[Bug 1872781] Review Request: lxqt-archiver - A simple & lightweight desktop-agnostic Qt file archiver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872781 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-451a75cdaf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-451a75cdaf -- 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 1872781] Review Request: lxqt-archiver - A simple & lightweight desktop-agnostic Qt file archiver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872781 Zamir SUN changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-09-05 05:41:55 --- Comment #6 from Zamir SUN --- Package built in Fedora 33 and Rawhide. Closing. -- 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 1575942] Review Request: python-crcmod - Python module for generating objects that compute CRC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575942 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com | |) | --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Refreshed. -- 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 1876006] New: Review Request: metrics2mqtt - Publish system performance metrics to a MQTT broker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876006 Bug ID: 1876006 Summary: Review Request: metrics2mqtt - Publish system performance metrics to a MQTT broker 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/metrics2mqtt.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/metrics2mqtt-0.1.18-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/jamiebegin/metrics2mqtt Description: metrics2mqtt is a lightweight wrapper around psutil that publishes CPU utilization, free memory, and other system-level stats to a MQTT broker. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50775453 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint metrics2mqtt-0.1.18-1.fc32.src.rpm metrics2mqtt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US psutil -> pistil 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint *.rpm metrics2mqtt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US psutil -> pistil metrics2mqtt.noarch: W: no-documentation metrics2mqtt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary metrics2mqtt python3-metrics2mqtt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US psutil -> pistil 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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 1875996] Review Request: python-typish - Python library for additional control over types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875996 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1875997 Depends On||1875994 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875994 [Bug 1875994] Review Request: python-nptyping - Type hints for Numpy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875997 [Bug 1875997] Review Request: python-jsons - Python library for (de)serializing objects to/from JSON -- 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 1875994] Review Request: python-nptyping - Type hints for Numpy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875994 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1875996 Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-nptyping.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-nptyping-1.3.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/ramonhagenaars/nptyping Description: Type hints for Numpy. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50773878 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-nptyping-1.3.0-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-nptyping-1.3.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875996 [Bug 1875996] Review Request: python-typish - Python library for additional control over types -- 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 1875997] Review Request: python-jsons - Python library for (de)serializing objects to/from JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875997 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1875996 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875996 [Bug 1875996] Review Request: python-typish - Python library for additional control over types -- 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 1875997] New: Review Request: python-jsons - Python library for (de)serializing objects to/from JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875997 Bug ID: 1875997 Summary: Review Request: python-jsons - Python library for (de)serializing objects to/from JSON 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-jsons.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-jsons-1.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/ramonhagenaars/jsons Description: Jsons is a library that allows you to serialize your plain old Python objects to readable json (dicts or strings) and deserialize them back. No magic, no special types, no polluting your objects. Koji scratch build: fails due to missing dependency rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-jsons-1.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm python-jsons.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) de -> DE, ed, d python-jsons.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son, soon python-jsons.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dicts -> ducts, dicta, dict python-jsons.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deserialize -> serialize, desalinize 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-jsons-1.2.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python3-jsons.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) de -> DE, ed, d python3-jsons.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son, soon python3-jsons.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dicts -> ducts, dicta, dict python3-jsons.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deserialize -> serialize, desalinize 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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 1875996] New: Review Request: python-typish - Python library for additional control over types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875996 Bug ID: 1875996 Summary: Review Request: python-typish - Python library for additional control over types 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-typish.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-typish-1.7.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/ramonhagenaars/typish Description: Suport for functions to allow thorough checks on types. Including instance checks considering generics and typesafe duck-typing. Koji scratch build: fails due to missing dependency rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-typish-1.7.0-1.fc32.src.rpm python-typish.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Suport -> Sport, Support, Stupor python-typish.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US typesafe -> type safe, type-safe, safety 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-typish-1.7.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python3-typish.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Suport -> Sport, Support, Stupor python3-typish.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US typesafe -> type safe, type-safe, safety 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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 1875994] New: Review Request: python-nptyping - Type hints for Numpy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875994 Bug ID: 1875994 Summary: Review Request: python-nptyping - Type hints for Numpy 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 -- 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 1875427] Review Request: python-coronavirus - Python client for getting Corona virus info
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875427 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f242305cd6 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-f242305cd6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f242305cd6 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 1875982] New: Review Request: python-regenmaschine - Python API for RainMachine sprinkler controllers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875982 Bug ID: 1875982 Summary: Review Request: python-regenmaschine - Python API for RainMachine sprinkler controllers 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-regenmaschine.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-regenmaschine-2.1.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/bachya/regenmaschine Description: regenmaschine (German for "rain machine") is a simple Python library for interacting with RainMachine smart sprinkler controllers. It gives developers an easy API to manage their controllers over their local LAN or remotely via the RainMachine cloud. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50772449 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-regenmaschine-2.1.0-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-regenmaschine-2.1.0-1.fc32.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 1871265] Review Request: fuse-pingfs - store data in ICMP ping packets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871265 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-6171937ff0 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-6171937ff0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6171937ff0 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 1875264] Review Request: python-compal - Compal CH7465LG/Ziggo Connect Box client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875264 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-fc623b73ba has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-fc623b73ba \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fc623b73ba 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 1875315] Review Request: libudfread - UDF reader library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875315 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-223afefc42 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-223afefc42` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-223afefc42 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 1875635] Review Request: cage - A Wayland kiosk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875635 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-25bbef3399 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-25bbef3399 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-25bbef3399 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 1825587] Review Request: python-aiosmb - Asynchronous SMB protocol implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825587 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-06060ac3b9 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-06060ac3b9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-06060ac3b9 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 1875480] Review Request: python-aioasuswrt - Python API wrapper for Asuswrt devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875480 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-1f7854039b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-1f7854039b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1f7854039b 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 1875405] Review Request: python-discord - Python wrapper for the Discord API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875405 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-af5ca9d561 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-af5ca9d561 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-af5ca9d561 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 1875273] Review Request: golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj-2 - Gitobj reads and writes Git objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875273 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7c997fa793 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-7c997fa793` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7c997fa793 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 1869043] Review Request: fuse-btfs - bittorrent filesystem with fuse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869043 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d16c951280 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-d16c951280 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d16c951280 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 1875972] New: Review Request: bygfoot - Football management game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875972 Bug ID: 1875972 Summary: Review Request: bygfoot - Football management game Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tstel...@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/tstellar/bygfoot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01649379-bygfoot/bygfoot.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tstellar/bygfoot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01649379-bygfoot/bygfoot-2.3.2-22.fc34.src.rpm Description: Bygfoot is a small and simple graphical football (a.k.a. soccer) manager game featuring many international leagues and cups. You manage a team from one such league: you form the team, buy and sell players, get promoted or relegated and of course try to be successful. Fedora Account System Username: tstellar This is currently a retired package that needs to be re-reviewed since it was retired for more than 8 weeks. -- 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 1860781] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-core - core package for netlink rust binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860781 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-netlink-packet-core -- 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 1871265] Review Request: fuse-pingfs - store data in ICMP ping packets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871265 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-6171937ff0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6171937ff0 -- 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 1875635] Review Request: cage - A Wayland kiosk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875635 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-25bbef3399 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-25bbef3399 -- 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 1875328] Review Request: python-aiocurrencylayer - Python wrapper for interacting with the currencylayer API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875328 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-aiocurrencylayer -- 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 1575942] Review Request: python-crcmod - Python module for generating objects that compute CRC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575942 Ivan Afonichev changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? ||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) --- Comment #5 from Ivan Afonichev --- Sorry was not aware of new way of SCM request. Now it is too late, please reset review flag if possible: [van@iafonichev-nb python-crcmod-fedora]$ fedpkg request-repo python-crcmod 1575942 Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago -- 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 1875937] Review Request: python-aioguardian - Python library for Elexa Guardian devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875937 --- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter --- %changelog * Fri Sep 04 2020 Fabian Affolter - 1.0.2-1 - LICENSE file was added by upstream Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-aioguardian.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-aioguardian-1.0.2-1.fc32.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 1875937] New: Review Request: python-aioguardian - Python library for Elexa Guardian devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875937 Bug ID: 1875937 Summary: Review Request: python-aioguardian - Python library for Elexa Guardian devices 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-aioguardian.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-aioguardian-1.0.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/bachya/aioguardian Description: A Python library for Elexa Guardian devices (water valves and sensors). Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50766010 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-aioguardian-1.0.1-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-aioguardian-1.0.1-1.fc32.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 1875277] Review Request: python-shelly - Library for Shelly smart home devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875277 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-shelly -- 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 1875930] New: Review Request: python-asyncio-dgram - Higher level Datagram support for Asyncio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875930 Bug ID: 1875930 Summary: Review Request: python-asyncio-dgram - Higher level Datagram support for Asyncio 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 -- 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 1871265] Review Request: fuse-pingfs - store data in ICMP ping packets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871265 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fuse-pingfs -- 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 1860792] Review Request: rust-rtnetlink - The rtnetlink interface for rust netlink binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860792 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-rtnetlink -- 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 1875635] Review Request: cage - A Wayland kiosk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875635 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cage -- 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 1860787] Review Request: rust-netlink-proto - Netlink protocol constants for rust netlink binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860787 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-netlink-proto -- 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 1860785] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-utils - Utils of rust netlink binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860785 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-netlink-packet-utils -- 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 1860790] Review Request: rust-netlink-sys - The system tools(sockets, aync, etc) for rust binding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860790 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-netlink-sys -- 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 1860784] Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-route - rust binding for netlink route protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860784 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-netlink-packet-route -- 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 1854729] Review Request: nispor - API for network state query written in rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854729 --- Comment #22 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nispor -- 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 1875370] Review Request: hadolint - Dockerfile linter, validate inline bash
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875370 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e48e09e90d 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-e48e09e90d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e48e09e90d 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 1869043] Review Request: fuse-btfs - bittorrent filesystem with fuse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869043 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-6f4066e5c5 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-2020-6f4066e5c5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6f4066e5c5 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 1875427] Review Request: python-coronavirus - Python client for getting Corona virus info
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875427 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7ad8d5427b 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-2020-7ad8d5427b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7ad8d5427b 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 1875906] New: Review Request: python-pyiqvia - Python API for IQVIA data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875906 Bug ID: 1875906 Summary: Review Request: python-pyiqvia - Python API for IQVIA data 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-iqvia.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-iqvia-0.3.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/bachya/pyiqvia Description: A Python API for IQVIA data. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50764416 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-iqvia-0.3.0-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-iqvia-0.3.0-1.fc32.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 1875868] Review Request: python-aioflo - Python library for Flo by Moen Smart Water Detectors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875868
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 ---
Package approved. Consider using the GitHub release to run the tests.
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", "*No copyright* Expat License", "Unknown or
generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-aioflo/review-
python-aioflo/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 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
[Bug 1875865] Review Request: python-aionotion - Python library for Notion Home Monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875865
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 ---
Consider using the pyproject-rpm-macros with the pyproject.toml
See example https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros
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", "*No copyright* Expat License", "Unknown or
generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-aionotion/review-
python-aionotion/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 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]:
[Bug 1875315] Review Request: libudfread - UDF reader library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875315 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-930f4b4e58 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-930f4b4e58 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 1875315] Review Request: libudfread - UDF reader library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875315 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-20473d867a 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 upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-20473d867a` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-20473d867a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-201dd37f38 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-201dd37f38 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 1873912] Review Request: fcitx5-kkc - Libkkc input method support for Fcitx5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873912 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d6ae13f8bf 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-d6ae13f8bf \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d6ae13f8bf 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 1875273] Review Request: golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj-2 - Gitobj reads and writes Git objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875273 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-18b488a0e1 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 upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-18b488a0e1` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-18b488a0e1 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 1875367] Review Request: ghc-language-docker - Dockerfile parser, pretty-printer and embedded DSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875367 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e48e09e90d 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-e48e09e90d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e48e09e90d 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 1875315] Review Request: libudfread - UDF reader library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875315 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-9e74e6f5ae 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 upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-9e74e6f5ae` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9e74e6f5ae 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 1875273] Review Request: golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj-2 - Gitobj reads and writes Git objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875273 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-1bff52ea82 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 upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-1bff52ea82` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1bff52ea82 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 1875868] New: Review Request: python-aioflo - Python library for Flo by Moen Smart Water Detectors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875868 Bug ID: 1875868 Summary: Review Request: python-aioflo - Python library for Flo by Moen Smart Water Detectors 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-aioflo.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-aioflo-0.4.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/bachya/aioflo Description: An asyncio-friendly Python library for Flo Smart Water Detectors. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50761824 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-aioflo-0.4.1-1.fc32.src.rpm python-aioflo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asyncio -> syncopation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-aioflo-0.4.1-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python3-aioflo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asyncio -> syncopation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 1875865] Review Request: python-aionotion - Python library for Notion Home Monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875865 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1269538 (IoT) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-aionotion.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-aionotion-2.0.3-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/bachya/aionotion Description: A asyncio-friendly library for Notion Home Monitoring devices. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50761451 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-aionotion-2.0.3-1.fc32.src.rpm python-aionotion.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asyncio -> syncopation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-aionotion-2.0.3-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python3-aionotion.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asyncio -> syncopation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538 [Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora -- 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 1875865] New: Review Request: python-aionotion - Python library for Notion Home Monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875865 Bug ID: 1875865 Summary: Review Request: python-aionotion - Python library for Notion Home Monitoring 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 -- 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 1875849] Review Request: python-voluptuous-serialize - Convert voluptuous schemas to dictionaries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875849
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 ---
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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated". 13
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-voluptuous-serialize/review-python-
voluptuous-serialize/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 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 with gpgverify first in %prep
[Bug 1875860] Review Request: python-ciso8601 - Fast ISO8601 date time parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875860 Mohamed El Morabity changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Mohamed El Morabity --- The package looks quite good at first sight. Why did you disable debug packages? -- 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 1875860] Review Request: python-ciso8601 - Fast ISO8601 date time parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875860 Mohamed El Morabity changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pikachu.2...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1875860] New: Review Request: python-ciso8601 - Fast ISO8601 date time parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875860 Bug ID: 1875860 Summary: Review Request: python-ciso8601 - Fast ISO8601 date time parser 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-ciso8601.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-ciso8601-2.1.3-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/closeio/ciso8601 Description: ciso8601 converts ISO 8601 or RFC 3339 date time strings into Python datetime objects. Since it's written as a C module, it is much faster than other Python libraries. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50760842 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-ciso8601-2.1.3-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-ciso8601-2.1.3-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm python3-ciso8601.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/ciso8601.cpython-38-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-ciso8601.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/ciso8601/py.typed 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 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 1875834] Review Request: python-brother - Python wrapper for getting data from Brother printers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875834
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 ---
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]: 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: "*No copyright* Apache License", "Unknown or generated". 4
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-brother/review-python-
brother/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]: 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 with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes
[Bug 1875849] New: Review Request: python-voluptuous-serialize - Convert voluptuous schemas to dictionaries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875849 Bug ID: 1875849 Summary: Review Request: python-voluptuous-serialize - Convert voluptuous schemas to dictionaries 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-voluptuous-serialize.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-voluptuous-serialize-2.4.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: http://github.com/balloob/voluptuous-serialize Description: Convert Voluptuous schemas to dictionaries so they can be serialized. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50758865 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-voluptuous-serialize-2.4.0-1.fc32.src.rpm python-voluptuous-serialize.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes python-voluptuous-serialize.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-voluptuous-serialize-2.4.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python3-voluptuous-serialize.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes python3-voluptuous-serialize.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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 1697648] Review Request: cage - Wayland kiosk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697648 Lyes Saadi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2020-09-04 14:07:22 --- Comment #3 from Lyes Saadi --- Hi! Why did you give up on this package? *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1875635 *** -- 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 1875635] Review Request: cage - A Wayland kiosk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875635 Lyes Saadi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||igor.ra...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Lyes Saadi --- *** Bug 1697648 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 1875635] Review Request: cage - A Wayland kiosk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875635 Lyes Saadi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |POST Resolution|DUPLICATE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #4 from Lyes Saadi --- Wait... I marked the wrong bug as a duplicate ^^' ! -- 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 1875635] Review Request: cage - A Wayland kiosk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875635 Lyes Saadi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2020-09-04 14:03:51 --- Comment #3 from Lyes Saadi --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1697648 *** -- 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 1697648] Review Request: cage - Wayland kiosk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697648 Lyes Saadi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@lyes.eu --- Comment #2 from Lyes Saadi --- *** Bug 1875635 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 1873912] Review Request: fcitx5-kkc - Libkkc input method support for Fcitx5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873912 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d6ae13f8bf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d6ae13f8bf -- 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 1873912] Review Request: fcitx5-kkc - Libkkc input method support for Fcitx5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873912 Qiyu Yan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-09-04 13:55:49 --- Comment #7 from Qiyu Yan --- Built in rawhide and f32 -- 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 1875635] Review Request: cage - A Wayland kiosk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875635 --- Comment #2 from Lyes Saadi --- > - Mark 1697648 as a Duplicate of this bug Have you any idea on why did Igor Raits give up on his accepted 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 1875834] New: Review Request: python-brother - Python wrapper for getting data from Brother printers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875834 Bug ID: 1875834 Summary: Review Request: python-brother - Python wrapper for getting data from Brother printers 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-brother.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-brother-0.1.15-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/bieniu/brother Description: Python wrapper for getting data from Brother laser and inkjet printers via SNMP. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50757809 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-brother-0.1.15-1.fc32.src.rpm python-brother.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inkjet -> ink jet, ink-jet, trinket 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-brother-0.1.15-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python3-brother.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inkjet -> ink jet, ink-jet, trinket 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 1875635] Review Request: cage - A Wayland kiosk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875635
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 ---
- Mark 1697648 as a Duplicate of this bug
- Glob the man page extension as compression may change in the future:
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.*
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issues before import.
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:
[-]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 27 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/cage/review-cage/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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
[Bug 1875808] Review Request: python-hikvision - Python interface to interact with a Hikvision camera
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875808
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 ---
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.
[-]: 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: "*No copyright* Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "Expat
License". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-hikvision/review-
python-hikvision/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.
[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]: 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 0 files.
[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).
[?]: 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
[Bug 1875795] Review Request: python-edimax - Interface with Edimax Smart Plugs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875795
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 ---
- Please ask upstream to include a license files in the Pypi package.
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.
[-]: 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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
edimax/review-python-edimax/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]: 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 with gpgverify first in %prep
[Bug 1875782] Review Request: python-databay - Python interface for scheduled data transfer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875782
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
With tests disabled:
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", "Apache License 2.0". 136 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-databay/review-python-
databay/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 with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec
[Bug 1875782] Review Request: python-databay - Python interface for scheduled data transfer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875782 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Filed https://github.com/Voyz/databay/issues/9 -- 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 1875782] Review Request: python-databay - Python interface for scheduled data transfer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875782 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Problem: DEBUG util.py:621: Error: DEBUG util.py:621: Problem: cannot install the best candidate for the job DEBUG util.py:621:- nothing provides python(abi) = 3.8 needed by python3-asynctest-0.13.0-4.fc32.noarch python-asynctest is FTBFS since the introduction of Python 3.9 and upstream doesn't seem very alive. AsyncMock is proposed as a replacement. https://github.com/Martiusweb/asynctest/issues/132 Try to convince your upstream to port to AsyncMock which is available since Python 3.8. -- 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 1875765] Review Request: python-mongomock - Module for testing MongoDB-dependent code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875765
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 ---
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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License". 46 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-mongomock/review-
python-mongomock/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 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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 with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
[Bug 1875766] Review Request: python-sentinels - Various objects to denote special meanings in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875766
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: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-sentinels/review-
python-sentinels/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
[Bug 1875744] Review Request: python-schedule - Job scheduling for humans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875744
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 ---
- Consider adding HISTORY.rst to docs
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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-schedule/review-
python-schedule/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 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
[Bug 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199 --- Comment #5 from Bastien Nocera --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #4) > > I've added a desktop-file-validate in %check, is that enough? > > Yup, that should be enough according to the packaging guidelines. > > > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help/C, > > /usr/share/gir-1.0, /usr/share/polkit-1/actions, > > /usr/share/accountsservice, /usr/share/help/id, > > /usr/share/polkit-1/rules.d, /usr/share/help/pt_BR, > > /usr/share/polkit-1, /usr/share/help/uk, /usr/share/dbus-1, > > /usr/share/help/pl, /usr/lib64/girepository-1.0 > > These directories still require proper ownership. Either you make the > subpackages which use them own them or add Requires lines for packages which > provide them. For instance, /usr/share/polkit-1 is provided by meson or > polkit, but I'd recommend polkit in this case. Check which directory is > provided by what with "dnf provides ". Will require: accountsservice-0.6.55-5 All the /usr/share/help/*/ directories should be owned by filesystem, because there's no way that gnome-user-docs will be able to own all the same dirs random packages could own, so it'll be filesystem's job to do that. I believe the rest is now fixed. > A couple of extra things picked up by rpmlint: > > malcontent-pam.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > malcontent-ui-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > malcontent-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > Since these are stand-alone subpackages, each needs its own %doc entry with > the README.md file. What does "stand-alone subpackages" actually mean? All those depend on packages from the same SRPM which contain the README, and if those are considered "stand-alone" despite having deps on other RPMs from the same source, what's considered "non stand-alone"? I haven't made any changes here. > > malcontent-ui-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C This package > > contains the pkg-config file and development headers for libmalcontent-ui. > > %description lines are 80 characters max. Either split it into multiple > lines or change it to something like "Contains the pkg-config file and > development headers for libmalcontent-ui." Done. Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50755715 -- 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 1875808] New: Review Request: python-hikvision - Python interface to interact with a Hikvision camera
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875808 Bug ID: 1875808 Summary: Review Request: python-hikvision - Python interface to interact with a Hikvision camera 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-hikvision.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-hikvision-1.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/fbradyirl/hikvision Description: This is a Python module providing a basic python interface to interact with a Hikvision IP Camera. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50755427 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-hikvision-1.2-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-hikvision-1.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python3-hikvision.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 1875726] Review Request: golang-github-openprinting-ipp-usb - HTTP reverse proxy, backed by IPP-over-USB connection to device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875726
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Please do not gzip the manpages yourself, the compression is handled by rpm
# for compressing man page
BuildRequires: gzip
[…]
%{_bindir}/gzip %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man8/ipp-usb.8.gz
- Please glob the man page extension as the compression may change in the
future:
%{_mandir}/man8/ipp-usb.8.*
- You install a systemd service, please add the required scriptlets:
BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros
[…]
%post
%systemd_post ipp-usb.service
%preun
%systemd_preun ipp-usb.service
%postun
%systemd_postun_with_restart ipp-usb.service
- You also install the library files (%gopkg/%gopkginstall/%gopkgfiles). If
this library is used by another project to build stuff, would they also need
pkgconfig(libusb-1.0) >= 1.0 and pkgconfig(avahi-client) >= 0.7 to compile?
If yes, please add a %godevelheader with those Requires:
%global godevelheader %{expand:
Requires: pkgconfig(avahi-client) >= 0.7
Requires: pkgconfig(libusb-1.0) >= 1.0
}
- Shouldn't this config file be marked as %config(noreplace)
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/ipp-usb/ipp-usb.conf
- Own %{_sysconfdir}/ipp-usb/
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/ipp-usb/
- Your summary is too long (over 80 characters). Consider switch it with the
the description which is too short. Don't repeat the package name in the
Summary.
- Summary of the issues detected by fedora-review:
Issues:
===
- systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in ipp-usb
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /etc/ipp-usb
Rpmlint
---
Checking: ipp-usb-0.9.13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
golang-github-openprinting-ipp-usb-devel-0.9.13-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
golang-github-openprinting-ipp-usb-debugsource-0.9.13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
golang-github-openprinting-ipp-usb-0.9.13-1.fc34.src.rpm
ipp-usb.x86_64: E: summary-too-long C Ipp-usb is an application implementing
IPP protocol for USB printers, which are capable of IPP-over-USB connection
ipp-usb.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Ipp-usb
ipp-usb.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
ipp-usb.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ipp-usb/ipp-usb.conf
golang-github-openprinting-ipp-usb-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long C Ipp-usb
is an application implementing IPP protocol for USB printers, which are capable
of IPP-over-USB connection
golang-github-openprinting-ipp-usb-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/OpenPrinting/ipp-usb/.goipath
golang-github-openprinting-ipp-usb-debugsource.x86_64: E:
description-line-too-long C This package provides debug sources for package
golang-github-openprinting-ipp-usb.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings.
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- 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 1875722] Review Request: python-metno - Library to communicate with the met.no API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875722
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 ---
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.
[-]: 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". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
metno/review-python-metno/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.
[ ]: 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]: 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:
[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).
[?]: 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
[Bug 1873373] Review Request: crash-gcore-command - Gcore extension module for the crash utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873373 --- Comment #2 from liji...@redhat.com --- Hi, Robert-André Mauchin Thank you for helping to review this. Based on our internal team's discussion(and on upstream), we would like to give up adding the crash extensions packages to the Fedora because no one uses them in the Fedora, currently, only Fujitsu engineers use them in RHEL. So, I will close this bug. Thanks for your help, Robert-André Mauchin. -- 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 1875795] New: Review Request: python-edimax - Interface with Edimax Smart Plugs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875795 Bug ID: 1875795 Summary: Review Request: python-edimax - Interface with Edimax Smart Plugs 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-edimax.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-edimax-0.2.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/andreipop2005/pyedimax Description: Pyedimax is a python library for interfacing with the Edimax Smart Plug switches. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50754162 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-edimax-0.2.1-1.fc32.src.rpm python-edimax.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pyedimax -> Dismayed 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-edimax-0.2.1-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python3-edimax.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pyedimax -> Dismayed 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 1832392] Review Request: python-typeguard - Run-time type checker for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832392 Christopher Brown changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-09-04 11:45:30 -- 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 1875782] New: Review Request: python-databay - Python interface for scheduled data transfer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875782 Bug ID: 1875782 Summary: Review Request: python-databay - Python interface for scheduled data transfer 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-databay.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-databay-0.1.5-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/Voyz/databay Description: Databay is a Python interface for scheduled data transfer. It facilitates transfer of (any) data from A to B, on a scheduled interval. Koji scratch build: fails due to missing dependencies rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python3-databay-0.1.5-1.fc32.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python-databay-0.1.5-1.fc32.src.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 1875765] New: Review Request: python-mongomock - Module for testing MongoDB-dependent code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875765 Bug ID: 1875765 Summary: Review Request: python-mongomock - Module for testing MongoDB-dependent code 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-mongomock.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-mongomock-3.20.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/mongomock/mongomock Description: Mongomock is a small library to help testing Python code that interacts with MongoDB via Pymongo. Koji scratch build: fails due to missing dependency rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-mongomock-3.20.0-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-mongomock-3.20.0-1.fc32.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 1875765] Review Request: python-mongomock - Module for testing MongoDB-dependent code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875765 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1875766 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875766 [Bug 1875766] Review Request: python-sentinels - Various objects to denote special meanings in Python -- 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 1875766] New: Review Request: python-sentinels - Various objects to denote special meanings in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875766 Bug ID: 1875766 Summary: Review Request: python-sentinels - Various objects to denote special meanings in Python 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-sentinels.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-sentinels-1.0.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/vmalloc/sentinels Description: The sentinels module is a small utility providing the Sentinel class, along with useful instances. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50750045 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-sentinels-1.0.0-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-sentinels-1.0.0-1.fc32.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 1875766] Review Request: python-sentinels - Various objects to denote special meanings in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875766 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1875765 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875765 [Bug 1875765] Review Request: python-mongomock - Module for testing MongoDB-dependent code -- 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 1875744] New: Review Request: python-schedule - Job scheduling for humans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875744 Bug ID: 1875744 Summary: Review Request: python-schedule - Job scheduling for humans 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-schedule.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-schedule-0.6.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/dbader/schedule Description: An in-process scheduler for periodic jobs that uses the builder pattern for configuration. Schedule lets you run Python functions (or any other callable) periodically at pre-determined intervals using a simple, human-friendly syntax. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50747425 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-schedule-0.6.0-1.fc32.src.rpm python-schedule.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-schedule-0.6.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python3-schedule.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 1875405] Review Request: python-discord - Python wrapper for the Discord API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875405 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-af5ca9d561 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-af5ca9d561 -- 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 1875726] New: Review Request: golang-github-openprinting-ipp-usb - HTTP reverse proxy, backed by IPP-over-USB connection to device
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875726 Bug ID: 1875726 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-openprinting-ipp-usb - HTTP reverse proxy, backed by IPP-over-USB connection to device Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: zdoh...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://zdohnal.fedorapeople.org/ipp-usb/golang-github-openprinting-ipp-usb.spec SRPM URL: https://zdohnal.fedorapeople.org/ipp-usb/golang-github-openprinting-ipp-usb-0.9.13-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: HTTP reverse proxy, backed by IPP-over-USB connection to device Fedora Account System Username: zdohnal -- 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 1875722] New: Review Request: python-metno - Library to communicate with the met.no API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875722 Bug ID: 1875722 Summary: Review Request: python-metno - Library to communicate with the met.no API 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: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-metno.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-metno-0.8.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/Danielhiversen/pyMetno/ Description: Library to communicate with the met.no API. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50744028 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-metno-0.8.1-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-metno-0.8.1-1.fc32.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 1875315] Review Request: libudfread - UDF reader library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875315 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-20473d867a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-20473d867a --- Comment #10 from Xavier Bachelot --- Imported and built. Thanks for the review Robert-André :-) -- 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 1875315] Review Request: libudfread - UDF reader library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875315 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-9e74e6f5ae has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9e74e6f5ae -- 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 1875315] Review Request: libudfread - UDF reader library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875315 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-223afefc42 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-223afefc42 -- 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 1875315] Review Request: libudfread - UDF reader library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875315 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-930f4b4e58 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-930f4b4e58 -- 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 1875427] Review Request: python-coronavirus - Python client for getting Corona virus info
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875427 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7ad8d5427b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7ad8d5427b -- 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
