshi Ray  ---
Updated Spec URL: https://rishi.fedorapeople.org/toolbox.spec
Updated SRPM URL: https://rishi.fedorapeople.org/toolbox-0.0.6-1.fc29.src.rpm

(In reply to Carl George from comment #7)
> I see what you mean about the release tarball versus the git tag tarball. 
> Sorry about that, I'm just used to having to use the tag.  Thanks for
> setting me straight.

No need to apologize. It got me to sit down and reason about some of the things
we take for granted. :)

> Only thing left is these new rpmlint warnings.
> 
> toolbox.spec:39: W: macro-in-comment %check
> toolbox.spec:40: W: macro-in-comment %meson_test

Oops! Silly me, I only ran rpmlint on the installed RPM this time.

> I would change your commented check section to something like this to
> resolve it.
> 
> %check
> # https://github.com/debarshiray/toolbox/issues/68
> #%%meson_test

Yes, fixed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684603] New: Review Request: bCNC - GRBL CNC command sender, autoleveler and G-code editor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684603

Bug ID: 1684603
   Summary: Review Request: bCNC - GRBL CNC command sender,
autoleveler and G-code editor
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jskar...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/bCNC/bCNC.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/bCNC/bCNC-0.9.14.52-0.1.beta.fc29.src.rpm
Description: GRBL CNC command sender, autoleveler, G-code editor, digitizer,
CAM and swiss army knife for all your CNC needs.
Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad

It's python2 only, but python3 port is actively worked on:
https://github.com/vlachoudis/bCNC/issues/228

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684346] Review Request: ocaml-dune - A composable build system for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684346



--- Comment #7 from Ben Rosser  ---
Hey, thanks for taking care of this! It was on my list of things to do but I
kept putting it off. :(

I would suggest adding a Provides on "dune"; I named the package "jbuilder"
originally because it's an application, not a library.

I also agree it makes sense to provide RPM macros for dune-based packages (and
indeed, ocaml packages generally).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684524] Review Request: swid-tools - Tools for producing SWID tags for rpm packages and inspecting the SWID tags

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684524

Stephen Gallagher  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||sgall...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sgall...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1684126] Review Request: perl-Net-Netmask - Parse, manipulate and look up IP network blocks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684126

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Net-Netmask-1.9104-3.f
   ||c31
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2019-03-01 15:21:49



--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar  ---
Thank you for the review. The package actually has already existed in Fedora.
I'm sorry for wasting your time. I updated the package based on this review.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1683621] Review Request: python-ogr - One API for multiple git forges

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683621



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ogr

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org