[Bug 1840714] Review Request: golang-github-reconquest-barely - Status bar to pretty display of Golang program's progress
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840714 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-280fb6e38f 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-2020-280fb6e38f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-280fb6e38f 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 1869907] New: Review Request: spirv-llvm-translator - LLVM/SPIRV translator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869907 Bug ID: 1869907 Summary: Review Request: spirv-llvm-translator - LLVM/SPIRV translator Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: airl...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~airlied/spirv-llvm-translator/spirv-llvm-translator.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~airlied/spirv-llvm-translator/spirv-llvm-translator-10.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: LLVM to SPIRV IR translator Fedora Account System Username: airlied -- 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 1840714] Review Request: golang-github-reconquest-barely - Status bar to pretty display of Golang program's progress
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840714 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f4697d1e27 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-f4697d1e27 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f4697d1e27 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 1862306] Review Request: easyrpg-player - Game interpreter for RPG Maker 2000/2003 and EasyRPG games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862306 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e208cf4e22 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e208cf4e22 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862306] Review Request: easyrpg-player - Game interpreter for RPG Maker 2000/2003 and EasyRPG games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862306 Bug 1862306 depends on bug 1862305, which changed state. Bug 1862305 Summary: Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 1862306] Review Request: easyrpg-player - Game interpreter for RPG Maker 2000/2003 and EasyRPG games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862306 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-19 00:51:39 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d6ea20d3da has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862305] Review Request: liblcf - Library for handling RPG Maker 2000/2003 game data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-19 00:51:37 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d6ea20d3da has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
needinfo canceled: [Bug 1573502] Review Request: nodejs-mississippi - A collection of useful streams
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Package Review has canceled Package Review 's request for Jared Smith 's needinfo: Bug 1573502: Review Request: nodejs-mississippi - A collection of useful streams https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573502 --- Comment #5 from Package Review --- This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it. ___ 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 1868290] Review Request: f33-backgrounds - Fedora 33 default desktop background
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868290 Adam Williamson changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1869892 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869892 [Bug 1869892] Release-blocking Fedora 33 images have Fedora 32 backgrounds -- 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 1821746] Review Request: golang-github-gobwas-ws - Tiny WebSocket library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821746 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- Are you going to finish importing this? It's needed for chromedp. -- 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 1821419] Review Request: golang-github-chromedp-cdproto - Generated commands, types, and events for the Chrome DevTools Protocol domains
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821419 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1866183 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1866183 [Bug 1866183] tinygo-0.14.0 is available -- 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 1822142] Review Request: golang-github-chromedp - Drive browsers supporting the Chrome DevTools Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822142 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1866183 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1866183 [Bug 1866183] tinygo-0.14.0 is available -- 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 1868017] Review Request: jaxb-fi - Implementation of the Fast Infoset Standard for Binary XML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868017 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||jaxb-fi-1.2.18-1.fc33 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-08-18 21:25:10 --- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini --- Built for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1594976 And for fedora 33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1594977 -- 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 1868848] Review Request: fcitx5-qt - Qt library and IM module for fcitx5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868848
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
> Name: fcitx5-qt
> Version:0
> Release:0.2%{?dist}
> Summary:Qt library and IM module for fcitx5
> License:LGPLv2+
licensecheck picked up also the BSD license:
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/LICENSES/BSD-3-Clause.txt:
BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License
While this is only a license file, the fcitx5-qt project has this in its README
on GitLab (https://gitlab.com/fcitx/fcitx5-qt):
Fcitx5Qt{4,5}DBusAddons Library and Input context plugin are released under
BSD. Fcitx5QtWidgetsAddons is released under LGPL2.1+.
The files in question:
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt4/dbusaddons/CMakeLists.txt:
*No copyright* UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt4/dbusaddons/Fcitx5Qt4DBusAddonsConfig.cmake.in:
*No copyright* UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt4/dbusaddons/fcitxqtdbustypes.cpp:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt4/dbusaddons/fcitxqtdbustypes.h:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt4/dbusaddons/fcitxqtinputcontextproxy.cpp:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt4/dbusaddons/fcitxqtinputcontextproxy.h:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt4/dbusaddons/fcitxqtinputcontextproxy_p.h:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt4/dbusaddons/fcitxqtinputcontextproxyimpl.cpp:
GENERATED FILE
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt4/dbusaddons/fcitxqtinputcontextproxyimpl.h:
GENERATED FILE
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt4/dbusaddons/fcitxqtinputmethodproxy.cpp:
GENERATED FILE
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt4/dbusaddons/fcitxqtinputmethodproxy.h:
GENERATED FILE
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt4/dbusaddons/fcitxqtwatcher.cpp:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt4/dbusaddons/fcitxqtwatcher.h:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt4/dbusaddons/fcitxqtwatcher_p.h:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt4/dbusaddons/gen_dbus.sh:
*No copyright* UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/CMakeLists.txt:
*No copyright* UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/Fcitx5Qt5DBusAddonsConfig.cmake.in:
*No copyright* UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/fcitxqtcontrollerproxy.cpp:
GENERATED FILE
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/fcitxqtcontrollerproxy.h:
GENERATED FILE
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/fcitxqtdbustypes.cpp:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/fcitxqtdbustypes.h:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/fcitxqtinputcontextproxy.cpp:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/fcitxqtinputcontextproxy.h:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/fcitxqtinputcontextproxy_p.h:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/fcitxqtinputcontextproxyimpl.cpp:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/fcitxqtinputcontextproxyimpl.h:
GENERATED FILE
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/fcitxqtinputmethodproxy.cpp:
GENERATED FILE
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/fcitxqtinputmethodproxy.h:
GENERATED FILE
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/fcitxqtwatcher.cpp:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/fcitxqtwatcher.h:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/fcitxqtwatcher_p.h:
UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/gen_dbus.sh:
*No copyright* UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/interfaces/org.fcitx.Fcitx.Controller1.xml:
*No copyright* UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/interfaces/org.fcitx.Fcitx.InputContext1.xml:
*No copyright* UNKNOWN
fcitx5-qt-3ddd34aa720cb4efd451a686c389d579b1914425/qt5/dbusaddons/interfaces/org.fcitx.Fcitx.InputMethod1.xml:
*No copyright* UNKNOWN
The "License" field should contain "LGPLv2+ and BSD" and a comment above
mentioning that the Fcitx5Qt{4,5}DBusAddons addons are BSD-licensed.
Notable lines from rpmlint:
> fcitx5-qt.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.2.20200811git3ddd34a
> ['0-0.2.20200812git3ddd34a.fc32', '0-0.2.20200812git3ddd34a']
> fcitx5-qt.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: 0001-use-usr-libexec-instead.patch
The full review matrix:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items
[Bug 1844308] Review Request: python-uvicorn - The lightning-fast ASGI server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844308 Carl George 鸞 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-uvicorn-0.11.8-1.fc3 ||4 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-08-18 20:13:19 --- Comment #11 from Carl George 鸞 --- f33: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-445a8a03d5 f34: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-80668f7f4a -- 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 1868848] Review Request: fcitx5-qt - Qt library and IM module for fcitx5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868848 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868845] Review Request: xcb-imdkit - Input method development support for xcb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868845 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Andy Mender --- > You've probably run into the glibc + systemd-nspawn bug that has been > discussed on fedora-devel-list recently. Try adding "--isolation=simple" to > the mock arguments. Indeed, I have. This did the trick, thanks! 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 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Andy Mender --- All clear, 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 1840714] Review Request: golang-github-reconquest-barely - Status bar to pretty display of Golang program's progress
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840714 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-280fb6e38f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-280fb6e38f -- 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844308 --- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-uvicorn -- 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844308 --- Comment #9 from Carl George 鸞 --- > - The latest upstream release is 0.11.8 Update to the latest version, here it is if you'd like to take one last look. The only change from the last spec file is the version number and changelog entry. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01616224-python-uvicorn/python-uvicorn.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01616224-python-uvicorn/python-uvicorn-0.11.8-1.fc34.src.rpm > - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. > Note: python3-pytest4 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/deprecating-packages/ I'm not sure where this is coming from. The package has a build requirement of pytest, not pytest4, and the latest build pulled in python3-pytest-6.0.1-1.fc33 with passing tests. Maybe this was a mixup around the time of the pytest4 package being introduced. -- 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844308
Fabian Affolter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol |
|ter.ch) |
--- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter ---
- The latest upstream release is 0.11.8
Package APPROVED
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
Note: python3-pytest4 is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/deprecating-packages/
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License". 74 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1844308-python-
uvicorn/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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]:
[Bug 1868991] Review Request: jakarta-el - Jakarta Expression Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868991
--- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini ---
(In reply to Mat Booth from comment #1)
> Issues:
>
> 1)
>
> Missing obsoletes/provides -- package does not obsolete/provide
> glassfish-el-api, even though it ships both api and impl jars. The package
> you are renaming split the impl and api into separate sub-packages, was the
> consolidation into a single binary RPM here intentional?
No, that was not intentional. I missed it when creating a clean package from
scratch.
I'll build with `%mvn_build -s` and add an -api subpackage.
> 2)
>
> Incorrect aliases -- it looks like you added "org.glassfish:javax.el" as an
> alias for the API jar, when it should be an alias for the impl jar. For
> example, comparing the old glassfish-el{,-api} packages:
>
> $ xmvn-resolve org.glassfish:javax.el
> /usr/share/java/glassfish-el.jar
> $ xmvn-resolve org.glassfish:javax.el-api
> /usr/share/java/glassfish-el-api.jar
>
> With your new package:
>
> # xmvn-resolve org.glassfish:javax.el
> /usr/share/java/jakarta-el/jakarta.el-api.jar
> # xmvn-resolve org.glassfish:javax.el-api
> ERROR: Unable to resolve artifact org.glassfish:javax.el-api:jar:SYSTEM
>
> So the "org.glassfish:javax.el" alias has different, incompatible behaviour.
Good catch. I'll re-check the artifact coordinates in glassfish-el and
glassfish-el-api and map them to the new artifact coordinates (correctly this
time, I hope).
> I assume once again the aliases you omitted are not required by anything
> currently in Fedora :-)
Yes. Any aliases I dropped were not depended on by anything.
But I will check that again, too, since I clearly was tired when I made this
package :-)
Thanks for the first review, I'll update files and come back here once I' ve
fixed the issues.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1869719] Review Request: rubygem-image_processing - High-level wrapper for processing images for the web with ImageMagick or libvips
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869719
--- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Prokop ---
Looks fine, I just have 2 nits:
There is some documentation in `doc` directory in the image_processing project
that I think should be included since it looks like it has more content than
the generated docs.
Maybe transform it into some kind of manpage or include it in the *-doc
subpackage?
And just a triviality:
This `%{gem_instdir}/image_processing.gemspec` could use a macro so it becomes
`%{gem_instdir}/%{gem_name}.gemspec`.
--
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 1869719] Review Request: rubygem-image_processing - High-level wrapper for processing images for the web with ImageMagick or libvips
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869719 Jaroslav Prokop changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jar.pro...@volny.cz Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jar.pro...@volny.cz Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Prokop --- I'll take this for a review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1869719] New: Review Request: rubygem-image_processing - High-level wrapper for processing images for the web with ImageMagick or libvips
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869719 Bug ID: 1869719 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-image_processing - High-level wrapper for processing images for the web with ImageMagick or libvips Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pval...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pvalena/rubygems/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01615818-rubygem-image_processing/rubygem-image_processing.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pvalena/rubygems/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01615818-rubygem-image_processing/rubygem-image_processing-1.11.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: High-level wrapper for processing images for the web with ImageMagick or libvips. Fedora Account System Username: pvalena Builds & Tests run: https://gist.github.com/pvalena/fb84484168ee271f683a988b9aa636f1 -- 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 1868991] Review Request: jakarta-el - Jakarta Expression Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868991
--- Comment #1 from Mat Booth ---
Issues:
1)
Missing obsoletes/provides -- package does not obsolete/provide
glassfish-el-api, even though it ships both api and impl jars. The package you
are renaming split the impl and api into separate sub-packages, was the
consolidation into a single binary RPM here intentional?
2)
Incorrect aliases -- it looks like you added "org.glassfish:javax.el" as an
alias for the API jar, when it should be an alias for the impl jar. For
example, comparing the old glassfish-el{,-api} packages:
$ xmvn-resolve org.glassfish:javax.el
/usr/share/java/glassfish-el.jar
$ xmvn-resolve org.glassfish:javax.el-api
/usr/share/java/glassfish-el-api.jar
With your new package:
# xmvn-resolve org.glassfish:javax.el
/usr/share/java/jakarta-el/jakarta.el-api.jar
# xmvn-resolve org.glassfish:javax.el-api
ERROR: Unable to resolve artifact org.glassfish:javax.el-api:jar:SYSTEM
So the "org.glassfish:javax.el" alias has different, incompatible behaviour.
I assume once again the aliases you omitted are not required by anything
currently in Fedora :-)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Eclipse Public License
2.0", "Eclipse Public License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 18 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mbooth/fedora/1868991-jakarta-el/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see
[Bug 1820915] Review Request: bettercap - Tool for 802.11, BLE/Ethernet reconnaissance and MITM attacks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820915 --- Comment #11 from Igor Raits --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bettercap -- 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 1868991] Review Request: jakarta-el - Jakarta Expression Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868991 Mat Booth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mat.bo...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mat.bo...@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868017] Review Request: jaxb-fi - Implementation of the Fast Infoset Standard for Binary XML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868017 --- Comment #5 from Igor Raits --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jaxb-fi -- 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 1820915] Review Request: bettercap - Tool for 802.11, BLE/Ethernet reconnaissance and MITM attacks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820915 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol | |ter.ch) | --- Comment #10 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868017] Review Request: jaxb-fi - Implementation of the Fast Infoset Standard for Binary XML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868017 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks! I have corrected the License tag to ASL 2.0 and BSD and ASL 1.1. -- 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 1869270] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse - Subversion Eclipse plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869270 Mat Booth changed: What|Removed |Added Link ID||Fedora Pagure ||releng/issue/9692 -- 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 1869270] Review Request: eclipse-subclipse - Subversion Eclipse plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869270
--- Comment #5 from Mat Booth ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #4)
> > Huh, git archeaology reveals that more than 10 years ago this package used
> > to ship the (CC-BY licensed) Subversion Book as documentation... The
> > sub-package containing the book was obsoleted more than a decade ago and
> > the license tag was never corrected. Amazing what a fresh pair of eyes can
> > do for an old package...
>
> I do my best to unearth such tidbits :-)
>
>
> Small nit-picks:
>
> - JavaHL is not included in the latest version (1.11.1 vs. 1.14.0)
> - Fix pom xml "4.2.0 modelVersion" declarations no longer necessary:
>
> # Fix pom xml declarations
> # PR sent upstream here: https://github.com/subclipse/subclipse/pull/138
> sed -i -e 's/4\.2\.0/4.0.0/g' {.,features,bundles}/pom.xml
>
> This PR has been merged, and the Change is Live in the packaged version :-)
The PR was merged just a few hours ago (I only sent it yesterday) and is not
yet available in any tagged release. The packaged version is subclipse 4.3.0
that was tagged in 2019.
>
> - no Javadocs built (are they not useful? hard to build? broken? not
> important, but I thought I'd note their absence)
>
No, we don't build separate javadoc subpackages for Eclipse plug-ins. In
general they are not libraries against which users should build applications,
and in the cases they are, Eclipse plug-ins tend to ship their javadocs as an
additional plug-in bundle that extends Eclipse's built-in help system. So we
trust the upstream project to ship documentation bundles as necessary.
>
> 1) You can put the JavaHL update on your TODO list, and remove the no longer
> necessary "4.2.0 pom modelVersion" fixes before importing the package.
>
I will investigate the javahl update. I don't recall if this just a case of "it
was the latest version at the time" or if this specific version was chosen
because it was a known-good version and other versions had problems (svnkit
fell into this latter category).
>
> 2) ./subclipse-4.3.0/features/feature.subclipse/licenses/Ganymed.txt: Expat
> License BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License
> Is this the license file for the Ganymed / trilead / jenkins SSH2
> implementation? It's not bundled in this package, so this can be ignored.
> Right?
>
That's right. The convention is to ship license texts for all the third-party
bundles they ship in their upstream update site for their plug-ins to work.
Since RPM installs directly and third-party bundles are packaged separately,
this can be ignored.
>
> Other than that:
>
> - latest version packaged (4.3.0) - JavaHL update pending?
> - package builds and installs successfully on fedora rawhide
> - license correct and break-down documented, texts shipped with %license
> - appdata for plugin installed and validated
> - jar files shipped with sources are removed in %prep
> - %build and %install script look "interesting" but good otherwise
> - correct ExcludeArch tag for Eclipse packages
> - in general, conforms to Packaging Guidelines
>
> Package APPROVED.
Thanks for the review!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868017] Review Request: jaxb-fi - Implementation of the Fast Infoset Standard for Binary XML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868017
--- Comment #3 from Mat Booth ---
Thanks! I was able to do the review now.
Issues:
1)
Please correct the license tag, it should be ASL 2.0 and BSD as indicated in
the root pom.xml.
2)
Fastinfoset bundles a class from xerxes-j2 that is ASL 1.1 licensed:
code/fastinfoset/src/main/java/com/sun/xml/fastinfoset/org/apache/xerces/util/XMLChar.java
So probably need to alter the license tag to accommodate for that and document
it at least in a comment.
Non-issues:
1)
Rpmlint reporting a transient failure to resolve github.com, I can ignore this
:-)
2)
Rpmlint reporting javadoc obsolete not provided. This can be ignored, the
javadoc package is intentionally not being generated.
Assuming you clarify the licensing situation above, then this package is
APPROVED.
Full review tool output follows below:
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 1.1". 89 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mbooth/fedora/1868017-jaxb-fi/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: 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.
[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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[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.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if
[Bug 1868017] Review Request: jaxb-fi - Implementation of the Fast Infoset Standard for Binary XML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868017 Mat Booth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1867267] Review Request: wlr-sunclock - Show the sun's shadows on earth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867267 Bob Hepple changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(bob.hepple@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #3 from Bob Hepple --- Thanks Carson, Here's a rebuild: SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/wlr-sunclock/fedora-31-x86_64/01614515-wlr-sunclock/wlr-sunclock.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/wlr-sunclock/fedora-31-x86_64/01614515-wlr-sunclock/wlr-sunclock-0.1.1-2.fc31.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
