[Bug 1766833] Review Request: Intel QATzip library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1766833 --- Comment #3 from yongcheng.miao --- I'm sorry, Please ignore and close this review. Because of some legal process, the release date of QATlib is uncertain. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1765265] Review Request: python-identify - File identification library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765265
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
identify/vendor/licenses.py is not a licence for this code; it's a list
of licenses to detect. It should not be marked as %license.
Can you not skip tests that use editdistance instead of skipping all
tests? Or better yet is to package it too.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[?]: 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.
[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]: 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:
[-]: 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
[Bug 1767752] Review Request: ghc-text-zipper - A text editor zipper library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767752
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
Summary shouldn't start with "A "
LGTM otherwise.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: 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.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: 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.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides
[Bug 1768186] Package Review: python-anytree - Powerful and Lightweight Python Tree Data Structure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1768186
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
Why is the license Source1 from a fork and not the original repository?
License should be marked with %license.
Use %py3_build and %py3_install macros.
There seems to be test directory; can you run those in %check?
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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.
Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[?]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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.
[!]: 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,
[Bug 1544239] Review Request: unison248 - There is a new incompatible version of unison240
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544239 dper...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(dper...@gmail.com | |) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1768054] Review Request: python-should - Python version of the should assert library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1768054 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine to not have summaries that are "Language-specific version of some other language-specific library"; how is anyone supposed to know what that is? Plus, the language is in the package name, so that's redundant. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767235] Review Request: direnv - Per-directory shell configuration tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767235 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- Man pages should not be not executable (0644, not 0755). rpmlint also says you shouldn't own the directory: direnv.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man1 direnv.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/direnv-stdlib.1.gz direnv.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/direnv.1.gz direnv.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/direnv.toml.1.gz direnv.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/direnv.1.gz 37: warning: macro `envrc' not defined The manual-page-warning also seems to say there's probably a mistake in the manpage, which should be reported upstream. Please fix these on 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 1198760] Review Request: mitmproxy - An interactive SSL-capable intercepting HTTP proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198760 Bug 1198760 depends on bug 1236249, which changed state. Bug 1236249 Summary: Bluefish contains bundled python library jsbeautifier and others https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1236249 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1767235] Review Request: direnv - Per-directory shell configuration tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767235 --- Comment #2 from Ed Marshall --- Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~logic/direnv/direnv.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~logic/direnv/direnv-2.20.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: direnv augments existing shells with a new feature that can load and unload environment variables depending on the current directory. Fedora Account System Username: logic Updated to include the man pages (and remove the .md versions, you're right that they're just superfluous in this case). Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/logic/direnv/build/1088630/ (the i386 builder looks like it's broken, please ignore that one) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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|ON_QA |MODIFIED --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-f8612d712b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f8612d712b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 #11 from Gwyn Ciesla --- Upstream fixed it, I'll get an update out. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767801] Review Request: python-dasbus - DBus library in Python 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767801
Martin Kolman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Martin Kolman ---
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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
packages/dasbus(set, defaulting, to, locale,, C, Failed),
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/dasbus-0.1-py3.8.egg-info(set,
defaulting, to, locale,, C, Failed), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
packages/dasbus/__pycache__(set, defaulting, to, locale,, C, Failed),
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/dasbus/client(set, defaulting, to,
locale,, C, Failed), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
packages/dasbus/client/__pycache__(set, defaulting, to, locale,, C,
Failed), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/dasbus/server(set,
defaulting, to, locale,, C, Failed), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
packages/dasbus/server/__pycache__(set, defaulting, to, locale,, C,
Failed), /usr/share/doc/python3-dasbus(set, defaulting, to, locale,,
C, Failed), /usr/share/licenses/python3-dasbus(set, defaulting, to,
locale,, C, Failed)
[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.
[-]: 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 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
Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with
[Bug 1767801] Review Request: python-dasbus - DBus library in Python 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767801 Martin Kolman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mkol...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mkol...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Martin Kolman --- A couple minor issues: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1769843] Review Request: low-memory-monitor - Monitors low-memory conditions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1769843
--- Comment #4 from Michael Catanzaro ---
%{_sysconfdir}/dbus-1/system.d/org.freedesktop.LowMemoryMonitor.conf should
also use %config
I see you added %config for %{_sysconfdir}/low-memory-monitor.conf, but I would
use %config(noreplace) in case the user chooses to modify it.
Finally, you still have %{?systemd_requires} where systemd-rpm-macros should
suffice.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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 1769843] Review Request: low-memory-monitor - Monitors low-memory conditions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1769843 Bastien Nocera changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(bnoc...@redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #2 from Bastien Nocera --- Updated spec: https://hadess.fedorapeople.org/low-memory-monitor/low-memory-monitor.spec Updated package: https://hadess.fedorapeople.org/low-memory-monitor/low-memory-monitor-1.1-2.fc30.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1769843] Review Request: low-memory-monitor - Monitors low-memory conditions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1769843 --- Comment #3 from Michael Catanzaro --- (In reply to Michael Catanzaro from comment #1) > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > But they are all strange false positives. As discussed on IRC, they're not false-positives, you need %config(noreplace) or %config for the files under /etc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1723052] Review Request: python-geopy - A Python client for several popular geocoding web services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723052 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol | |ter.ch) | --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter --- %changelog * Tue Oct 22 2019 Fabian Affolter - 1.20.0-2 - Address issues (rhbz#1723052) Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-geopy.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-geopy-1.20.0-2.fc31.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1764753] Review Request: rust-assert-json-diff - Easily compare two JSON values and get great output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764753 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-assert-json-diff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1769843] Review Request: low-memory-monitor - Monitors low-memory conditions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1769843
Michael Catanzaro changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcatanz...@gnome.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mcatanz...@gnome.org
Flags||needinfo?(bnoc...@redhat.co
||m)
--- Comment #1 from Michael Catanzaro ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- License file should be installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
- Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
The -docs subpackage should require the main package:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- Should require systemd-rpm-macros rather than %{?systemd_requires}, per:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_dependencies_on_the_systemd_package
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[-]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: %{_sysconfdir}/dbus-1/system.d/ is OK because systemd and D-Bus are
both required for low-memory-monitor to function
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/ OK because gtk-doc is not required for
low-memory-monitor to function
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[-]: 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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in low-memory-monitor
[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
[Bug 1769861] Review Request: fsverity-utils - userspace utility for fs-verity
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1769861 --- Comment #2 from Colin Walters --- There's some sort of weird permissions issue, see https://fedorapeople.org/~walters/fsverity-utils.spec2 for the spec. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1769861] Review Request: fsverity-utils - userspace utility for fs-verity
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1769861 --- Comment #1 from Colin Walters --- xref https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fscrypt/20191106184332.GC2766@sol.localdomain/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1769861] New: Review Request: fsverity-utils - userspace utility for fs-verity
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1769861 Bug ID: 1769861 Summary: Review Request: fsverity-utils - userspace utility for fs-verity Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: walt...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~walters/fsverity-utils.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~walters/fsverity-utils-1.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: This is fsverity, a userspace utility for fs-verity. fs-verity is a Linux kernel feature that does transparent on-demand integrity/authenticity verification of the contents of read-only files, using a hidden Merkle tree (hash tree) associated with the file. The mechanism is similar to dm-verity, but implemented at the file level rather than at the block device level. The fsverity utility allows you to set up fs-verity protected files. Fedora Account System Username: walters -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1769843] New: Review Request: low-memory-monitor - Monitors low-memory conditions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1769843 Bug ID: 1769843 Summary: Review Request: low-memory-monitor - Monitors low-memory conditions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bnoc...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://hadess.fedorapeople.org/low-memory-monitor/low-memory-monitor.spec SRPM URL: https://hadess.fedorapeople.org/low-memory-monitor/low-memory-monitor-1.1-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: The Low Memory Monitor is an early boot daemon that will monitor memory pressure information coming from the kernel, and, first, send a signal to user-space applications when memory is running low, and then activate the kernel's OOM killer when memory is running really low. Fedora Account System Username: hadess -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 #10 from Gwyn Ciesla --- Odd. It's working on several others, including test.yaml from that project. Filed upstream: https://github.com/containers/podman-compose/issues/76 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1720454] Review Request: ghc-vty - A simple terminal UI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1720454 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2019-11-07 11:44:08 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1757688] Review Request: ghc-config-ini - A library for simple INI-based configuration files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757688 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-e82a8a24d2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-e82a8a24d2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1767235] Review Request: direnv - Per-directory shell configuration tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767235
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
There are man pages; you should install and package them, probably instead of
the markdown versions.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/direnv
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat
License". 132 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in 1767235-direnv/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: direnv (description)
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 17 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]: 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 is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for
[Bug 1767240] Review Request: podman-compose - Run docker-compose.yml using podman
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767240 --- Comment #9 from Yajo --- Just clone https://github.com/Tecnativa/doodba-scaffolding and use the devel.yaml file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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
