[Bug 1849513] Review Request: rust-block-cipher - Traits for description of block ciphers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849513

Artem  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||ego.corda...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ego.corda...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Artem  ---
Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably.

- Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec)
- license correct and valid

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 1849513] New: Review Request: rust-block-cipher - Traits for description of block ciphers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849513

Bug ID: 1849513
   Summary: Review Request: rust-block-cipher - Traits for
description of block ciphers
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: igor.ra...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-block-cipher.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-block-cipher-0.7.1-1.fc33.src.rpm
Description:
Traits for description of block ciphers.
Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain


-- 
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 1844308] Review Request: python-uvicorn - The lightning-fast ASGI server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844308

Itamar Reis Peixoto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(c...@redhat.com)



--- Comment #4 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
I have the patches required to upgrade the dependencies, if you would like to
test before I submit the pull requests here are.

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/itamarjp/uvicorn/builds/


-- 
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 1849479] Review Request: ghc-lukko - File locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849479

Jens Petersen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Priority|unspecified |medium



--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen  ---
This is needed by ghc-hackage-security for F33


-- 
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 1849479] New: Review Request: ghc-lukko - File locking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849479

Bug ID: 1849479
   Summary: Review Request: ghc-lukko - File locking
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: peter...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-lukko/ghc-lukko.spec
SRPM URL:
https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-lukko/ghc-lukko-0.1.1.2-1.fc32.src.rpm

Description:
This package provides access to platform dependent file locking APIs:

*
 on Linux ("Lukko.OFD") * BSD-style 'flock(2)'
locks on UNIX platforms ("Lukko.FLock") * Windows locking via
 ("Lukko.Windows") * No-op locking, which throws exceptions
("Lukko.NoOp") * "Lukko" module exports the best option for the target platform
with uniform API.

There are alternative file locking packages:

* "GHC.IO.Handle.Lock" in 'base >= 4.10' is good enough for most use cases.
However, uses only 'Handle's so these locks cannot be used for intra-process
locking. (You should use e.g. 'MVar' in addition).

*  doesn't support OFD
locking.

/Lukko/ means lock in Finnish.

Submodules "Lukko.OFD", "Lukko.Windows" etc are available based on following
conditions.

' if os(windows) cpp-options: -DHAS_WINDOWS_LOCK

elif (os(linux) && flag(ofd-locking)) cpp-options: -DHAS_OFD_LOCKING
cpp-options: -DHAS_FLOCK

elif !(os(solaris) || os(aix)) cpp-options: -DHAS_FLOCK '

"Lukko.FLock" is available on not (Windows or Solaris or AIX).
"Lukko.NoOp" is always available.


Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45968014


-- 
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 1849457] New: Review Request: python-aiohue - Python module to talk to Philips Hue

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849457

Bug ID: 1849457
   Summary: Review Request: python-aiohue - Python module to talk
to Philips Hue
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: 
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-aiohue-2.2.0-1.fc31.src.rpm

Project URL: https://github.com/home-assistant-libs/aiohue

Description:
Asynchronous library to control Philips Hue.

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45960179

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint python-aiohue-2.2.0-1.fc31.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint python3-aiohue-2.2.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab


-- 
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 1822132] Review Request: golang-github-andreasbriese-bbloom - Fast bit set Bloom filter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822132

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-71189d6772 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-71189d6772


-- 
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 1828984] Re-Review Request: culmus-fonts - Fonts for Hebrew from Culmus project

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828984

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
I've got a build error:

DEBUG util.py:621:  No matching package to install: '/usr/bin/makeotf'
DEBUG util.py:621:  Not all dependencies satisfied
DEBUG util.py:621:  Error: Some packages could not be found.

Seems the binary was un-renamed in
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/adobe-afdko/c/592d91cbfa9bde91dfde0d0d55e7553e22857f46?branch=master

Now it is makeotfexe.

Everything else LGTM, just s/makeotf/makeotfexe/ before import.




Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License (v2)", "GNU
 Lesser General Public License", "Expat License GNU General Public
 License (v2)", "GNU General Public License". 59 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/culmus-fonts/review-culmus-
 fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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 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 327680 bytes in 16 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package 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:
[-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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 supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all 

[Bug 1841940] Review Request: rust-freetype-sys - Low level bindings for the FreeType font library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1841940

Stefano Figura  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Comment|0   |updated



--- Comment #0 has been edited ---

Spec URL:
https://git.sr.ht/~returntrip/rust-freetype-sys/blob/master/rust-freetype-sys.spec
SRPM URL:
https://git.sr.ht/~returntrip/rust-freetype-sys/blob/master/rust-freetype-sys-0.12.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
Koji Scratch Build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45152816
Description: Low level bindings for the FreeType font library.
Fedora Account System Username: returntrip

-- 
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 1828983] Rename Request: khmer-os-fonts - Khmer font family set created by Danh Hong of the Cambodian Open Institute

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828983

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - I think there is a mistake here:


%fontmetapkg -n khmer-os-handwritten-fonts -s handwrittenmetasummary -d
handwrittendescription -z 4,5

instead of handwrittendescription, it should be handwrittenmetadescription


Package otherwise approved.



Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License
 (v2.1 or later)". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/khmer-os-fonts/review-
 khmer-os-fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
 Note: Macros in: khmer-os-handwritten-fonts (description)
[-]: 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 is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= 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 supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is 

[Bug 1849183] Review Request: golang-gitlab-ianbruene-kommandant - Command line meta-interpreter for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849183

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1849178] Review Request: golang-github-ianbruene-difflib - Difflib package's Go implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849178

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1848047] Review Request: xtb - Semiempirical Extended Tight-Binding Program Package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848047



--- Comment #3 from Susi Lehtola  ---
This revision cleans up the remainders of Python that originated before the
Python interface was split off into another project.

https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/xtb.spec
https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/xtb-6.3.1-4.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 1849182] Review Request: golang-gitlab-esr-fqme - Mines configuration files to discover full name and email address

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849182

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1818999] Review Request: ofono - open source telephony

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1818999

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Missing isa in the devel subpackage:

Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

 - Not needed

BuildRequires: systemd
Requires(post): systemd
Requires(preun): systemd
Requires(postun): systemd

 use:

BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros

 - Error in %changelog, March 30 is a Monday:

warning: bogus date in %changelog: Fri Mar 30 2020 Nikhil Jha
 - 1.31-1

 - Explicitly add a BR against gcc

[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
 Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
 See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools

AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
--
  AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: ofono-1.31/configure.ac:31

Patch it with LT_INIT instead and send a patch upstream. (Ref:
https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/LT_005fINIT.html)





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++/
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ofono
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License",
 "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect
 FSF address)", "Unicode strict GPL (v2)". 203 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/ofono/review-ofono/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: %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 

[Bug 1849183] Review Request: golang-gitlab-ianbruene-kommandant - Command line meta-interpreter for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849183

Denis Fateyev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||go-sig@lists.fedoraproject.
   ||org
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value




-- 
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 1849178] Review Request: golang-github-ianbruene-difflib - Difflib package's Go implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849178

Denis Fateyev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||go-sig@lists.fedoraproject.
   ||org
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value




-- 
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 1849182] Review Request: golang-gitlab-esr-fqme - Mines configuration files to discover full name and email address

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849182

Denis Fateyev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||go-sig@lists.fedoraproject.
   ||org
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value




-- 
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 1849180] Review Request: golang-github-termie-shutil - Golang port of python's shutil

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849180



--- Comment #2 from Denis Fateyev  ---
Thanks for the review. Please let me know if you need a review swap.


-- 
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 1821645] Review Request: golang-github-urfave-cli-2 - A package for building command line apps

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821645

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2020-06-21 18:54:40




-- 
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 1821673] Review Request: golang-github-aws-lambda - Libraries, samples and tools to develop AWS Lambda functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821673
Bug 1821673 depends on bug 1821645, which changed state.

Bug 1821645 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-urfave-cli-2 - A package for 
building command line apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821645

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG




-- 
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 1821673] Review Request: golang-github-aws-lambda - Libraries, samples and tools to develop AWS Lambda functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821673

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Bump to 1.17.0


 - License ok
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1827399] Review Request: sqm-scripts - Traffic shaper scripts of the CeroWrt project

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827399

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Consider asking upstream for a separate LICENSE file

 - I'm conflicted about the location of these scripts:

sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/sqm/start-sqm 744
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/sqm/stop-sqm 744
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/sqm/update-available-qdiscs 744

This is not FHS friendly, these should maybe be in bindir or libexec (which is
Fedora specific I believe)? Maybe ask upstream about it.

 - That part is fixed in master:

sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/layer_cake.qos 644
/bin/sh 
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/piece_of_cake.qos 644
/bin/sh 
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/simple.qos 644
/bin/sh 
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/simplest.qos 644
/bin/sh 
sqm-scripts.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/sqm/simplest_tbf.qos 644
/bin/sh 

Consider backporting
https://github.com/tohojo/sqm-scripts/commit/63de5cb0d0eab9ef46f3311acd85239e43fc894f

 - seems there is some interest in an EPEL7/8 package:
https://github.com/tohojo/sqm-scripts/issues/119


Package is approved. 

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "GPL (v2)". 20
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/sqm-scripts/review-sqm-
 scripts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[!?]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: %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]: 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 

[Bug 1849426] Review Request: rust-obfstr - Compiletime string literal obfuscation for Rust

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849426

Igor Raits  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2020-06-21 17:52:56




-- 
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 1849426] Review Request: rust-obfstr - Compiletime string literal obfuscation for Rust

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849426



--- Comment #2 from Igor Raits  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-obfstr


-- 
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 1849425] Review Request: rust-obfstr-impl - Procedural macro implementation for obfstr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849425

Igor Raits  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2020-06-21 17:47:24




-- 
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 1827045] Review Request: python-cmarkgfm - Minimal bindings to GitHub's fork of cmark

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827045

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Please try running the provided tests





Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: python3-cmarkgfm : /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-
  packages/cmarkgfm/cmark.cffi.h python3-cmarkgfm :
  /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/cmarkgfm/cmark_module.h
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_devel_packages


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "Expat License BSD
 2-clause "Simplified" License". 88 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
 cmarkgfm/review-python-cmarkgfm/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any 

[Bug 1762755] Review Request: vim-trailing-whitespace - Highlights trailing whitespace in red and provides :FixWhitespace to fix it

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762755



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-15a43e14ca has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-15a43e14ca \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-15a43e14ca

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
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 1844850] Review request: antimicroX - Graphical program used to map keyboard buttons and mouse controls to a gamepad

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844850

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-939340c81f has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-939340c81f \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-939340c81f

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
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 1844850] Review request: antimicroX - Graphical program used to map keyboard buttons and mouse controls to a gamepad

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844850



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-7f022a8b41 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-7f022a8b41 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7f022a8b41

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
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 1762755] Review Request: vim-trailing-whitespace - Highlights trailing whitespace in red and provides :FixWhitespace to fix it

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762755

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-e53b85d48f has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-e53b85d48f \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e53b85d48f

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
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 1847772] Review Request: ocaml-psmt2-frontend - Parser and typechecker for an extension of SMT-LIB 2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1847772

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-9725835ab9 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-9725835ab9 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9725835ab9

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
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 1849425] Review Request: rust-obfstr-impl - Procedural macro implementation for obfstr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849425



--- Comment #2 from Igor Raits  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-obfstr-impl


-- 
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 1826318] Review Request: meshbird - Distributed private networking

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826318

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1826308] Review Request: golang-github-songgao-water - TUN/TAP library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826308

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1826315] Review Request: golang-github-alexflint-arg - Struct-based argument parsing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826315

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1849425] Review Request: rust-obfstr-impl - Procedural macro implementation for obfstr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849425

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||ngomp...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa  ---
Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably.

- Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec)
- license correct and valid
- only sources installed

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 1849426] Review Request: rust-obfstr - Compiletime string literal obfuscation for Rust

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849426

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||ngomp...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa  ---
Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably.

- Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec)
- license correct and valid
- only sources installed

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 1826313] Review Request: golang-github-alexflint-scalar - Parsing library for string

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826313

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1825587] Review Request: python-aiosmb - Asynchronous SMB protocol implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825587



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Also this one:

DEBUG util.py:621:  Error: 
DEBUG util.py:621:   Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:621:- nothing provides python3.9dist(prompt-toolkit) < 3
needed by python3-aiosmb-0.2.10-1.fc33.noarch


-- 
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 1825587] Review Request: python-aiosmb - Asynchronous SMB protocol implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825587

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Bump to 0.2.20

 - Missing dep on latest version:

DEBUG util.py:621:   Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:621:- nothing provides python3.9dist(asysocks) >= 0.0.4
needed by python3-aiosmb-0.2.20-1.fc33.noarch





Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 171 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/python-aiosmb/review-python-
 aiosmb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
 packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
 versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
 use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and 

[Bug 1824269] Review Request: python-korean-lunar-calendar - Convert Korean lunar-calendar to Gregorian calendar

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824269

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package approved.



Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/python-korean-lunar-calendar/review-python-
 korean-lunar-calendar/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
 packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
 versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
 use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified 

[Bug 1823151] Review Request: thinkpad-tools - Tools to manage ThinkPad properties

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823151

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Missing systemD scriptlets:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd

 - /usr/lib/systemd/system/thinkpad-tools.service →
%{_unitdir}/thinkpad-tools.service

 - Separate your changelog entries by a new line

 - Since you provide a binary, consider instead naming your package
"thinkpad-tools" with no Python3 subpackage

 - Up to upstream, but generally configuration files are named *.conf not
*.ini.


-- 
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 1823860] Review Request: golang-github-henvic-httpretty - Prints the HTTP requests you make with Go pretty on your terminal

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823860

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1822191] Review Request: golang-gitlab-flimzy-testy - Go testing utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822191

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Latest version is 0.2.1 

 - Gitlab is supported by the macros, just use:

# https://gitlab.com/flimzy/testy
%global goipath gitlab.com/flimzy/testy
Version:0.2.1
%global tag v0.2.1

 - License ok
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved. Please bump to the latest version.


-- 
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 1849426] New: Review Request: rust-obfstr - Compiletime string literal obfuscation for Rust

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849426

Bug ID: 1849426
   Summary: Review Request: rust-obfstr - Compiletime string
literal obfuscation for Rust
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: igor.ra...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-obfstr.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-obfstr-0.1.1-1.fc33.src.rpm
Description:
Compiletime string literal obfuscation for Rust.
Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain


-- 
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 1849425] New: Review Request: rust-obfstr-impl - Procedural macro implementation for obfstr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849425

Bug ID: 1849425
   Summary: Review Request: rust-obfstr-impl - Procedural macro
implementation for obfstr
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: igor.ra...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-obfstr-impl.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-obfstr-impl-0.1.1-1.fc33.src.rpm
Description:
Procedural macro implementation for obfstr.
Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain


-- 
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 1823381] Review Request: golang-github-gin-contrib-cors - CORS gin's middleware

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823381

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1823376] Review Request: golang-github-gin-contrib-static - Static middleware

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823376

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1823365] Review Request: golang-github-ns3777k-shodan - Shodan API client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823365

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1822362] Review Request: duc - Disk usage analyzer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822362

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - make %{?_smp_mflags} → make_build

 - make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT → make_install

 - nitpicky: Split your BR one per line

 - Add a dot at the end of the description:

%description
A library and suite of tools for inspecting disk usage.

 - There is a signature file along the archive duc-1.4.4.tar.gz.asc. Consider
verifying it with the new macro %gpgverify (search for it in the guidelines).

 - Consider notifying upstream about their incorrect license in the tarball,
maybe they could fix it.


 Please consider co-maintaining with Robert Führicht (fas: fuero). He is not
sponsored though, so that would be your task to help him with that.










Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[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.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GNU Lesser General Public License", "Unknown or generated",
 "Expat License", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)", "Khronos License". 58
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/duc/review-duc/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 

[Bug 1822954] Review Request: aquatone - Tool for Domain Flyovers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822954

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1822914] Review Request: golang-github-lair-framework-nmap - Nmap XML parsing library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822914

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1822949] Review Request: golang-github-parnurzeal-gorequest - Simplified HTTP client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822949

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - I've got error in tests:

Testingin: /builddir/build/BUILD/gorequest-0.2.16/_build/src
 PATH:
/builddir/build/BUILD/gorequest-0.2.16/_build/bin:/usr/lib64/ccache:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/sbin
   GOPATH: /builddir/build/BUILD/gorequest-0.2.16/_build:/usr/share/gocode
  GO111MODULE: off
  command: go test -buildmode pie -compiler gc -ldflags "-X
github.com/parnurzeal/gorequest/version=0.2.16 -extldflags '-Wl,-z,relro
-Wl,--as-needed  -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld '"
  testing: github.com/parnurzeal/gorequest
github.com/parnurzeal/gorequest
2020/06/21 14:41:49 http: Accept error: accept tcp 127.0.0.1:42743: accept4:
too many open files; retrying in 5ms
2020/06/21 14:41:49 http: Accept error: accept tcp 127.0.0.1:42743: accept4:
too many open files; retrying in 5ms
--- FAIL: TestTimeoutFunc (2.01s)
gorequest_test.go:2091: Expected timeout in between 1000 -> 1500 ms | but
got 4907426
--- FAIL: TestCookies (0.00s)
gorequest_test.go:2129: Cookies test request did not complete
FAIL
exit status 1
FAILgithub.com/parnurzeal/gorequest 2.405s


 Seems it's network related so maybe it can't work in Mock. Otherwise LGTM:

 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1822952] Review Request: golang-github-asaskevich-eventbus - Lightweight eventbus

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822952

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Maybe use last commit before import 4fc0642a29f392d9caa94cdb7503d2b676e3f442


 - License ok
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1822947] Review Request: golang-moul-http2curl - Convert Golang's http.Request to curl commands

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822947

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
SPDX-License-Identifier: (Apache-2.0 OR MIT)

 It's ASL 2.0 or MIT, not and:

License:MIT or ASL 2.0


 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved. Please fix the license field before 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 1822921] Review Request: golang-github-lair-framework-burp - BurpSuite XML parsing library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822921

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1849419] New: Review Request: golang-github-mingrammer-commonregex - A collection of common regular expressions for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849419

Bug ID: 1849419
   Summary: Review Request: golang-github-mingrammer-commonregex -
A collection of common regular expressions for Go
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: athoscribe...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org//golang-github-mingrammer-commonregex.spec
SRPM URL:
https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org//golang-github-mingrammer-commonregex-1.0.1-1.fc32.src.rpm

Description:

A collection of common regular expressions for Go.


-- 
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 1822916] Review Request: golang-github-lair-framework-nessus - Nessus XML parsing library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822916

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1822469] Review Request: golang-github-ory-dockertest - Support for ephermal docker images for your Go tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822469

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Bump to 3.6.0

 - The License is ASL 2.0 not MIT:
https://github.com/ory/dockertest/blob/v3/LICENSE

 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://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 1822220] Review Request: golang-github-olivere-elastic-6 - Elasticsearch 6 client for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=180

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Bump to v6.2.32

 - SPEC and bug name should be named golang-gopkg-olivere-elastic-6. This is
the name derived from the go import path.



DEBUG util.py:621:   Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:621:- nothing provides golang(github.com/olivere/elastic)
needed by golang-gopkg-olivere-elastic-6-devel-6.2.29-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:621:- nothing provides golang(github.com/olivere/elastic/aws)
needed by golang-gopkg-olivere-elastic-6-devel-6.2.29-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:621:- nothing provides
golang(github.com/olivere/elastic/aws/v4) needed by
golang-gopkg-olivere-elastic-6-devel-6.2.29-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:621:- nothing provides
golang(github.com/olivere/elastic/config) needed by
golang-gopkg-olivere-elastic-6-devel-6.2.29-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:621:- nothing provides
golang(github.com/olivere/elastic/trace/opentracing) needed by
golang-gopkg-olivere-elastic-6-devel-6.2.29-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:621:- nothing provides
golang(github.com/olivere/elastic/uritemplates) needed by
golang-gopkg-olivere-elastic-6-devel-6.2.29-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:623:  (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages
or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages)

Probably need to do some replacement of import path:

sed -i "s|github.com/olivere/elastic|gopkg.in/olivere/elastic.v6|" $(find .
-type f -iname "*.go")


-- 
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 1822214] Review Request: golang-github-olivere-elastic-5 - Elasticsearch 5 client for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822214

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
SPEC and bug name should be named golang-gopkg-olivere-elastic-5. This is the
name derived from the go import path.

 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors
 - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines

Package approved. Please fix name of the SPEC and bug before requesting the
repo.


-- 
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 1374947] Review Request: vpcs - Virtual PC Simulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374947

Othman Madjoudj  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2020-06-21 13:21:56



--- Comment #9 from Othman Madjoudj  ---
I orphaned GNS3 stack a while ago so I'll close this request, new maintainer
can open a new request and continue with the review if they wish.


-- 
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 1849401] New: Review Request: growlight - Block device and filesystem manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849401

Bug ID: 1849401
   Summary: Review Request: growlight - Block device and
filesystem manager
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: d...@qemfd.net
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://nick-black.com/growlight-fedora/growlight.spec
SRPM URL:
https://nick-black.com/growlight-fedora/growlight-1.2.6-1.fc33.src.rpm
Description: Growlight can manipulate both physical (NVMe, SATA, etc.) and
virtual (mdadm, device-mapper, etc.) block devices, help identify bottlenecks
in a storage topology, create and destroy filesystems, and prepare a machine
for initial boot when run in an installer context. Both full-screen and REPL
readline UIs are available.
Fedora Account System Username: nickblack


rpmlint shows 0 errors and 2 warnings, both of them invalid spelling warnings.


-- 
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 1849384] New: Review Request: swappy - Wayland native snapshot editing tool, inspired by Snappy on macOS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849384

Bug ID: 1849384
   Summary: Review Request: swappy - Wayland native snapshot
editing tool, inspired by Snappy on macOS
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: bob.hep...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/swappy/fedora-31-x86_64/01494494-swappy/swappy.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/swappy/fedora-31-x86_64/01494494-swappy/swappy-1.0.0-1.fc31.src.rpm

Description: 

A Wayland native snapshot and editor tool, inspired by Snappy on macOS. Works
great with grim, slurp and sway. But can easily work with other screen copy
tools that can output a final PNG image to stdout

Fedora Account System Username: wef


-- 
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