[Bug 1670656] Review Request: grafana - an open source, feature rich metrics dashboard and graph editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670656 --- Comment #36 from Mark Goodwin --- Spec URL: https://mgoodwin.fedorapeople.org/grafana/grafana.spec SRPM URL: https://mgoodwin.fedorapeople.org/grafana/grafana-6.1.3-1.fc31.src.rpm koji rawhide scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=34106884 Additional notes: - update to latest upstream stable release v6.1.3, see CHANGELOG - unbundle all vendor sources, replace with BuildRequires, see the long list of blocker BZs linked to BZ#1670656 - BuildRequires go-plugin >= v1.0.0 for grpc_broker (thanks eclipseo) - tweak make_webpack to no longer use grunt, switch to prod build - add ExclusiveArch lua script (thanks quantum.analyst) - patch0 is for FHS compliance, man pages and minor rpmlint issues - patch1 removes jaeger-tracing - no golang support in Fedora rpmlint notes: log-files-without-logrotate is expected - grafana does it's own log rotation non-standard-gid and non-standard-uid - have used static user/group allocation, as documented in guidelines -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698710] Review Request: rust-mockito - HTTP mocking for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698710 Vipul Siddharth changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698710] New: Review Request: rust-mockito - HTTP mocking for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698710 Bug ID: 1698710 Summary: Review Request: rust-mockito - HTTP mocking for Rust Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: siddharthvip...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://siddharthvipul1.fedorapeople.org/rpm-packaging/rust/rust-mockito/rust-mockito.spec SRPM URL: https://siddharthvipul1.fedorapeople.org/rpm-packaging/rust/rust-mockito/rust-mockito-0.17.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: HTTP mocking for Rust Fedora Account System Username: siddharthvipul1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1695323] Review Request: freeipa-healthcheck - Health check tool for FreeIPA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1695323 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- freeipa-healthcheck-0.1-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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 1690830] Review Request: nextpnr - FPGA place and route tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690830 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2019-04-11 02:14:00 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- nextpnr-0-0.3.20190401gitd27ec2c.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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 1698134] Review Request: lua-http - HTTP library for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698134
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 ---
- Include examples in doc?
- %{_pkgdocdir} → %dir %{_pkgdocdir}
Pacakge approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: BUILDSTDERR: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/lua-
http/index.html
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_duplicate_files
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 111 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/lua-http/review-lua-http/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lua-http
, compat-lua-http
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer s
[Bug 1698107] Review Request: lua-mmdb - MaxMind database parser for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698107
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 =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 9 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/lua-mmdb/review-lua-mmdb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lua-mmdb
, compat-lua-mmdb
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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/sbi
[Bug 1698066] Review Request: rust-pcap - A packet capture API around pcap/wpcap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698066 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698403] Review Request: drawing - Drawing application for the GNOME desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698403
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 ---
- Use macros:
Source0:%{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Do not ship install files, remove:
INSTALL_FROM_SOURCE.md
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)", "GNU Lesser
General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Public License (v3.0)". 110 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/drawing/review-drawing/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages sh
[Bug 1698483] Review Request: rust-netmap_sys - Bindings to netmap - the fast packet I/O framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698483 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 --- - Ask upstream to include LICENSE files into the crate - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698367] Review Request: rust-pnet_sys - Access to network related system function and calls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698367 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 --- - Ask upstream to include LICENSE files and README.md into the crate - Remove the dot at the end of the summary: rust-pnet_sys+default-devel.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Access to network related system function and calls. - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698364] Review Request: rust-pnet_base - Fundamental base types and code used by pnet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698364 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 --- - Ask upstream to include LICENSE files and README.md into the crate - Remove the dot at the end of the summary: rust-pnet_base.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Fundamental base types and code used by pnet. - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1097035] Review Request: ghc-HsSyck - Fast lightweight YAML loader and dumper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097035 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2019-04-11 00:31:18 --- Comment #11 from Jens Petersen --- 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 1698242] Review Request: gamehub - All your games in one place
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698242
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 ---
Source0:%{url}/archive/0.13.1-73-dev.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
→
Source0:%{url}/archive/%{version}-dev/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Bump to 0.13.1-77-dev
- Own these directories:
/usr/share/com.github.tkashkin.gamehub/compat/dosbox,
/usr/share/com.github.tkashkin.gamehub/compat,
/usr/share/com.github.tkashkin.gamehub,
You could also just use:
%{_datadir}/%{filename}
instead of geting into the specific filename under that path.
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or
later)". 136 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gamehub/review-
gamehub/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/share/com.github.tkashkin.gamehub/compat/dosbox,
/usr/share/com.github.tkashkin.gamehub/compat,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2,
/usr/share/com.github.tkashkin.gamehub,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: 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
[Bug 1698610] Review Request: python3-pytoml - A parser for TOML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698610
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
Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pytoml
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python3-pytoml/review-python-
pytoml/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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 is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is pa
[Bug 1698541] Review Request: ogr2osm - Convert ogr-readable files like shapefiles into .osm data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698541
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 ---
- If no release is tagged, Version: should be 0
Version:0
[…]
%changelog
* Sat Apr 6 2019 Andrea Musuruane -
0-0.1.20190104git183e226
- First release
- Ask upstream for a license file
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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "Expat License
Beerware License". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ogr2osm/review-
ogr2osm/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as des
[Bug 1697711] Review Request: python-portend - TCP port monitoring utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697711
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Source0:
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
→ %{pypi_source}
- Requires are not in the right place, they should be under the python3
subpackage:
Requires: python3dist(tempora) >= 1.8
Note that we have
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EnablingPythonGenerators by default now,
so you can skip adding them or add %?python_enable_dependency_generator for
older Fedora.
- Test failure:
+ /usr/bin/python3 -m pytest --ignore=build
= test session starts
==
platform linux -- Python 3.7.3, pytest-4.3.1, py-1.7.0, pluggy-0.8.1 --
/usr/bin/python3
cachedir: .pytest_cache
rootdir: /builddir/build/BUILD/portend-2.3, inifile: pytest.ini
plugins: flake8-1.0.1
collecting ... collected 0 items / 3 errors
ERRORS
_ ERROR collecting portend.py
__
portend.py:18: in
from tempora import timing
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tempora/timing.py:12: in
import jaraco.functools
E ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'jaraco'
___ ERROR collecting test_portend.py
___
test_portend.py:6: in
import portend
portend.py:18: in
from tempora import timing
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tempora/timing.py:12: in
import jaraco.functools
E ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'jaraco'
___ ERROR collecting test_portend.py
___
ImportError while importing test module
'/builddir/build/BUILD/portend-2.3/test_portend.py'.
Hint: make sure your test modules/packages have valid Python names.
Traceback:
test_portend.py:6: in
import portend
portend.py:18: in
from tempora import timing
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/tempora/timing.py:12: in
import jaraco.functools
E ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'jaraco'
!!! Interrupted: 3 errors during collection
=== 3 error in 0.21 seconds
Add:
BuildRequires: python3dist(jaraco-functools)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 17 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-portend/review-python-
portend/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other
[Bug 1697687] Review Request: python-tempora - Objects and routines pertaining to date and time (tempora).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697687
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Requires are not in the right place, they should be under the python3
subpackage:
Requires: python3dist(freezegun)
Requires: python3dist(jaraco-functools) >= 1.20
Requires: python3dist(pytz)
Requires: python3dist(six)
Note that we have
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EnablingPythonGenerators by default now,
so you can skip adding them or add %?python_enable_dependency_generator for
older Fedora.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 22 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-tempora/review-python-
tempora/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.
Note: Package contains Conflicts: tag(s) needing fix or justification.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %p
[Bug 1097035] Review Request: ghc-HsSyck - Fast lightweight YAML loader and dumper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097035 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin --- It seems syck have been retired: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/syck So this package in its current form can't be reviewed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698224] Review Request: pyqtwebengine - Python bindings for QtWebEngine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698224 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok --- -devel doesn't have LICENSE. Consider this otherwise 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 1469767] Review Request: systemd-swap - Creating hybrid swap space from zram swaps, swap files and swap partitions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469767
--- Comment #22 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/systemd-
swap/review-systemd-swap/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: systemd-swap-3.3.0-2.fc31.noarch.rpm
syst
[Bug 1469767] Review Request: systemd-swap - Creating hybrid swap space from zram swaps, swap files and swap partitions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469767
--- Comment #21 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- The idea was to remove Requires: kernel >= 2.6.37.1 and replace it with
Requires: kmod(zram.ko), not using both.
- It's man1 not man.1:
install -d .%{_mandir}/man1
help2man -o .%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1 .%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1669793] Review Request: python-vpoller - Distributed vSphere API Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669793
--- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- All right, this fixes it:
%build
%py3_build
PYTHONPATH=../src SPHINXBUILD=sphinx-build-3 SPHINXOPTS=%{_smp_mflags}
%make_build -C docs html
rm -rf docs/_build/html/.{doctrees,buildinfo}
# wrong-script-interpreter
grep -rl "/usr/bin/env" | xargs chmod 0644
grep -rl "/usr/bin/env" | xargs sed -i "s|#!/usr/bin/env |/usr/bin/|"
%install
%py3_install
# manpages
install -d %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1
for suffix in client proxy worker ; do
PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} help2man --no-discard-stderr \
-o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{modname}-${suffix}.1 \
%{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{modname}-${suffix}
done
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1677989] Review Request: vcglib Visualization and Computer Graphics Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677989
Petr Menšík changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #32 from Petr Menšík ---
Thank you! I think this package is ready.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/home/reviewer/reviews/1677989-vcglib.progress/srpm/review-
vcglib/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: sed
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
generated", "GPL (v2 or later) GNU Lesser General Public License",
"BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GPL (v3 or later) GNU
Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)", "GNU Lesser General
Public License (v2.1 or later)", "Boehm GC License Mozilla Public
License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License (v2.0)", "*No
copyright* GNU General Public License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified"
License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GNU
Lesser General Public License (v2.1)", "Mozilla Public License
(v2.0)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (modified-code-notice
clause) GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3
or later)". 455 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/reviewer/reviews/1677989-vcglib.progress/srpm
/review-vcglib/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package 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 expand
[Bug 1669793] Review Request: python-vpoller - Distributed vSphere API Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669793
--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Split the doc into a separate subpackage
- still have the wrong script interpreter, not sure why
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 8140800 bytes in 150 files.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_documentation
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
"*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "GNU General Public License (v2)".
122 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-vpoller/review-python-
vpoller/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/man/man.1
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: 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 o
[Bug 1669793] Review Request: python-vpoller - Distributed vSphere API Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669793
--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- It's man1 not man.1:
# wrong-script-interpreter
for dir in contrib extra ; do
find ${dir} -type f -not -name \*.md -exec chmod 0644 '{}' \;
done
%install
%py3_install
# manpages
install -d %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man.1
for suffix in client proxy worker ; do
PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} help2man --no-discard-stderr \
-o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{modname}-${suffix}.1 \
%{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{modname}-${suffix}
done
[…]
%{_mandir}/man1/%{modname}-*.1*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1669793] Review Request: python-vpoller - Distributed vSphere API Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669793
--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Sorry:
# wrong-script-interpreter
for dir in contrib extra ; do
find ${dir} -type f -not -name \*.md -exec chmod 0644 '{}' \;
done
%install
%py3_install
# manpages
install -d %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man.1
for suffix in client proxy worker ; do
PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} help2man --no-discard-stderr \
-o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man.1/%{modname}-${suffix}.1 \
%{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{modname}-${suffix}
done
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1669793] Review Request: python-vpoller - Distributed vSphere API Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669793
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Fix help2man and chmod
# wrong-script-interpreter
for dir in contrib extra ; do
find ${dir} -type f -not -name \*.md -exec chmod 0644 '{}' \;
done
%install
%py3_install
# manpages
install -d %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man.1
for suffix in client proxy worker ; do
PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} help2man --no-discard-stderr \
-o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man.1/%{name}-${suffix}.1 \
%{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{modname}-${suffix}
done
[…]
%{_mandir}/man.1/%{modname}-*.1*
-
# skip useless files
find docs/_build/html -name .\* -print -delete
Use:
rm -rf docs/_build/html/.{doctrees,buildinfo}
- %doc docs/_build/* → %doc docs/_build//html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1377762] Review Request: opendht - A lightweight C++11 Distributed Hash Table implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377762
--- Comment #14 from Carl George ---
That's fine about the test suite, it's understandable to skip it if the build
requirements to run it are missing. Try to enable it in the future once you
can.
I ran fedora-review on this now, and it has highlighted a few other issues.
> [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
Upstream has unit files for dhtnode and dhtcluster, please include them and
their relevant config files (see my note about cmake below).
> [ ]: Latest version is packaged.
Upstream is chugging right along and has released 1.9.0.
> opendht.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libargon2
RPM automatically adds dependencies for linked libraries it detects, so you
should be able to just remove these:
-Requires: msgpack
-Requires: gnutls
-Requires: libargon2
> opendht.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dhtchat
> opendht.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dhtnode
> opendht.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dhtscanner
Upstream has a man page for dhtnode, please include it (see my note about cmake
below). There isn't man pages for the other two, don't worry about them.
> opendht.src:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 15)
Use one or the other. Most packagers stick with just spaces.
> opendht.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libopendht.so.0.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
> opendht.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libopendht.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2
Try to fix these (see my note about cmake below).
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency
Something else I noticed that I didn't before was your use of globs in %files.
You can use globs, but try to be more explicit. Here's how I would do it.
-%{_libdir}/*.so.*
+%{_libdir}/libopendht.so.0*
-%{_includedir}/*
-%{_libdir}/*.so
+%{_includedir}/opendht*
+%{_libdir}/libopendht.so
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files
Speaking of the libraries, I thought it was strange that the soname was 0.0.0.
If you compile with autotools, you get libopendht.so.0.0.0. But if you compile
with cmake, you get libopendht.so.1.8.2. This was reported upstream in the
past, fixed, then regressed.
https://github.com/savoirfairelinux/opendht/issues/75
https://github.com/savoirfairelinux/opendht/pull/95#issuecomment-481768325
I can't even get 1.9.0 to compile with autotools, so I suggest just switching
to cmake.
This will have some other benefits too, such as installing the systemd files
and man pages. It also makes the unused-direct-shlib-dependency rpmlint
warning go away. Here's the changes I would make.
+BuildRequires: cmake
(in the devel subpackage)
+Requires: cmake-filesystem
(in %build)
-autoreconf --install --verbose -Wall
-%configure --disable-static
+%cmake -DOPENDHT_STATIC=OFF -DOPENDHT_SYSTEMD=ON .
(in %install)
-find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' -delete
(in %files)
+%config %{_sysconfdir}/dhtnode.conf
+%{_unitdir}/dhtnode.service
+%{_mandir}/man1/dhtnode.1*
(in %files devel)
+%{_libdir}/cmake/opendht
Last suggestion, have you considered splitting the files out further? It's
fine as is, but it might be beneficial to end users to have a more minimal
install of just the tool they want. I was thinking of separate packages for:
- dhtchat (command)
- dhtnode (command, systemd unit, systemd config, man page)
- dhtscanner (command)
- libopendht (library)
- opendht-devel (devel files)
I'm not familiar enough with this software to say which should depend on each
other (or if this approach even makes sense), so feel free to disagree here. I
just think in the interest of minimalism, another package should be able to
require libopendht without pulling in CLI tools or systemd units. You could
also put all the CLI tools in one subpackage, separate from the library, such
as opendht-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 1698224] Review Request: pyqtwebengine - Python bindings for QtWebEngine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698224 --- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter --- Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/pyqt/pyqtwebengine.spec SRPM URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/pyqt/pyqtwebengine-5.12.1-3.fc30.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Apr 10 2019 Rex Dieter - 5.12.1-3 - %%doc README - %%license LICENSE - -devel: Requires: sip - use %%autosetup -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1669793] Review Request: python-vpoller - Distributed vSphere API Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669793 --- Comment #6 from Raphael Groner --- SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/vmw/python-vpoller.spec SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/vmw/python-vpoller-0.7.3-1.fc29.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Apr 10 2019 Raphael Groner <> - 0.7.3-1 - new version - drop upstreamed license patch - generate manpages - fix rpmlint -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698639] Review Request: pvc - Python vSphere Client with a dialog interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698639 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1669793 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669793 [Bug 1669793] Review Request: python-vpoller - Distributed vSphere API Proxy -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698639] New: Review Request: pvc - Python vSphere Client with a dialog interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698639 Bug ID: 1698639 Summary: Review Request: pvc - Python vSphere Client with a dialog interface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: projects...@smart.ms QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Placeholder. https://github.com/dnaeon/pvc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1669793] Review Request: python-vpoller - Distributed vSphere API Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669793 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1698639 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698639 [Bug 1698639] Review Request: pvc - Python vSphere Client with a dialog interface -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1690046] Review Request: Charliecloud - unprivileged container runtime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690046 --- Comment #8 from jo...@lanl.gov --- (In reply to Dave Love from comment #7) > ... and the source built for me, so there doesn't seem to be a reason not > to include it. The html files build correctly with versions of sphinx-build greater than 1.4.9, which as far as I can tell, are not available in el7. We could build the documentation with broken list-tables on el7. This could be done by forcing sphinx-build to ignore warnings, instead of error. The thought here was that it may be better to provide pre-built html files via source tarball while we wait for a newer sphinx to become available in el7. Thus the approach in mind is as follows: * 0.9.8 (this version) provide man pages and a readme with a link to the html, documentation online. * 0.9.9 package pre-built html files via source tarball. When a newer version of sphinx is available in epel, we build them in the spec file. Thoughts? > If tests run without docker, can you run them in %check? (I don't know if > the builders have the namespace support turned on, and should probably > check; if not, perhaps it could be turned on if it helps this sort of > package.) The tests do run without docker, however, when I attempt to run them in the %check segment during rpmbuild, one of the tests that uses namespaces hangs. I am not sure why, as this behavior does not occur outside of rpmbuild. Perhaps we could add a sanity check like `ch-run --version`? > Hope that helps for the moment. It does, thank you. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698615] Review Request: python-wstools - WSDL parsing services package for Web Services for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698615 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Alias|python-wstools | Last Closed||2019-04-10 19:29:08 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Not needed actually. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698615] Review Request: python-wstools - WSDL parsing services package for Web Services for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698615 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=34104063 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698615] New: Review Request: python-wstools - WSDL parsing services package for Web Services for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698615 Bug ID: 1698615 Summary: Review Request: python-wstools - WSDL parsing services package for Web Services for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: zebo...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-wstools.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-wstools-0.4.8-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: WSDL parsing services package for Web Services for Python. Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1469767] Review Request: systemd-swap - Creating hybrid swap space from zram swaps, swap files and swap partitions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469767 --- Comment #20 from Raphael Groner --- SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/util/systemd-swap.spec SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/util/systemd-swap-3.3.0-2.fc29.src.rpm * Wed Apr 10 2019 Raphael Groner <> - 3.3.0-2 - fix hints from package review - simplify dependencies - use macros - note real version in changelog - generate manpage Successful test builds in Rawhide, F30 and F29. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698610] New: Review Request: python3-pytoml - A parser for TOML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698610 Bug ID: 1698610 Summary: Review Request: python3-pytoml - A parser for TOML Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: log...@cottsay.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python3-pytoml/python3-pytoml.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python3-pytoml/python3-pytoml-0.1.20-1.el7.src.rpm Description: A parser for TOML-0.4.0 Fedora Account System Username: cottsay Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=34103457 This package is needed for `flit`, which is needed for `entrypoints`, which is needed for the (desirable) `flake8` package. NOTE: Pytoml is already packaged for Fedora and RHEL. This package will offer a Python 3.6 sub-package for EPEL. To prevent source package name collisions between RHEL Extras and EPEL, the Fedora package cannot be used for this purpose, and a new package must be created when a source package name unique within RHEL, RHEL Extras and EPEL. Reference spec from Fedora: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pytoml/blob/master/f/python-pytoml.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1469767] Review Request: systemd-swap - Creating hybrid swap space from zram swaps, swap files and swap partitions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469767 --- Comment #19 from Raphael Groner --- Thanks. I'll address all the hints ASAP. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1694805] Review Request: python-zeep - A fast and modern Python SOAP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694805 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-zeep-3.3.1-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-143250b876 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1469767] Review Request: systemd-swap - Creating hybrid swap space from zram swaps, swap files and swap partitions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469767 --- Comment #18 from Robert-André Mauchin --- # need Linux kernel version 2.6.37.1 or better to use zram Requires: kernel >= 2.6.37.1 Use Requires: kmod(zram.ko) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1469767] Review Request: systemd-swap - Creating hybrid swap space from zram swaps, swap files and swap partitions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469767
--- Comment #17 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Also ise:
Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1469767] Review Request: systemd-swap - Creating hybrid swap space from zram swaps, swap files and swap partitions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469767
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #16 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
None of this has been addressed:
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #12)
> - Fix:
>
>
> BuildRequires: systemd-units
>
> Requires(post): systemd-sysv
> Requires(post): systemd-units
> Requires(preun): systemd-units
> Requires(postun): systemd-units
>
> Requires: systemd
>
> Use:
>
> BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros
> %{?systemd_requires}
>
>
> - make install PREFIX=%{buildroot} → %make_install
>
> - Fix the Version-Release in your %changelog entry
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1695139] Review Request: xonsh - A general purpose, Python-ish shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1695139 --- Comment #27 from Miro Hrončok --- I see https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-0b46e5934f If you add this bugzilla number to that update, bodhi will eventually close this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698224] Review Request: pyqtwebengine - Python bindings for QtWebEngine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698224
--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Issues:
MUST:
- Add %license LICENSE
SHOULD:
- There is no %check
- Add %doc README
MAYBE:
- Should pyqtwebengine-devel require (python3-qt5-webengine or
python2-qt5-webengine)?
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in Python directories.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3)".
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
It does on purpose.
[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.
The binary package name remains the same.
[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.
This is an ExclusiveArch package.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test
[Bug 1698224] Review Request: pyqtwebengine - Python bindings for QtWebEngine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698224 --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter --- Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/pyqt/pyqtwebengine.spec SRPM URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/pyqt/pyqtwebengine-5.12.1-2.fc30.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Apr 10 2019 Rex Dieter - 5.12.1-2 - update Source0 URL - use ExclusiveArch - use %%build_cflags %%build_cxxflags %%build_ldflags - BR: gcc-c++ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698224] Review Request: pyqtwebengine - Python bindings for QtWebEngine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698224 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||pyqtwebengine --- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter --- Hrm, looks like upstream moved their URL recently (I did use 'spectool -g *.spec' to download the sources originally). update on the way. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698489] Review Request: gnome-books - E-Book Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698489 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- gnome-books-3.32.0-2.fc30 fedora-obsolete-packages-30-34 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-67a68b0a42 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698541] New: Review Request: ogr2osm - Convert ogr-readable files like shapefiles into .osm data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698541 Bug ID: 1698541 Summary: Review Request: ogr2osm - Convert ogr-readable files like shapefiles into .osm data Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: musur...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/musuruan/ogr2osm/ogr2osm.git/plain/ogr2osm.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/musuruan/osm/fedora-29-x86_64/00881580-ogr2osm/ogr2osm-0.1-0.1.20190104git183e226.fc29.src.rpm Description: ogr2osm will read any data source that ogr can read and handle reprojection for you. It takes a python file to translate external data source tags into OSM tags, allowing you to use complicated logic. If no translation is specified it will use an identity translation, carrying all tags from the source to the .osm output. Fedora Account System Username: musuruan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1643993] Review Request: golang-github-snappy - Implementation of the Snappy compression format for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643993 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-snappy-0-0.14.20190409git2e65f85.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-0cef01b5dc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1697498] Review Request: python-bids-validator - Validator for the Brain Imaging Data Structure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697498 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python-bids-validator-1.2.2-1.fc30, python-pybids-0.8.0-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-7183fdc867 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1684956] Review Request: golang-github-anacrolix-dms - A UPnP DLNA Digital Media Server that includes basic video transcoding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684956 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-anacrolix-dms-0-0.1.20190409git8af4925.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-a5dcc290ee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1673125] Review Request: mozilla-iot-gateway - Web of Things gateway
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673125 --- Comment #10 from Troy Dawson --- I believe Jared has been overwhelmed with other things. If anyone else wants to take this, please feel free. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1694805] Review Request: python-zeep - A fast and modern Python SOAP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694805 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python-zeep-3.3.1-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-eea2d1ef44 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684416 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-hgettext-0.1.31.0-5.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-836d93c59b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1658153] Review Request: wdune - wdune (white_dune) is a graphical VRML97/X3D editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1658153 --- Comment #83 from J. Scheurich --- Spec URL: ftp://ftp.ourproject.org/pub/wdune/wdune.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.ourproject.org/pub/wdune/wdune-0.99-3pl1516.fc29.src.rpm Description: wdune (white_dune) is a graphical VRML97/X3D editor, simple NURBS/Superformula 3D modeller, animation tool, and VRML97/X3DV commandline compiler in development. With white_dune you can create/change 3D objects and animate them (in a easy way if you choose the -4kids GUI). The result can be shown in any webgl enabled web browser or can be converted to the RIB format for movie creation. Fedora Account System Username: mufti11 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1677989] Review Request: vcglib Visualization and Computer Graphics Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677989 --- Comment #31 from J. Scheurich --- Spec URL: ftp://ftp.ourproject.org/pub/wdune/vcglib.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.ourproject.org/pub/wdune/vcglib-1.0.1-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: The Visualization and Computer Graphics Library (VCG for short) is a open source portable C++ templated library for manipulation, processing and displaying with OpenGL of triangle and tetrahedral meshes. Fedora Account System Username: muftii -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698489] Review Request: gnome-books - E-Book Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698489 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-books -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698489] Review Request: gnome-books - E-Book Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698489 --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember --- Ahh, yes, will do. 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 1698489] Review Request: gnome-books - E-Book Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698489 Pete Walter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bnoc...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Pete Walter --- Name matches. License matches. Doesn't conflict. Builds in koji. Packaging nice and clean. Follows guidelines. After importing it, can you make sure to remove the "Obsoletes: gnome-books" that Bastien Nocera added to fedora-obsolete-packages? Adding him to CC here too so he's aware. 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 1690413] Review Request: kiwix-tools - Collection of Kiwix related command line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690413 --- Comment #1 from Vitaly Zaitsev --- Spec URL: https://github.com/EasyCoding/kiwix/raw/master/kiwix-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/ecrepo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00881559-kiwix-tools/kiwix-tools-1.1.0-1.fc31.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1690412] Review Request: kiwix-lib - Common code base for all Kiwix ports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690412 --- Comment #3 from Vitaly Zaitsev --- Spec URL: https://github.com/EasyCoding/kiwix/raw/master/kiwix-lib.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/ecrepo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00881550-kiwix-lib/kiwix-lib-4.1.0-1.fc31.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698489] Review Request: gnome-books - E-Book Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698489 --- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember --- * Wed Apr 10 2019 Kalev Lember - 3.32.0-2 - Add appdata and desktop file validation (#1698489) Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/gnome-books.spec SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/gnome-books-3.32.0-2.fc30.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698252] Review Request: perl-Test-Data-Split - Split data-driven tests into several test scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698252 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test-Data-Split -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698489] Review Request: gnome-books - E-Book Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698489 Pete Walter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||walter.p...@yandex.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|walter.p...@yandex.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Pete Walter --- You are missing desktop file and appdata validation. Can you add those please? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1643993] Review Request: golang-github-snappy - Implementation of the Snappy compression format for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643993 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-snappy-0-0.15.20190409git2e65f85.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-d5b4091047 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698489] New: Review Request: gnome-books - E-Book Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698489 Bug ID: 1698489 Summary: Review Request: gnome-books - E-Book Manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: klem...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/gnome-books.spec SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/gnome-books-3.32.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Books is a simple application to access and organize your e-books on GNOME. It is meant to be a simple and elegant replacement for using a file manager to deal with e-books. Fedora Account System Username: kalev -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698483] New: Review Request: rust-netmap_sys - Bindings to netmap - the fast packet I/O framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698483 Bug ID: 1698483 Summary: Review Request: rust-netmap_sys - Bindings to netmap - the fast packet I/O framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sayan.chowdhury2...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://sayanchowdhury.fedorapeople.org/rpm-packaging/rust/rust-netmap_sys/rust-netmap_sys.spec SRPM URL: https://sayanchowdhury.fedorapeople.org/rpm-packaging/rust/rust-netmap_sys/rust-netmap_sys-0.1.3-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Bindings to netmap - the fast packet I/O framework Fedora Account System Username: sayanchowdhury -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1690413] Review Request: kiwix-tools - Collection of Kiwix related command line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690413 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 1690412] Review Request: kiwix-lib - Common code base for all Kiwix ports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690412 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED 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 1690412] Review Request: kiwix-lib - Common code base for all Kiwix ports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690412 --- Comment #2 from Vitaly Zaitsev --- Spec URL: https://github.com/EasyCoding/kiwix/raw/master/kiwix-lib.spec SRPM URL: https://www.easycoding.org/files/other/kiwix-lib-4.0.1-1.fc29.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1652036] Review Request: cockpit-session-recording - Package provides session recording playback in Cockpit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652036 --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - The changelog entry comment mist start with -: * Thu Apr 4 2019 Kirill Glebov - 1-1 - Release 1 - First release. Includes logs correlation, player controls, journal remote support. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1652036] Review Request: cockpit-session-recording - Package provides session recording playback in Cockpit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652036
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com |
|) |
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
You didn't address several points of my review:
- Why is there two Source now? Remove Source:
cockpit-session-recording-%{version}.tar.gz
- Since you tagged a release, this is not necessary anymore:
%global commit ffeec0bd364f165c73e769587eadc11d5c56864b
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
%global snapshotdate20190404
- Source0 should have a better name
Source0:%url/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- %autosetup -n %{name}-%{commit} → %autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}
- No:
%define debug_package %{nil}
Make your package noarch instead:
BuildArch: noarch
- Be more specific here:
%{_datadir}/cockpit/session-recording
%{_datadir}/metainfo/org.cockpit-project.session-recording.metainfo.xml
- Validate the Appdata file
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data_validate_usage
BuildRequires: libappstream-glib
[…]
appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/*.appdata.xml
- The description must be split onto multiple lines to stay below 80
characters per line
- Please use a more descriptive summary
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670441 Patrik Kopkan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1695594] Review Request: lua-binaryheap - Binary heap implementation for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1695594
Petr Špaček changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|petr.spa...@nic.cz
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Petr Špaček ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[X]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/vagrant/1695594-lua-
binaryheap/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/lua,
/usr/share/lua/5.1, /usr/share/lua/5.3
[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 81920 bytes in 8 files.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[X]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in compat-
lua-binaryheap
[X]: 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.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has n
[Bug 1695158] Review Request: lua-basexx - BaseXX encode/decode library for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1695158 Petr Špaček changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|petr.spa...@nic.cz Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Petr Špaček --- 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 1695158] Review Request: lua-basexx - BaseXX encode/decode library for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1695158
Petr Špaček changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Petr Špaček ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 17 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vagrant/1695158-lua-
basexx/licensecheck.txt
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/lua,
/usr/share/lua/5.1, /usr/share/lua/5.3
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in compat-
lua-basexx
[X]: 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.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin,
[Bug 1698403] New: Review Request: drawing - Drawing application for the GNOME desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698403 Bug ID: 1698403 Summary: Review Request: drawing - Drawing application for the GNOME desktop Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.corda...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/drawing.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/drawing-0.2-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: A drawing application for the GNOME desktop. Fedora Account System Username: atim -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698367] New: Review Request: rust-pnet_sys - Access to network related system function and calls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698367 Bug ID: 1698367 Summary: Review Request: rust-pnet_sys - Access to network related system function and calls Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sayan.chowdhury2...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://sayanchowdhury.fedorapeople.org/rpm-packaging/rust/rust-pnet_sys/rust-pnet_sys.spec SRPM URL: https://sayanchowdhury.fedorapeople.org/rpm-packaging/rust/rust-pnet_sys/rust-pnet_sys-0.22.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Access to network related system function and calls in pnet Fedora Account System Username: sayanchowdhury -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698364] New: Review Request: rust-pnet_base - Fundamental base types and code used by pnet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698364 Bug ID: 1698364 Summary: Review Request: rust-pnet_base - Fundamental base types and code used by pnet Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sayan.chowdhury2...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://sayanchowdhury.fedorapeople.org/rpm-packaging/rust/rust-pnet_base/rust-pnet_base.spec SRPM URL: https://sayanchowdhury.fedorapeople.org/rpm-packaging/rust/rust-pnet_base/rust-pnet_base-0.22.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Fundamental base types and code used by pnet Fedora Account System Username: sayanchowdhury -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1698252] Review Request: perl-Test-Data-Split - Split data-driven tests into several test scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698252 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Source file is ok Summary is ok License is ok Description is ok URL and Source0 are ok All tests passed BuildRequires FIX: Please add build-requires: perl(File::Temp) - t/run.t:77 perl(IPC::Open3) - t/00-compile.t:26 perl(lib) - t/run.t:6 $ rpm -qp --requires perl-Test-Data-Split-0.2.1-1.fc31.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c | grep -v rpmlib 1 perl(autodie) 1 perl(Carp) 1 perl(IO::All) 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.28.1) 1 perl(MooX) 1 perl(parent) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(Test::Data::Split::Backend::Hash) 1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.8.0 1 perl(warnings) FIX: Please add run-requires perl(List::MoreUtils) - lib/Test/Data/Split/Backend/Hash.pm:46 $ rpm -qp --provides perl-Test-Data-Split-0.2.1-1.fc31.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(Test::Data::Split) = 0.2.1 1 perl-Test-Data-Split = 0.2.1-1.fc31 1 perl(Test::Data::Split::Backend::Hash) = 0.2.1 1 perl(Test::Data::Split::Backend::ValidateHash) = 0.2.1 Binary provides are Ok. $ rpmlint ./perl-Test-Data-Split* perl-Test-Data-Split.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelization -> palatalization, rationalization, pluralization perl-Test-Data-Split.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelization -> palatalization, rationalization, pluralization 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint is ok TODO: If you add to command './Build install' option --create_packlist=0 then you can remove the find command for removing packlist files and BR findutils. Please correct all 'FIX' issues and consider fixing 'TODO' items. Otherwise the package looks good. Resolution: 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 1652036] Review Request: cockpit-session-recording - Package provides session recording playback in Cockpit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652036 Kirill Gliebov changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1652036] Review Request: cockpit-session-recording - Package provides session recording playback in Cockpit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652036
--- Comment #3 from Kirill Gliebov ---
I updated both the package and spec file. New review is required.
Spec URL: https://sabbaka.fedorapeople.org/cockpit-session-recording.spec
SRPM URL:
https://sabbaka.fedorapeople.org/cockpit-session-recording-1-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description: Package provides session recording playback in Cockpit. Session
are grabbed from Joural and they are recorded by tlog.
Fedora Account System Username: sabbaka
Current contents of spec file:
Name: cockpit-session-recording
Version: 1
Release: 1%{?dist}
Summary: Cockpit Session Recording
License: LGPLv2+
URL:https://github.com/Scribery/cockpit-session-recording
%global commit ffeec0bd364f165c73e769587eadc11d5c56864b
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
%global snapshotdate20190404
Source0:
https://github.com/Scribery/cockpit-session-recording/archive/v1-1.tar.gz
%prep
%autosetup -n %{name}-%{commit}
Source: cockpit-session-recording-%{version}.tar.gz
%define debug_package %{nil}
%description
Provides Session Recording module for Cockpit. Provides list of recorded by
tlog terminal sessions from Journal. Allows to play them in a player with
various controls. Shows correlated logs which happened during session.
%prep
%setup -n cockpit-session-recording
%install
%make_install
%files
%{_datadir}/cockpit/*
%{_datadir}/metainfo/*
%changelog
* Thu Apr 4 2019 Kirill Glebov - 1-1
- Release 1
First release. Includes logs correlation, player controls, journal remote
support.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1692999] Review Request: python-aioresponses - mock aiohttp client sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692999 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-aioresponses-0.6.0-1.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 1689486] Review Request: python-numcodecs - Buffer compression and transformation for data storage and communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689486 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- python-numcodecs-0.6.3-3.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 1639089] Review Request: ghcid - GHCi based bare bones IDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1639089 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- ghcid-0.7.1-4.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-daa3765e47 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1697498] Review Request: python-bids-validator - Validator for the Brain Imaging Data Structure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697498 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python-bids-validator-1.2.2-1.fc29, python-pybids-0.8.0-1.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-faae9596d4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1684956] Review Request: golang-github-anacrolix-dms - A UPnP DLNA Digital Media Server that includes basic video transcoding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684956 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-anacrolix-dms-0-0.1.20190409git8af4925.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-dc697c8193 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1643993] Review Request: golang-github-snappy - Implementation of the Snappy compression format for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643993 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-snappy-0-0.14.20190409git2e65f85.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-cd0201f71e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
