[Bug 1733707] Review Request: multi-git-status - Show uncommitted, untracked and unpushed changes for multiple Git repos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733707
Benjamin Kircher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||benjamin.kirc...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Benjamin Kircher ---
Installed and played around. Looks good to me.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bkircher/pkgs/multi-
git-status/multi-git-status/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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).
[ ]: 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 71680 bytes in 2 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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 o
[Bug 1731595] Review Request: maim - command-line screen capture tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731595 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- maim-5.5.3-1.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-2019-03ec64c83e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1730709] Review Request: minisign - A dead simple tool to sign files and verify digital signatures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1730709 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2019-07-28 01:23:45 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- minisign-0.8-2.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://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 1728828] Renaming-Review Request: sshexport - Install your ssh keys on remote sites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728828 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- sshexport-2.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1728828] Renaming-Review Request: sshexport - Install your ssh keys on remote sites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728828 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- sshexport-2.4-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1732985] Review Request: ocproxy - OpenConnect Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1732985
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
%global commit c98f06d942970cdf35dd66ab46840f7d6d567b60
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
%global snapshotdate20190728
Name: ocproxy
Version:1.70
Release:1.%{snapshotdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
Summary:OpenConnect Proxy
# BSD for both ocproxy and bundled lwip
License:BSD
URL:https://github.com/cernekee/%{name}
Source0:%{url}/archive/%{commit0}/%{name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz
# use latest lwip sources, fix gcc warnings
Patch0:
https://github.com/rapgro/ocproxy/commit/5b2b09023f3062dbc802378e92bd6cc012698b0f.patch
# drop useless files copied accidently from lwip project
Patch1:
https://github.com/rapgro/ocproxy/commit/5876cf460b248e53548b7aa37d0ee58f024fed81.patch
Though I would recommend you squash both commit (git rebase -i HEAD~3) and
produce a unique patch (git format-patch HEAD~1 HEAD)
also add a Provides: bundled(lwip) = 2.1.2
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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 1733707] Review Request: multi-git-status - Show uncommitted, untracked and unpushed changes for multiple Git repos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733707 --- Comment #2 from Brian (bex) Exelbierd --- Thank you, Björn, for catching those Requires. I had on my list to test this in a clean VM and then got distracted by something locally. The files are updated at the same urls. I noticed that your suggestions includes a few things like sed that seem to be default installed in Fedora. Is there a good way to catch those, other than looking for them (and focusing on them) in a read of the script? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733707] Review Request: multi-git-status - Show uncommitted, untracked and unpushed changes for multiple Git repos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733707 Björn 'besser82' Esser changed: What|Removed |Added CC||besse...@fedoraproject.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|besse...@fedoraproject.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Björn 'besser82' Esser --- Thre package builds fine on Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36620481 The package lacks the following runtime requirements to function properly: Requires:coreutils Requires:findutils Requires:gawk Requires:git Requires:sed Otherwise the package seems fine, but I'll do a full review after the requirements have been fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1733707] Review Request: multi-git-status - Show uncommitted, untracked and unpushed changes for multiple Git repos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733707 Björn 'besser82' Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733024] Review Request: python-vevents - VMware vSphere Events from the command-line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733024 --- Comment #6 from Raphael Groner --- Reuploaded with the fixes. SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/vmw/python-vevents.spec SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/vmw/python-vevents-0.1.0-0.1.20149631git3ff37a2.fc30.src.rpm Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36619694 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733707] New: Review Request: multi-git-status - Show uncommitted, untracked and unpushed changes for multiple Git repos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733707 Bug ID: 1733707 Summary: Review Request: multi-git-status - Show uncommitted, untracked and unpushed changes for multiple Git repos Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bexel...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://bex.fedorapeople.org/multi-git-status/multi-git-status.spec SRPM URL: https://bex.fedorapeople.org/multi-git-status/multi-git-status-0-1.20190727gitb203cca.fc30.src.rpm Description: Show uncommitted, untracked and unpushed changes for multiple Git repos. multi-git-status shows: * Uncommitted changes if there are unstaged or uncommitted changes on the checked out branch. * Untracked files if there are untracked files which are not ignored. * Needs push (BRANCH) if the branch is tracking a (remote) branch which is behind. * Needs upstream (BRANCH) if a branch does not have a local or remote upstream branch configured. Changes in the branch may otherwise never be pushed or merged. * Needs pull (BRANCH) if the branch is tracking a (remote) branch which is ahead. This requires that the local git repo already knows about the remote changes (i.e. you've done a fetch), or that you specify the -f option. Multi-git-status does NOT contact the remote by default. * X stashes if there are stashes. Fedora Account System Username: bex -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1732985] Review Request: ocproxy - OpenConnect Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1732985 --- Comment #3 from Raphael Groner --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > Yeah no, don't use your fork as Source:, if you need to add changes to the > upstream add them in Patches. No idea how to rebase the patches. Please provide a sample how to do. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1733023] Review Request: python-pvc - Python vSphere Client with a dialog interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733023 --- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/13887 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/13886 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/13885 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733704] Review Request: sundials2 - Suite of nonlinear solvers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733704 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Component|Package Review |Package Review Version|rawhide |epel7 Product|Fedora |Fedora EPEL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733704] Review Request: sundials2 - Suite of nonlinear solvers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733704 --- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande --- This package is created for EPEL only. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1733704] New: Review Request: sundials2 - Suite of nonlinear solvers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733704 Bug ID: 1733704 Summary: Review Request: sundials2 - Suite of nonlinear solvers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: anto.tra...@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/sagitter/ForTesting/epel-7-x86_64/00981658-sundials2/sundials2.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/ForTesting/epel-7-x86_64/00981658-sundials2/sundials2-2.7.0-1.el7.src.rpm Description: This is the old version 2 of Sundials, that looks still used for external EPEL7 builds. It will replace the current sundials-2.7.0 on EPEL7. Sundials is currently at version 4.1.0 on Fedora and i wish to push it on EPEL too. Fedora Account System Username: sagitter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733023] Review Request: python-pvc - Python vSphere Client with a dialog interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733023 --- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner --- Oh, I missed a bad typo in URL. Will fix with import. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733686] Review Request: python-qcelemental - Periodic table, physical constants, and molecule parsing for quantum chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733686
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Build the docs with Sphinx
- Rename the second README.md file in prep so there is no overwrite
%doc README.md qcelemental/data/README.md
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/python3-qcelemental/README.md
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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "GNU Lesser General
Public License (v3)". 104 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
qcelemental/review-python-qcelemental/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.
[-]: 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]: 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 i
[Bug 1733685] Review Request: python-pydantic - Data validation using Python type hinting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733685
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- There are docs, build them with Sphinx
- There are tests, run them in %check
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". 138 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-pydantic/review-python-
pydantic/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.
[-]: 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 %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package sho
[Bug 1733683] Review Request: python-email_validator - A robust email syntax and deliverability validation library for Python 2.x/3.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733683
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 ---
- Just use:
License:CC0
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". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
email_validator/review-python-email_validator/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary
[Bug 1733023] Review Request: python-pvc - Python vSphere Client with a dialog interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733023 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1725069] Review Request: rkdeveloptool - A simple way to read/write Rock Chips rockusb devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725069 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-07-27 13:28:11 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1376783] Review Request: python-can - Controller Area Network (CAN) support for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376783 --- Comment #16 from Peter Robinson --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #15) > /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/test/ → please either move this under > /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/can/, > or remove from the package. Will remove. 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 1376783] Review Request: python-can - Controller Area Network (CAN) support for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376783 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/test/ → please either move this under /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/can/, or remove from the package. rpmlint says: python3-can.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/test/data/__init__.py /usr/bin/env python python3-can.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/test/data/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-can.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/test/data/example_data.py /usr/bin/env python python3-can.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/test/data/example_data.py 644 /usr/bin/env python ... but I don't think it matters much (no dependency is autogenerated). Probably not worth fixing. + latest version + builds and installs OK + package name is OK + follows standard python spec + P/R/BR look OK + license is acceptable (LGPLv3) + license is specified correctly Packages is approved. Please fix that one issue pointed out above. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733175] Review Request: golang-github-google-renameio - Atomically create or replace a file or symbolic link
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733175 Björn Persson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Björn Persson --- I'll review it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1376783] Review Request: python-can - Controller Area Network (CAN) support for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376783 --- Comment #14 from Peter Robinson --- Updated for review and to latest 3.3.1 upstream release. Dropped the py2 sub-package too. SPEC: as above SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-can-3.3.1-1.fc30.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36610367 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1709037] Review Request: python-javabridge - Python wrapper for the Java Native Interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709037 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady FTBFS |NotReady --- Comment #6 from Raphael Groner --- epel7 on x86 only... Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36608068 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 Dave Love changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #39 from Dave Love --- OK, I've approved it, finally. I could be a co-maintainer if you'd like, and I can try to help with the test suite business later. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733685] Review Request: python-pydantic - Data validation using Python type hinting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733685 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1733686 ||(python-qcelemental) Depends On||1733683 Alias||python-pydantic Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733683 [Bug 1733683] Review Request: python-email_validator - A robust email syntax and deliverability validation library for Python 2.x/3.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733686 [Bug 1733686] Review Request: python-qcelemental - Periodic table, physical constants, and molecule parsing for quantum chemistry -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733686] Review Request: python-qcelemental - Periodic table, physical constants, and molecule parsing for quantum chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733686 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1733685 (python-pydantic) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733685 [Bug 1733685] Review Request: python-pydantic - Data validation using Python type hinting -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733683] Review Request: python-email_validator - A robust email syntax and deliverability validation library for Python 2.x/3.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733683 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1733685 (python-pydantic) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733685 [Bug 1733685] Review Request: python-pydantic - Data validation using Python type hinting -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733683] Review Request: python-email_validator - A robust email syntax and deliverability validation library for Python 2.x/3.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733683 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||python-email_validator -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733686] Review Request: python-qcelemental - Periodic table, physical constants, and molecule parsing for quantum chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733686 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||python-qcelemental -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733686] Review Request: python-qcelemental - Periodic table, physical constants, and molecule parsing for quantum chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733686 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1733680 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733680 [Bug 1733680] Update psi4 to 1.3 series -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733686] New: Review Request: python-qcelemental - Periodic table, physical constants, and molecule parsing for quantum chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733686 Bug ID: 1733686 Summary: Review Request: python-qcelemental - Periodic table, physical constants, and molecule parsing for quantum chemistry Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: susi.leht...@iki.fi QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/python-qcelemental.spec SRPM URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/python-qcelemental-0.5.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jussilehtola Description: QCElemental is a resource module for quantum chemistry containing physical constants and periodic table data from NIST and molecule handlers. Periodic Table and Physical Constants data are pulled from NIST srd144 and srd121, respectively (details) in a renewable manner (class around NIST-published JSON file). This project also contains a generator, validator, and translator for Molecule QCSchema. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733685] Review Request: python-pydantic - Data validation using Python type hinting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733685 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1733680 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733680 [Bug 1733680] Update psi4 to 1.3 series -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733685] New: Review Request: python-pydantic - Data validation using Python type hinting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733685 Bug ID: 1733685 Summary: Review Request: python-pydantic - Data validation using Python type hinting Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: susi.leht...@iki.fi QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/python-pydantic.spec SRPM URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/python-pydantic-0.31-1.fc30.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jussilehtola Description: Data validation and settings management using python type hinting. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733683] Review Request: python-email_validator - A robust email syntax and deliverability validation library for Python 2.x/3.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733683 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1733680 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733680 [Bug 1733680] Update psi4 to 1.3 series -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733683] New: Review Request: python-email_validator - A robust email syntax and deliverability validation library for Python 2.x/3.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733683 Bug ID: 1733683 Summary: Review Request: python-email_validator - A robust email syntax and deliverability validation library for Python 2.x/3.x Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: susi.leht...@iki.fi QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/python-email_validator.spec SRPM URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/python-email_validator-1.0.4-1.fc30.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jussilehtola Description: A robust email address syntax and deliverability validation library for Python 2.7/3.4 by Joshua Tauberer. This library validates that address are of the form x...@y.com. This is the sort of validation you would want for a login form on a website. Key features: * Good for validating email addresses used for logins/identity. * Friendly error messages when validation fails (appropriate to show to end users). * (optionally) Checks deliverability: Does the domain name resolve? * Supports internationalized domain names and (optionally) internationalized local parts. * Normalizes email addresses (super important for internationalized addresses! see below). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1709037] Review Request: python-javabridge - Python wrapper for the Java Native Interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709037 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady FTBFS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1709037] Review Request: python-javabridge - Python wrapper for the Java Native Interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709037 --- Comment #5 from Raphael Groner --- Ohno... FTBFS with latest git. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1709037] Review Request: python-javabridge - Python wrapper for the Java Native Interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709037 --- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner --- SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/python-javabridge/python-javabridge.spec SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/python-javabridge/python-javabridge-1.0.18-2.20190723git16d6c91.fc30.src.rpm Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36607367 %changelog * Sat Jul 27 2019 Raphael Groner <> - 1.0.18-2.20190723git16d6c91 - use latest git snapshot to support cython with python3 Thanks for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1733023] Review Request: python-pvc - Python vSphere Client with a dialog interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733023 --- Comment #5 from Raphael Groner --- SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/vmw/python-pvc.spec SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/vmw/python-pvc-0.3.0-2.fc30.src.rpm Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36607029 %changelog * Sat Jul 27 2019 Raphael Groner <> - 0.3.0-2 - fix description - split doc subpackage - add dialog dependencies for runtime - ignore manpage warning of rpmlint due to interactive tui, later in scm Thanks for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1733101] Review Request: clingo - A grounder and solver for logic programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733101 --- Comment #5 from Till Hofmann --- Thank you for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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
