[Bug 1724271] Review Request: libmodulemd2 - Module metadata manipulation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724271 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- libmodulemd2-2.6.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2019-90644f2d19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1727893] Review Request: php-sabre-dav4 - WebDAV Framework for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727893 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- php-sabre-dav4-4.0.0-2.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-ad9062f925 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1727891] Review Request: php-sabre-http5 - Library for dealing with http requests and responses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727891 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- php-sabre-http5-5.0.0-2.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-f09db56445 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1727886] Review Request: php-sabre-uri2 - Functions for making sense out of URIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727886 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- php-sabre-uri2-2.1.2-2.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-c0512fc0e4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1727888] Review Request: php-sabre-xml2 - XML library that you may not hate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727888 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- php-sabre-xml2-2.1.2-3.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-2019-9e839c346e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1728378] Review Request: rust-fedora-coreos-pinger - Telemetry service for Fedora CoreOS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728378 --- Comment #4 from Robert Fairley --- Thanks, missed that (again). Will remember next time. Added the post, preun, postun scriptlets. Updated Spec URL: https://rfairley.fedorapeople.org/package-review/rust-fedora-coreos-pinger-02/rust-fedora-coreos-pinger.spec Updated SRPM URL: https://rfairley.fedorapeople.org/package-review/rust-fedora-coreos-pinger-02/rust-fedora-coreos-pinger-0.0.4-1.fc31.src.rpm Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36280041 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1728381] mdevctl - A mediated device persistence and management utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728381 --- Comment #5 from Alex Williamson --- Thanks Cole. I'll try to rewind to proper procedure here, let me know if you'd prefer to start over in a new bz: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~alwillia/mdevctl/mdevctl.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~alwillia/mdevctl/mdevctl-0.46-1.fc29.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36279832 We're largely leveraging (blatant copying) driverctl for build and packaging. If make is ok for now, maybe we can think about doing something with meson later, but as you've discovered the packaging is the only thing we're "building". 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1729677] Review Request: wlcs - Wayland Conformance Test Suite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729677 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- wlcs-1.0.0-2.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1730111] Review Request: corectrl - Core control application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730111 --- Comment #2 from Artem --- Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/corectrl/fedora-30-x86_64/00972266-corectrl/corectrl.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/corectrl/fedora-30-x86_64/00972266-corectrl/corectrl-1.0.3-6.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1730111] Review Request: corectrl - Core control application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730111 Vitaly Zaitsev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vit...@easycoding.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vit...@easycoding.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Vitaly Zaitsev --- I will review this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1730111] New: Review Request: corectrl - Core control application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730111 Bug ID: 1730111 Summary: Review Request: corectrl - Core control application 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://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/corectrl/fedora-30-x86_64/00972260-corectrl/corectrl.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/corectrl/fedora-30-x86_64/00972260-corectrl/corectrl-1.0.3-5.fc30.src.rpm Description: CoreCtrl is a Free and Open Source GNU/Linux application that allows you to control with ease your computer hardware using application profiles. It aims to be flexible, comfortable and accessible to regular users. Fedora Account System Username: atim Working COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/atim/corectrl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1728381] mdevctl - A mediated device persistence and management utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728381 --- Comment #4 from Cole Robinson --- I thought this project was actually building C code but I see now that it's just using shell, my bad. That makes it less 'necessary' to use meson or something standard but it's still a good idea IMO. Not a blocker for this though -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1728300] Review Request: sympa - Powerful multilingual List Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728300 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to Xavier Bachelot from comment #2) > Thanks for the review. > > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > > - Make a separate subpackage for the doc > > > I've removed 2 big files which are not really relevant. This saves 5 MB. > Also, I've created a devel-doc sub-package holding the internal perl modules > documentation (all man3 files). This saves 624 KB. > Does one still need the -doc then ? > > It should be ok > > > [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. > > Note: No (noreplace) in %config(noreplace,missingok) > > %attr(-,sympa,sympa) /etc/sympa/auth.conf %config(noreplace,missingok) > > %attr(-,sympa,sympa) /etc/sympa/charset.conf > > %config(noreplace,missingok) %attr(-,sympa,sympa) > > /etc/sympa/crawlers_detection.conf %config(noreplace,missingok) > > %attr(-,sympa,sympa) /etc/sympa/create_list.conf > > %config(noreplace,missingok) %attr(-,sympa,sympa) > > /etc/sympa/edit_list.conf %config(noreplace,missingok) > > %attr(-,sympa,sympa) /etc/sympa/nrcpt_by_domain.conf > > %config(noreplace,missingok) %attr(-,sympa,sympa) > > /etc/sympa/topics.conf %config(noreplace,missingok) > > %attr(-,sympa,sympa) /etc/sympa/mime.types > > %config(noreplace,missingok) %attr(-,sympa,sympa) > > /etc/sympa/sympa.wsdl %config(missingok) %attr(-,sympa,sympa) > > /etc/sympa/data_structure.current_version > > The files marked as %config(noreplace,missingok) are optional. An admin may > want to remove them if he uses them un-modified from the defaults that live > in > /usr/share/sympa/default. > I'm confused with the 'No (noreplace) in %config(noreplace,missingok)' > comment. Can you explain ? Or is that just rpmlint/fedora-review being picky > ? > If one or the other needs to be removed, I'd remove ignoremissing rather > than noreplace. > I think it's fedora-review messing up the detection of no replace. Safe to ignore. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1728300] Review Request: sympa - Powerful multilingual List Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728300 --- Comment #2 from Xavier Bachelot --- Thanks for the review. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - Make a separate subpackage for the doc > I've removed 2 big files which are not really relevant. This saves 5 MB. Also, I've created a devel-doc sub-package holding the internal perl modules documentation (all man3 files). This saves 624 KB. Does one still need the -doc then ? > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. Actually, the License: tag is wrong due to the many bundled fonts and javascripts. And as what is unbundled depends on the distro/release, it is not that easy to advertise the correct one. I've started to look at making this better, but it still needs work, so not fixed yet. While reviewing the licences, I also found out the package providing jquery-ui has an incorrect license tag: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729965 > [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. > Note: No (noreplace) in %config(noreplace,missingok) > %attr(-,sympa,sympa) /etc/sympa/auth.conf %config(noreplace,missingok) > %attr(-,sympa,sympa) /etc/sympa/charset.conf > %config(noreplace,missingok) %attr(-,sympa,sympa) > /etc/sympa/crawlers_detection.conf %config(noreplace,missingok) > %attr(-,sympa,sympa) /etc/sympa/create_list.conf > %config(noreplace,missingok) %attr(-,sympa,sympa) > /etc/sympa/edit_list.conf %config(noreplace,missingok) > %attr(-,sympa,sympa) /etc/sympa/nrcpt_by_domain.conf > %config(noreplace,missingok) %attr(-,sympa,sympa) > /etc/sympa/topics.conf %config(noreplace,missingok) > %attr(-,sympa,sympa) /etc/sympa/mime.types > %config(noreplace,missingok) %attr(-,sympa,sympa) > /etc/sympa/sympa.wsdl %config(missingok) %attr(-,sympa,sympa) > /etc/sympa/data_structure.current_version The files marked as %config(noreplace,missingok) are optional. An admin may want to remove them if he uses them un-modified from the defaults that live in /usr/share/sympa/default. I'm confused with the 'No (noreplace) in %config(noreplace,missingok)' comment. Can you explain ? Or is that just rpmlint/fedora-review being picky ? If one or the other needs to be removed, I'd remove ignoremissing rather than noreplace. > [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 19875840 bytes in /usr/share > sympa-6.2.44-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm:19875840 > Not fixed yet. I'll provide updated spec and SRPM when I've adressed all of your remarks. Thanks again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1729056] Review Request: blkinfo - blkinfo is a python library to enumerate and filter all block devices available in a system.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729056
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- SPEC file should be named python-blkinfo.spec
- Your summary is
- too long (max 80 characters)
- Should be capitalized
- Should not repeat the name of the package
- should not end with a dot
python3-blkinfo.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C blkinfo is a python
library to list information about all available or the specified block devices.
python3-blkinfo.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C blkinfo is a python library
to list information about all available or the specified block devices.
python3-blkinfo.noarch: E: summary-too-long C blkinfo is a python library to
list information about all available or the specified block devices.
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". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/blkinfo/review-
python-blkinfo/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~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
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 mus
[Bug 1402656] Review Request: bdsync - Remote sync for block devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402656 Michael Hampton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-07-15 16:51:49 --- Comment #15 from Michael Hampton --- Package is now built and rebased to latest upstream. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1314176 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1721157] Review Request: gnome-network-displays - Stream the desktop to Wi-Fi Display capable devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721157 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-network-displays -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1728381] mdevctl - A mediated device persistence and management utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728381 --- Comment #3 from Cole Robinson --- I know the project is quite small so far and anything beyond a Makefile may seem overkill, but once it gets to packaging across multiple distros it really helps having a standard build system, packagers don't need to worry about if distro cflags and ldflags are getting into the correct places, or install directories are correct, etc. I recommend you take a look at meson. As an example you can check out ksmtuned usage of meson which is shipping a lot of similar files to mdevctl. The meson build config file is pretty intuitive https://github.com/ksmtuned/ksmtuned https://github.com/ksmtuned/ksmtuned/blob/master/meson.build I'm not sure if that follows meson best practices or whatever but it got the job done for me. Configure with: meson some-build-dir Build with: ninja -C some-build-dir -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1728381] mdevctl - A mediated device persistence and management utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728381 Cole Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|crobi...@redhat.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1727504] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-material-shell - Performant and simple opinionated mouse/keyboard workflow
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727504
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
mkdir -p%{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}
cp -a README.md %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}/
mkdir -p%{buildroot}%{_licensedir}/%{name}
cp -a LICENSE %{buildroot}%{_licensedir}/%{name}/
Why doing that? Just use %doc and %license without copying
%files
%doc README.md
%license LICENSE
%{_datadir}/gnome-shell/extensions/material-shell@papyelgringo
Package approved, please fix the above issue before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 66 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/gnome-shell-extension-material-
shell/review-gnome-shell-extension-material-shell/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/gnome-shell-extension-material-
shell, /usr/share/licenses/gnome-shell-extension-material-shell
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
arc
[Bug 1714432] Review Request: golang-github-robfig-cron - Cron library for go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714432 --- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin --- github.com/robfig/cron/v3 won't work as we don't have modules enabled in Fedora yet. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724271] Review Request: libmodulemd2 - Module metadata manipulation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724271 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2019-90644f2d19 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-90644f2d19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1729965] Wrong License: tag for jquery-ui
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729965 Xavier Bachelot changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mru...@redhat.com, ||rdopi...@redhat.com Component|Package Review |python-XStatic-jquery-ui Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdopi...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1729965] New: Wrong License: tag for jquery-ui
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729965
Bug ID: 1729965
Summary: Wrong License: tag for jquery-ui
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: xav...@bachelot.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
License in specfile looks wrong to me.
According to [1], license should be MIT. Only the sample code in the demos/
subdir is licensed as CC0.
[1] https://github.com/jquery/jquery-ui/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
1.12.0.1-6.fc30
How reproducible:
Always.
Steps to Reproduce:
1. dnf repoquery xstatic-jquery-ui-common.noarch --qf '%{name} %{license}\n'
2.
3.
Actual results:
xstatic-jquery-ui-common CC0
Expected results:
xstatic-jquery-ui-common MIT
Additional info:
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
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 #29 from Dave Love --- I commented on the github bug report. I was just following README.TEST, which doesn't mention the requirement, though it was satisfied. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1703284] Review Request: nbd-runner - one nbd service for distributed storages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703284 Michael S. changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org --- Comment #9 from Michael S. --- I am going to sponsor Xiobu Li -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1729056] Review Request: blkinfo - blkinfo is a python library to enumerate and filter all block devices available in a system.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729056 --- Comment #5 from Gennadii Altukhov --- Hi, I've just move python2 build to %else condition. Now I build python2 for EPEL7 only and python3 for Fedora. Updated spec file: https://github.com/grinrag/blkinfo/blob/master/rpm/blkinfo.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1727893] Review Request: php-sabre-dav4 - WebDAV Framework for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727893 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-ad9062f925 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-ad9062f925 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
