[Bug 1767252] Review Request: transflac - transcode FLAC to lossy formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767252 --- Comment #7 from Gerald Cox --- SPEC URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qt2CHrvU_TuQTKoJtabxIV1C4UGwx5Nm/view?usp=sharing SRPM URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A6qFfljqCh_fq-fIad0zIVuY0-FXByly/view?usp=sharing Fedora Account System Username: gbcox COPR URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gbcox/package_reviews/build/1082932/ All should be resolved now. 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 1767216] Review Request: python-colcon-cd - Extension for colcon to change the current working directory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767216
Martin Kutlak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Martin Kutlak ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[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 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
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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint
---
Checking: python3-colcon-cd-0.1.1-2.fc32.noarch.rpm
python-colcon-cd-0.1.1-2.fc32.src.rpm
python-colcon-cd.src: E: specfile-error warning: extra tokens at the end of
%endif directive in line 28: %endif # __pythondist_requires
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
Source checksums
https://github.com/colcon/colcon-cd/archive/0.1.1/colcon-cd-0.1.1.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
4188a9c30541fd5bd3a9528c7ddb0cd29ed6811fc65f8e3f560e8231e81234e0
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
4188a9c30541fd5bd3a9528c7ddb0cd29ed6811fc65f8e3f560e8231e81234e0
Requires
python3-colcon-cd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi)
python3.8dist(colcon-core)
python3.8dist(colcon-package-information)
Provides
python3-colcon-cd:
python-colcon-cd
python3-colcon-cd
python3.8dist(colcon-cd)
python3dist(colcon-cd)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n
python-colcon-cd-0.1.1-2.fc32.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }}
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, R, fonts,
C/C++
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
LGTM
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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 1767252] Review Request: transflac - transcode FLAC to lossy formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767252 --- Comment #6 from Gerald Cox --- I found the issue on %license - it's because licenses are no longer stored in %doc. I'll resubmit... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1638980] Review Request: gsrp5-webserver - Global system resource plаnnig web client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638980 --- Comment #2 from Ben Cotton --- This message is a reminder that Fedora 29 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 29 on 2019-11-26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '29'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 29 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1678387] Review Request: python-flask-caching - Adds caching support to your Flask application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678387 František Zatloukal changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Version|29 |rawhide Fixed In Version||python-flask-caching-1.7.2- ||1.fc32 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-10-31 20:13:28 --- Comment #10 from František Zatloukal --- Fixed by python-flask-caching-1.7.2-1.fc32 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1766157] Review Request: liburing - Linux-native io_uring I/O access library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1766157 --- Comment #6 from Jeff Moyer --- Ah, Jens hosts release tarballs here: http://brick.kernel.dk/snaps/ So we can get rid of the liburing-liburing-.tar.gz nonsense. \o/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1765727] Review Request: gap-pkg-circle - Adjoint groups of finite rings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765727
Gerald Cox changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Gerald Cox ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Could the using the %dir directive resolve this?
See:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30067649/rpmbuild-common-ownership-of-directories
Non-blocking Issues:
- https://gap-packages.github.io/circle/
I manually checked and it works fine, so not sure why rpmlint was throwing a
warning.
- incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-circle/COPYING
In all cases, upstream SHOULD be informed about this.
This is the only requirement with respect to this error.
- only-non-binary-in-usr-lib - invalid warning
See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436500
=== MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/lib/gap/pkg/circle-1.6.1(set, C, locale,, Failed, to,
defaulting), /usr/lib/gap/pkg/circle-1.6.1/lib(set, C, locale,,
Failed, to, defaulting), /usr/lib/gap/pkg/circle-1.6.1/tst(set, C,
locale,, Failed, to, defaulting), /usr/share/doc/gap-pkg-circle(set,
C, locale,, Failed, to, defaulting), /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-
circle(set, C, locale,, Failed, to, defaulting),
/usr/lib/gap/pkg/circle-1.6.1/doc(set, C, locale,, Failed, to,
defaulting)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
[Bug 1765196] Review Request: python-aspy.yaml - Few extensions to pyyaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765196 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(akhaitov@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #7 from Artem --- @Anna seems like you should self assign bug first: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it (edit) (take) I can't request a repo because of that: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/19231 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1765727] Review Request: gap-pkg-circle - Adjoint groups of finite rings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765727 Gerald Cox changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gb...@bzb.us Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|gb...@bzb.us -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1766157] Review Request: liburing - Linux-native io_uring I/O access library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1766157 --- Comment #5 from Jeff Moyer --- NOTE: I did not try to do a mock build. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1766157] Review Request: liburing - Linux-native io_uring I/O access library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1766157
Jeff Moyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(stefanha@redhat.c |
|om) |
--- Comment #4 from Jeff Moyer ---
Stefan, I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and made all of the changes
requested:
(In reply to Cole Robinson from comment #2)
> The package doesn't build in 'mock' because it's missing BuildRequires: gcc.
> Do 'mock liburing-0.2-1.src.rpm' to reproduce, there may be other missing
> build deps.
>
> * Release should be Release: 1%{?dist} so the .fcXX bits get appended to
> the version string
> * Source: should be a pointer to the upstream URL that hosts the release. In
> this case I think it should be
> https://github.com/axboe/liburing/archive/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz#%{name}-
> %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz , the ending weirdness is due to github renaming
> the archive strangely. You might need to pass '-n
> %{name}-%{name}-%{version}' to %setup/%autosetup to tell it what the
> extracted archive name is
> * The %defattr lines should be removed:
> https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/77
> * The Group: lines should be removed
> * All the BuildRoot and RPM_BUILD_ROOT lines should be removed. %clean
> should be removed
All done.
> * The ./configure line should be replaced with just %configure
Unfortunately, this configure script only supports the 4 options used in the
spec file I'm linking to below, so I had to continue to call ./configure by
hand.
> * The 'make' call should be %make_build
> * The 'make install' call should be %make_install
> * The %pre and %post sections can be entirely removed, ldconfig is done
> automatically:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets
> * The devel package 'Requires: liburing' should instead be: Requires:
> %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
> * The devel package should also have Requires: pkgconfig
> * I think all the %attr usage can be entirely removed, unless they are doing
> something that the build system isn't doing.
I double checked, and the build system takes care of installing with the
correct permissions.
> * The Provides: liburing.so.1 shouldn't be necessary, I'm pretty sure RPM
> automatically adds annotations like this
I removed the line, and this is what I see:
$ rpm -qp --provides RPMS/x86_64/liburing-0.2-1.el8.x86_64.rpm
liburing = 0.2-1.el8
liburing(x86-64) = 0.2-1.el8
liburing.so.1()(64bit)
liburing.so.1(LIBURING_0.1)(64bit)
liburing.so.1(LIBURING_0.2)(64bit)
so confirmed.
> * Replace %setup with %autosetup, which will automatically apply any listed
> Patch: in the spec if anything is backported in the future. It's a small
> maintenace optimization
Done.
All good feedback, thanks!
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3)
> Please don't do the HTML anchor hacks anymore, they haven't been necessary
> for years. See the SourceURL page in the packaging guidelines how to
> correctly and nicely handle GitHub tarballs:
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
> #_git_tags
Noted. Here's the updated URL line, based on those guidelines:
URL:
https://github.com/axboe/liburing/archive/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
The tag is "liburing-0.2", which means that the tarball is named
"liburing-liburing-0.2.tar.gz". That's unfortunate, but as Cole noted, we can
just pass that name to %autosetup.
You can find the resulting spec file and package here:
http://people.redhat.com/jmoyer/liburing/liburing.spec
http://people.redhat.com/jmoyer/liburing/liburing-0.2-1.el8.src.rpm
Thanks again for the feedback!
-Jeff
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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 1765196] Review Request: python-aspy.yaml - Few extensions to pyyaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765196 --- Comment #6 from Artem --- > - It would be nice to change "pyyaml" to "PyYAML" in spec file's summary and > description to stay consistent with Fedora's PyYAML package. I'll fix this before import. Thanks for review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1678387] Review Request: python-flask-caching - Adds caching support to your Flask application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678387 --- Comment #9 from Ben Cotton --- This message is a reminder that Fedora 29 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 29 on 2019-11-26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '29'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 29 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1767240] Review Request: podman-compose - Run docker-compose.yml using podman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767240 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-bb97d4067e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-bb97d4067e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767252] Review Request: transflac - transcode FLAC to lossy formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767252
--- Comment #5 from Gerald Cox ---
SPEC URL:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qt2CHrvU_TuQTKoJtabxIV1C4UGwx5Nm/view?usp=sharing
SRPM URL:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-Jod5RYV8rFGp1Cnni4axsxxnUvVrNUN/view?usp=sharing
Fedora Account System Username: gbcox
COPR URL:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gbcox/package_reviews/build/1082797/
Thanks for all your recommendations and suggestions. They have all been
implemented.
Regarding:
%license LICENSE.md
%{_pkgdocdir}/LICENSE.md
I don't see the point of packaging that file twice.
for some reason, the %license alone would throw a "not packaged" error.
I found that _pkgdocdir alone is sufficient, so I removed the %license.
If you have an idea of what might be happening, let me know. Otherwise
I'll submit a bug report on it.
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 1767234] Review Request: python-volatility3 - Volatility 3: The volatile memory extraction framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767234 --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok --- Thanks Tom! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767252] Review Request: transflac - transcode FLAC to lossy formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767252 --- Comment #4 from Gerald Cox --- Ah, nevermind, I see what you were talking about - it's in the spec file. That was a mistake on my part. I'll correct and resubmit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767252] Review Request: transflac - transcode FLAC to lossy formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767252 --- Comment #3 from Gerald Cox --- ffmpeg is not a package dependency. If the user installed from another repository, then it handles. If they don't have it installed it works fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1470842] Review Request: bazel - A fast, scalable, multi-language and extensible build system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470842 Seth Jennings changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags|needinfo?(sjenning@redhat.c | |om) | Last Closed||2019-10-31 16:26:16 --- Comment #5 from Seth Jennings --- I don't have time to push this forward. Anyone is welcome to reopen and self-assign to continue. COPR is good in the meantime. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767537] New: pmemkv - Key/Value Datastore for Persistent Memory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767537 Bug ID: 1767537 Summary: pmemkv - Key/Value Datastore for Persistent Memory Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: kilob...@angband.pl QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://angband.pl/tmp/rpm/pmemkv.spec SRPM URL: https://angband.pl/tmp/rpm/pmemkv-1.0.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: pmemkv is a key:value store with a number of engines; currently available ones are heavily biased towards persistent memory. Fedora Account System Username: kilobyte -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1762673] Review Request: python-bluepy - Python interface to Bluetooth LE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762673 --- Comment #10 from Alessio --- I contacted upstream, but probably I'm unable to explain where is the problem. https://github.com/IanHarvey/bluepy/issues/383 However, as far as I can understand, the bundled bluez stuff is only sed to include some C file during compilation. The fact that I'm not a C developer, stop me to going further. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767234] Review Request: python-volatility3 - Volatility 3: The volatile memory extraction framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767234 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Haven't forgotten about this license. It's gonna need some thought from the lawyers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767252] Review Request: transflac - transcode FLAC to lossy formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767252
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
The failure is due to the ffmpeg dependency. See below.
- License confusion. README.md says "Licensed under GNU GPL version 3", which
would be a License tag of "GPLv3". But the License tag in the spec file is
"GPLv3+" and, indeed, the scripts have the "any later version" language, so
it seems that README.md needs to be updated to match.
- %{_libexecdir}/%{name} is not owned by this package, but should be.
- "Requires: ffmpeg" must be removed. You cannot have a dependency on a
package that is not in Fedora. See the first sentence of
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_package_dependencies
- Using rpm to check for ffmpeg doesn't seem like the right approach to me.
I recommend removing "Requires: rpm", and changing the check in
src-tf-ck-codec.sh to:
if type -P ffmpeg > /dev/null
- "Requires: bash" is not needed; the dependency is generated automatically.
- Why do you have both of these lines in %files?
%license LICENSE.md
%{_pkgdocdir}/LICENSE.md
I don't see the point of packaging that file twice.
- Consider modifying the Makefile to add -p to the install invocations, so that
timestamps are preserved. Also note that -c has no effect with GNU install.
- README.md has Windows-style return-newline pairs. Please convert to
Unix-style line endings.
= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
See license issue above.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/libexec/transflac
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/libexec/transflac
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Requires on ffmpeg is not allowed.
[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 40960 bytes in 3 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
[Bug 1767062] Review Request: R-Rhtslib - HTSlib high-throughput sequencing library as an R package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767062 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-10-31 15:51:44 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767252] Review Request: transflac - transcode FLAC to lossy formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767252 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this review. In the future, please use the standard "Spec URL: \nSRPM URL: " syntax so that fedora-review can read them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767062] Review Request: R-Rhtslib - HTSlib high-throughput sequencing library as an R package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767062 --- Comment #6 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- R-Rhtslib-1.16.3-1.fc32 built in rawhide. Thanks for the quick 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 1767509] Review Request: polkit-qt-1 - Qt bindings for PolicyKit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767509 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||928937 (qt-reviews) Alias||polkit-qt-1 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928937 [Bug 928937] Qt-related package review tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1767509] New: Review Request: polkit-qt-1 - Qt bindings for PolicyKit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767509 Bug ID: 1767509 Summary: Review Request: polkit-qt-1 - Qt bindings for PolicyKit Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rdie...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/polkit-qt-1/polkit-qt-1.spec SRPM URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/polkit-qt-1/polkit-qt-1-0.113.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Polkit-qt is a library that lets developers use the PolicyKit API through a nice Qt-styled API. Fedora Account System Username:rdieter This package replaces the qt5 (and newer) portions of existing polkit-qt. Once this is reviewed and imported, polkit-qt will be built for qt4 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 1765196] Review Request: python-aspy.yaml - Few extensions to pyyaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765196
Anna Khaitovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||akhai...@redhat.com
QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |akhai...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Anna Khaitovich ---
Issues
==
- It would be nice to change "pyyaml" to "PyYAML" in spec file's summary and
description to stay consistent with Fedora's PyYAML package.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description 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
Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate
[Bug 1767240] Review Request: podman-compose - Run docker-compose.yml using podman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767240 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/podman-compose -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767240] Review Request: podman-compose - Run docker-compose.yml using podman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767240 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- Thanks. The contents of tests/ are actually docker-compose.yml examples, and not suitable for %check. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767240] Review Request: podman-compose - Run docker-compose.yml using podman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767240 Nils Philippsen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Nils Philippsen --- The package passes all MUST items and is APPROVED. You might consider running the tests that come with the package during %check. Thanks for contributing! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767240] Review Request: podman-compose - Run docker-compose.yml using podman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767240
--- Comment #1 from Nils Philippsen ---
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.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package 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
Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[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
= 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: 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]:
[Bug 1767240] Review Request: podman-compose - Run docker-compose.yml using podman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767240 Nils Philippsen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||nphil...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nphil...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1678387] Review Request: python-flask-caching - Adds caching support to your Flask application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678387 --- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flask-caching -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767475] New: Review Request: rust-predicates-tree - Render boolean-valued predicate functions results as a tree
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767475 Bug ID: 1767475 Summary: Review Request: rust-predicates-tree - Render boolean-valued predicate functions results as a tree 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/rust-crates/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01082676-rust-predicates-tree/rust-predicates-tree.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/rust-crates/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01082676-rust-predicates-tree/rust-predicates-tree-1.0.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Render boolean-valued predicate functions results as a tree. Fedora Account System Username: atim -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1767471] New: Review Request: rust-treeline - Library for visualizing tree structured data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767471 Bug ID: 1767471 Summary: Review Request: rust-treeline - Library for visualizing tree structured data 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/rust-crates/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01082674-rust-treeline/rust-treeline.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/rust-crates/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01082674-rust-treeline/rust-treeline-0.1.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Library for visualizing tree structured data. Fedora Account System Username: atim -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1767466] New: Review Request: rust-predicates-core - API for boolean-valued predicate functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767466 Bug ID: 1767466 Summary: Review Request: rust-predicates-core - API for boolean-valued predicate functions 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/rust-crates/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01082673-rust-predicates-core/rust-predicates-core.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/rust-crates/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01082673-rust-predicates-core/rust-predicates-core-1.0.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: API for boolean-valued predicate functions. Fedora Account System Username: atim -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1766874] Review Request: jaero - A SatCom ACARS demodulator and decoder for the Aero standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1766874 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-10-31 14:09:26 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767062] Review Request: R-Rhtslib - HTSlib high-throughput sequencing library as an R package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767062 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-Rhtslib -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1766874] Review Request: jaero - A SatCom ACARS demodulator and decoder for the Aero standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1766874 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jaero -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767452] New: Review Request: rust-normalize-line - Takes an iterator over chars and returns a new iterator with all line endings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767452 Bug ID: 1767452 Summary: Review Request: rust-normalize-line - Takes an iterator over chars and returns a new iterator with all line endings 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/rust-crates/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01082669-rust-normalize-line-endings/rust-normalize-line-endings.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/rust-crates/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01082669-rust-normalize-line-endings/rust-normalize-line-endings-0.3.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Takes an iterator over chars and returns a new iterator with all line endings (\r, \n, or \r\n) as \n. Consume an Iterator and return another with normalized line endings. Fedora Account System Username: atim -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1767216] Review Request: python-colcon-cd - Extension for colcon to change the current working directory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767216 Martin Kutlak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mkut...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mkut...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1767442] New: Review Request: rust-cargo-husky - Husky for cargo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767442 Bug ID: 1767442 Summary: Review Request: rust-cargo-husky - Husky for cargo 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/rust-crates/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01082662-rust-cargo-husky/rust-cargo-husky.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/rust-crates/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01082662-rust-cargo-husky/rust-cargo-husky-1.4.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: cargo-husky is a development tool to set Git hooks automatically on cargo test. By hooking pre-push and running cargo test automatically, it prevents broken codes from being pushed to a remote repository. Fedora Account System Username: atim -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1766771] Review Request: libicu64 - ICU Library version 64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1766771 --- Comment #6 from Stephen Gallagher --- Spec URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/libicu64/libicu64.spec SRPM URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/libicu64/libicu64-64.2-0.fc32.3.src.rpm OK, good news. It does not in fact actually need Python 2. The build tools work with python3 just fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767062] Review Request: R-Rhtslib - HTSlib high-throughput sequencing library as an R package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767062 Stephen Gallagher changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(sgallagh@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #3 from Stephen Gallagher --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2) > Could you please report the crash to https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issues ? > > Or is it https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issue/366 ? It's issue 366 exactly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1766771] Review Request: libicu64 - ICU Library version 64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1766771 --- Comment #5 from Stephen Gallagher --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #4) > BuildRequires: python2 > > :scream: Oops, I actually didn't notice that. I copied the spec originally from https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/compat-libicu62/blob/f30/f/compat-libicu62.spec and didn't notice the python2 BR. I'm checking to see whether it's actually required or if it can work with py3 right now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1762673] Review Request: python-bluepy - Python interface to Bluetooth LE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762673 --- Comment #9 from Fabian Affolter --- The packaging guidelines (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling) contains additional information about the bundling. In an ideal world upstream would allow to use a different bluez. Often it's enough to patch the Makefiles but that depends. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1766874] Review Request: jaero - A SatCom ACARS demodulator and decoder for the Aero standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1766874 Vitaly Zaitsev changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Vitaly Zaitsev --- LGTM now. 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 1766874] Review Request: jaero - A SatCom ACARS demodulator and decoder for the Aero standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1766874 --- Comment #5 from Vasiliy Glazov --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/RussianFedora/jaero/master/jaero.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3088/38683088/jaero-1.0.4.11-2.fc32.src.rpm AppData added. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1694366] Review Request: pre-commit - Framework for managing and maintaining multi-language pre-commit hooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694366 --- Comment #20 from Anna Khaitovich --- Failed dependencies that I found: Package that is obsolete in Fedora: 'python3dist(importlib-metadata)': [1] Packages that have open Fedora Review requests: 'python3dist(aspy.yaml)': [2] 'python3dist(identify) >= 1.0.0' [3] [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754151 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765196 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765265 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1766874] Review Request: jaero - A SatCom ACARS demodulator and decoder for the Aero standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1766874 --- Comment #4 from Vitaly Zaitsev --- The license is MIT and LGPLv2.1: ./JAERO/gui_classes/console.cpp: LGPL (v2.1 or v3) ./JAERO/gui_classes/console.h: LGPL (v2.1 or v3) > mkdir JAERO/build Can be moved to %prep. > I don't have AppData. You should add it manually and send pull request to upstream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1762673] Review Request: python-bluepy - Python interface to Bluetooth LE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762673 --- Comment #8 from Alessio --- (In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #7) > The main issue seems that the build is done with a bundled release of bluez > (bluez-5.47). Fedora already ships bluez, thus that code should be used. So it is a big effort. I mean, as far as I can see and understand, there will be to create a patch to Makefile and .c files in order to get rid of the bundled bluez stuff. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1766874] Review Request: jaero - A SatCom ACARS demodulator and decoder for the Aero standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1766874
--- Comment #3 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/RussianFedora/jaero/master/jaero.spec
SRPM URL:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8574/38678574/jaero-1.0.4.11-2.fc32.src.rpm
1. Added %{?_isa} to unzip.
2. Gudelines say that need BR: ...-static
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_static_libraries
And because -devel provides static I set only one of them.
3. Multiple sed replaced.
4. Used pushd/popd.
5. I don't have AppData.
6. Comments to patches added.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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 1766833] Review Request: Intel QATzip library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1766833 --- Comment #2 from yongcheng.miao --- Modify the koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38655918 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1766860] Review Request: python-userpath - Cross-platform tool for adding locations to the user PATH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1766860 --- Comment #3 from Lumír Balhar --- New SPEC: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-userpath.spec New SRPM: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-userpath-1.3.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Fixed: - License renamed "ASL-2.0" → "ASL 2.0" - Added Provides for old name (python3-adduserpath) - Fixed Obsoletes with < instead of <= - Manual page upstream issue: https://github.com/ofek/userpath/issues/18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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
