[Bug 1885430] Review Request: qatlib - Intel® QuickAssist Technology Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430 --- Comment #3 from Carl George 鸞 --- I want to point out one thing that was brought up in bug 1885495. Adding a license in a comment of the spec file is only appropriate if you wish for the spec file itself to be available under a different license than the default MIT license specified by the FPCA [0]. This does not have to match the software being packaged. I'd recommend removing it as well for simplicity, but it's not strictly required. [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#License_of_Fedora_SPEC_Files -- 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
[Red Hat Bugzilla] Your Outstanding Requests
The following is a list of bugs or attachments to bugs in which a user has been waiting more than 3 days for a response from you. Please take action on these requests as quickly as possible. (Note that some of these bugs might already be closed, but a user is still waiting for your response.) We'll remind you again tomorrow if these requests are still outstanding, or if there are any new requests where users have been waiting more than 3 days for your response. If you want these mails to stop you need to go to the bug[s] and cancel or ack the needinfo flags. See: * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=faq.html#flags point 3 * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=faq.html#miscellaneous point 2 needinfo Bug 1872427: Review Request: ec2-hibinit-agent - support for hibernation for Amazon ec2 (5 days old) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872427 To see all your outstanding requests, visit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/request.cgi?action=queue=package-review%40lists.fedoraproject.org=type ___ 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 1885810] New: Review Request: emacs-with-editor - Use Emacsclient as the editor of child processes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885810 Bug ID: 1885810 Summary: Review Request: emacs-with-editor - Use Emacsclient as the editor of child processes Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tul...@ascii.art.br QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://pagure.io/emacs-with-editor/raw/master/f/emacs-with-editor.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tuliom/emacs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01696938-emacs-with-editor/emacs-with-editor-2.8.1-0.fc34.src.rpm Description: With-editor makes it possible to reliably use the Emacs client as the editor of child processes. Fedora Account System Username:tuliom I have a successful build available on copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tuliom/emacs/build/1696938/ -- 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 1885809] New: Review Request: emacs-transient - Emacs transient key maps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885809 Bug ID: 1885809 Summary: Review Request: emacs-transient - Emacs transient key maps Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tul...@ascii.art.br QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://pagure.io/emacs-transient/raw/master/f/emacs-transient.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tuliom/emacs/srpm-builds/01696884/emacs-transient-0.2.0-0.fc32.src.rpm Description: Transient provides transient key maps involving a prefix command, infix arguments and suffix commands. Fedora Account System Username: tuliom I have a successful build available on copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tuliom/emacs/build/1696884/ -- 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 1878574] Review Request: emacs-async - Asynchronous processing in Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878574 --- Comment #2 from Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. A patch has been submitted upstream: https://github.com/jwiegley/emacs-async/pull/133 > Try to ask upstream for a separate license file. > > [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > Note: %define requiring justification: %define pkg async > > Use %global instead of %define here. Fixed. > - Patch these obsolete FSF address with the latest one and send it upstream > > emacs-async.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/async/async-bytecomp.el > emacs-async.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/async/async-test.el > emacs-async.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/async/async.el > emacs-async.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/async/dired-async.el > emacs-async.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/async/smtpmail-async.el Fixed. The new spec file is available here: https://pagure.io/emacs-async/blob/master/f/emacs-async.spec I've also requested the repository. Thank you! -- 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 1885495] Review Request: qatengine - Intel(R) QuickAssist Technology (QAT) OpenSSL Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885495 Carl George 鸞 changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c...@redhat.com Depends On||1885430 Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Carl George 鸞 --- Uploading the files anywhere online is fine, as long as the spec file is marked as a plain text file so fedora-review works. If you build the package in copr [0], the build will include a copy of the spec file and SRPM that are easy to link to. Some people will upload those files to their fedorapeople.org space [1], but that requires already being part of at least one group other than the CLA group. Adding a license in a comment of the spec file is only appropriate if you wish for the spec file itself to be available under a different license than the default MIT license specified by the FPCA [2]. This does not have to match the software being packaged. I'd recommend removing it as well for simplicity, but it's not strictly required. I've marked this bug as depending on the qatlib review that I've already started, and assigning it to myself to do this full review later. [0] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#License_of_Fedora_SPEC_Files Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430 [Bug 1885430] Review Request: qatlib - Intel® QuickAssist Technology Library -- 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 1885430] Review Request: qatlib - Intel® QuickAssist Technology Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430 Carl George 鸞 changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1885495 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885495 [Bug 1885495] Review Request: qatengine - Intel(R) QuickAssist Technology (QAT) OpenSSL Engine -- 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 1885430] Review Request: qatlib - Intel® QuickAssist Technology Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #2 from Carl George 鸞 ---
I tried to run fedora-review on this, but it failed to build (see the item
below about missing build requirements). Here is a partial manual review of
what I've noticed so far.
- Using 0.1 for the Release field is fine during the review, but it should be
raised to 1 before being imported into dist-git. After that it should always
be 1 or higher [0], unless packaging a prerelease version or git snapshot.
- Remove all instances of `(R)` from the Summary field and the %description
sections [1].
- The INSTALL file indicates a complicated licensing situation [2]. All of
these licenses must be reflected in the License field, using the combined
scenario guidelines [3]. I also noticed that the INSTALL file mentions a
LICENSE.GPL file, but that does not exist upstream. Could you assist in
getting it added?
- Source0 is not following the recommended format [4]. It should look like
this:
https://github.com/intel/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- There are multiple missing build requirements. I can tell at least these are
missing:
autoconf automake libtool systemd-devel openssl-devel zlib-devel
- RPM will automatically adds requirements for several glibc virtual provides,
so the explicit requires for glibc is redundant and must be removed [5].
- The requires for /sbin/ldconfig and invoking that during the
%post/%preun/%postun scriptlets should be removed [6].
- The devel package's requirement on the base package must be arch-specific
[7].
- Rather than conditionally running autogen.sh during %build, it would be
better to always run `autoreconf -vif` during %prep.
- There is a lot going on during %install. Is there a Makefile target we could
use instead to improve spec file legibility [8]?
- The %pre scriptlet should use the template for dynamic allocation [9].
- Man pages must be referenced with a wildcard pattern to allow RPM to use its
preferred compression format (which may not be gz in the future) [10].
- The `%files devel` section can be trimmed down by using just
`%{_includedir}/qat` (which is recursive), rather than the directory and
globbing all the files in the directory.
- The version in the changelog entry (2010u) doesn't match the Version field.
[0]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_simple_versioning
[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_trademarks_in_summary_or_description
[2] https://github.com/intel/qatlib/blob/20.08.0/INSTALL#L33-L46
[3]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_combined_dual_and_multiple_licensing_scenario
[4]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags
[5]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_requires
[6]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries
[7]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package
[8] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_legibility
[9]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UsersAndGroups/#_dynamic_allocation
[10] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
--
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 1885781] Review Request: rust-fdlimit - Utility crate for raising file descriptors limit for OSX and Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885781 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1825699 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825699 [Bug 1825699] rust-tiny_http-0.7.0 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1885781] New: Review Request: rust-fdlimit - Utility crate for raising file descriptors limit for OSX and Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885781 Bug ID: 1885781 Summary: Review Request: rust-fdlimit - Utility crate for raising file descriptors limit for OSX and Linux Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decatho...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-fdlimit.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-fdlimit-0.2.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Utility crate for raising file descriptors limit for OSX and Linux Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52894074 -- 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 1880399] Review Request: python-smart-gardena - Python client to communicate with Gardena systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880399 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-smart-gardena -- 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 1882476] Review Request: python-async-upnp-client - Async Python UPnP Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882476 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-async-upnp-client -- 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 1880399] Review Request: python-smart-gardena - Python client to communicate with Gardena systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880399 --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1882476] Review Request: python-async-upnp-client - Async Python UPnP Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882476 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1820915] Review Request: bettercap - Tool for 802.11, BLE/Ethernet reconnaissance and MITM attacks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820915 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-10-06 21:22:36 -- 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 1885773] New: Review Request: python-pycomm3 - Python library for communicating with Allen-Bradley PLCs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885773 Bug ID: 1885773 Summary: Review Request: python-pycomm3 - Python library for communicating with Allen-Bradley PLCs 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-pycomm3.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-pycomm3.spec Project URL: https://github.com/ottowayi/pycomm3 Description: pycomm3 is a native Python library for communicating with PLCs from Allen-Bradley using Ethernet/IP. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52892849 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-pycomm3-0.10.2-1.fc34.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-pycomm3-0.10.2-1.fc34.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 1885773] Review Request: python-pycomm3 - Python library for communicating with Allen-Bradley PLCs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885773 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1269538 (IoT) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value 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 1851617] Review Request: libgamerzilla - Library for games to support trophy system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851617 Dennis Payne changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-10-06 21:01:12 -- 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 1863042] Review Request: mingw-libgamerzilla - Library for games to support trophy system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1863042 Dennis Payne changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-10-06 21:00:32 -- 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 1885762] Review Request: python-productivity - Python driver for AutomationDirect Productivity Series PLCs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885762 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1269538 (IoT) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value 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 1885762] New: Review Request: python-productivity - Python driver for AutomationDirect Productivity Series PLCs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885762 Bug ID: 1885762 Summary: Review Request: python-productivity - Python driver for AutomationDirect Productivity Series PLCs 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-productivity.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-productivity-0.4.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Project URL: http://github.com/numat/productivity/ Description: Python driver and command-line tool for AutomationDirect Productivity Series PLCs. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52891939 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-productivity-0.4.1-1.fc34.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-productivity-0.4.1-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python3-productivity.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary productivity 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 1885754] Review Request: python-devolo-home-control-api - Devolo Home Control API in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885754 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1269538 (IoT) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value 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 1885754] New: Review Request: python-devolo-home-control-api - Devolo Home Control API in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885754 Bug ID: 1885754 Summary: Review Request: python-devolo-home-control-api - Devolo Home Control API 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-devolo-home-control-api.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-devolo-home-control-api-0.15.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/2Fake/devolo_home_control_api Description: This module implements parts of the devolo Home Control API in Python. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52890938 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-devolo-home-control-api-0.15.0-1.fc34.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-devolo-home-control-api-0.15.0-1.fc34.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 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ab90ba72ee has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ab90ba72ee -- 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 1885642] Review Request: sid - Storage Instantiation Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885642 Peter Rajnoha changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-10-06 20:27:59 --- Comment #6 from Peter Rajnoha --- The sid package with its subpackages is now built for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1621241 -- 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 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7e4a1230d0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7e4a1230d0 -- 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 1880191] Review Request: python-pyvlx - Python wrapper for the Velux KLF 200 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880191 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyvlx -- 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 1880191] Review Request: python-pyvlx - Python wrapper for the Velux KLF 200 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880191 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1885684] Review Request: rocm-smi - AMD ROCm System Management Interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885684 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1885699] Review Request: profile-sync-daemon - Symlinks and syncs browser profile dirs to RAM thus reducing HDD/SDD calls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885699 --- Comment #4 from Artem --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #3) > Looks really good. fedora-review picked up 1 thing about the /usr/share/zsh > dir: > > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/user, > > /usr/share/zsh, /usr/lib/systemd > > Review: Should there not be a Requires on "zsh"? > > You can do it on package import, of course. The rest is fine. Package > approved. Full review below: Thanks! Ill fix this before import. As for '/usr/share/zsh' we can own it or we can skip this according to this discussion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739807#c10 But we should add explicitly 'Requires: systemd' here. -- 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 1885727] Review Request: python-tasmotadevicecontroller - Control Tasmota devices via their web API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885727 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1269538 (IoT) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value 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 1885727] New: Review Request: python-tasmotadevicecontroller - Control Tasmota devices via their web API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885727 Bug ID: 1885727 Summary: Review Request: python-tasmotadevicecontroller - Control Tasmota devices via their web 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-tasmotadevicecontroller.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-tasmotadevicecontroller-0.0.8-1.fc34.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/chaptergy/tasmota-device-controller Description: This Python package provides async wrappers for Tasmota's web request API. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52888720 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-tasmotadevicecontroller-0.0.8-1.fc34.src.rpm python-tasmotadevicecontroller.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-tasmotadevicecontroller-0.0.8-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python3-tasmotadevicecontroller.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync 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 1885721] Review Request: python-hatasmota - Python module to help parse and construct Tasmota MQTT messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885721 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1269538 (IoT) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value 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 1879209] Review Request: rust-peg-macros - Procedural macros for rust-peg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879209 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||rust-peg-macros-0.6.3-1.fc3 ||4 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-10-06 19:55:34 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- Built for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1621233 -- 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 1885699] Review Request: profile-sync-daemon - Symlinks and syncs browser profile dirs to RAM thus reducing HDD/SDD calls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885699
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Andy Mender ---
Looks really good. fedora-review picked up 1 thing about the /usr/share/zsh
dir:
> [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/user,
> /usr/share/zsh, /usr/lib/systemd
> Review: Should there not be a Requires on "zsh"?
You can do it on package import, of course. The rest is fine. Package approved.
Full review below:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/profile-sync-daemon
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
- systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun
for Systemd user units service files.
Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in profile-sync-daemon
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units
Review: Per guidelines. Everything in order.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Expat License", "Expat
License". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/profile-sync-
daemon/profile-sync-daemon/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/user,
/usr/share/zsh, /usr/lib/systemd
Review: Should there not be a Requires on "zsh"?
[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
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package
[Bug 1885684] Review Request: rocm-smi - AMD ROCm System Management Interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885684
--- Comment #2 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
> We generally don't use the trick with package renaming anymore.
Adjusted, thanks.
> The man page needs to go into %{_mandir}/man1/. That's why rpmlint doesn't
> find the page.
Thanks! A simple typo, now resolved. I’m surprised I didn’t catch it myself. I
also found an error in the regex I was using to alter the generated man page,
and fixed that as well.
> Please also submit that. It might be OK to simply exclude the build for s390x
> or skip the tests...
OK, I can submit that with s390x tests disabled. Upstream claims the package
should work on s390x, but the test framework is a little… opaque, so it’s hard
to dig into failures if you’re not the upstream maintainer. It might be
possible to get somewhere with an upstream bug report, or not.
The updated spec file is at the original link. Here is the new batch of koji
builds:
Fedora 34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52886511
Fedora 33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52886874
Fedora 32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52887198
EPEL8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52886548
EPEL7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52886971
…and the new SRPM:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6750/52886750/rocm-smi-3.8.0-1.fc34.src.rpm.
Thanks for your input.
--
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 1885721] New: Review Request: python-hatasmota - Python module to help parse and construct Tasmota MQTT messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885721 Bug ID: 1885721 Summary: Review Request: python-hatasmota - Python module to help parse and construct Tasmota MQTT messages 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-hatasmota.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-hatasmota-0.0.10-1.fc34.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/emontnemery/hatasmota Description: Python module to help parse and construct Tasmota MQTT messages. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52886619 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-hatasmota-0.0.10-1.fc34.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-hatasmota-0.0.10-1.fc34.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 1885495] Review Request: qatengine - Intel(R) QuickAssist Technology (QAT) OpenSSL Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885495 --- Comment #2 from Yogaraj Alamenda --- (In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #1) > Just some quick comments: > > - The URL for the SPEC file needs to point to a raw text for fedora-review > to work. > - Remove the license from the SPEC file header. > - qatlib is not present in the Fedora Package Collection. > - This package needs to provide a -devel subpackage Thanks, Comments inline. - The URL for the SPEC file needs to point to a raw text for fedora-review to work. [YA] Do we need to upload the spec file in some place in Fedora system for review ? - Remove the license from the SPEC file header. [YA] Is it mandatory that license headers cannot be there. If yes we will remove it - qatlib is not present in the Fedora Package Collection. [YA] The review is still in progress for qatlib and SRPM can be downloaded from https://github.com/intel/qatlib/releases/download/20.08.0/qatlib-20.08.0-0.1.fc32.src.rpm - This package needsto provide a -devel subpackage [YA] There is no other entities that need QAT Engine headers, only library is sufficient so devel package is not included. -- 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 1875495] Review Request: python-ee - Port of node.js's EventEmitter to Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875495 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) --- Comment #4 from Peter Robinson --- A very basic "dnf list python3-ee" would have revealed this. I wonder why this wasn't picked up by the packager or the reviewer? -- 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 1885718] New: Review Request: profile-cleaner - Script to vacuum and reindex sqlite databases used by Firefox and by Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885718 Bug ID: 1885718 Summary: Review Request: profile-cleaner - Script to vacuum and reindex sqlite databases used by Firefox and by Chrome Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.corda...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org//profile-cleaner.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org//profile-cleaner-2.41-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Use profile-cleaner to reduce the size of browser profiles by organizing their sqlite databases using sqlite3's vacuum and reindex functions. The term "browser" is used loosely since profile-cleaner happily works on some email clients and newsreaders too. -- 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 1885718] Review Request: profile-cleaner - Script to vacuum and reindex sqlite databases used by Firefox and by Chrome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885718 --- Comment #1 from Artem --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52885884 -- 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 1875495] Review Request: python-ee - Port of node.js's EventEmitter to Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875495 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pbrobin...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Peter Robinson --- This is already packaged as pyee: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyee -- 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 1885699] Review Request: profile-sync-daemon - Symlinks and syncs browser profile dirs to RAM thus reducing HDD/SDD calls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885699 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879209] Review Request: rust-peg-macros - Procedural macros for rust-peg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879209 Bug 1879209 depends on bug 1879207, which changed state. Bug 1879207 Summary: Review Request: rust-peg-runtime - Runtime support for rust-peg grammars https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879207 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879207] Review Request: rust-peg-runtime - Runtime support for rust-peg grammars
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879207 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||rust-peg-runtime-0.6.3-1.fc ||34 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-10-06 19:30:48 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- Built for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1621223 -- 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 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943
--- Comment #4 from Christoph Junghans ---
(In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #2)
> APPROVED by jussilehtola
Thanks.
> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Fixed.
> [!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
>
> Changelog is not in predescribed format. Also the comment is wrong: this is
> not the initial import (which would be the git commit message for import),
> but the initial version of the packaging!
Fixed
> [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
> names).
>
> This is an aesthetic issue, but the use of curly brackets is inconsistent:
> %build
> %{cmake}
> %cmake_build
Fixed
> [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
> libecpint-common
>
> As noted above, add this.
Hmm, libecpint depends on libecpint-common not the other way around, so I am
not 100% sure here
> [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
> Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
> attached diff).
> See: (this test has no URL)
My mistake, will be same.
> libecpint-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
Fixed
> libecpint-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://github.com/robashaw/libecpint 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 1885699] Review Request: profile-sync-daemon - Symlinks and syncs browser profile dirs to RAM thus reducing HDD/SDD calls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885699 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #2 from Artem --- This is the re-review procedure. profile-sync-daemon could be very useful for BTRFS since this is default FS now for Fedora 33. -- 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 1885684] Review Request: rocm-smi - AMD ROCm System Management Interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885684
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Kudos for starting with koji builds on multiple versions!
> https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/ROC-smi/archive/rocm-%{version}.tar.gz#/ROC-smi-rocm-%{version}.tar.gz
We generally don't use the trick with package renaming anymore. It doesn't
hurt, but it introduces
additional complexity.
Package is simple, everything seems straightforward.
+ package name is OK
+ latest version
+ license is acceptable for Fedora (MIT)
+ license is specified correctly
+ BR/Requires/Provides look reasonable
+ builds and installs OK
rpmlint:
rocm-smi.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rocm-smi
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Oh, one minor issue:
The man page needs to go into %{_mandir}/man1/. That's why rpmlint doesn't find
the page.
> I have also written a spec file for the SLEEF Vectorized Math Library, which
> demonstrates my ability to correctly handle more complicated packages than
> this one:
> https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/sleef-rpm/-/blob/master/sleef.spec. I have
> not submitted a review request for that package because there are still a few
> unresolved test
> failures on the s390x platform.
Please also submit that. It might be OK to simply exclude the build for s390x
or skip the tests...
--
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 1885699] New: Review Request: profile-sync-daemon - Symlinks and syncs browser profile dirs to RAM thus reducing HDD/SDD calls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885699 Bug ID: 1885699 Summary: Review Request: profile-sync-daemon - Symlinks and syncs browser profile dirs to RAM thus reducing HDD/SDD calls Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.corda...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org//profile-sync-daemon.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org//profile-sync-daemon-6.42-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Profile-sync-daemon (psd) is a tiny pseudo-daemon designed to manage your browser's profile in tmpfs and to periodically sync it back to your physical disc (HDD/SSD). This is accomplished via a symlinking step and an innovative use of rsync to maintain back-up and synchronization between the two. One of the major design goals of psd is a completely transparent user experience. -- 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 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libecpint -- 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 1885642] Review Request: sid - Storage Instantiation Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885642 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sid -- 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 1876864] Review Request: kealib - KEA is an HDF5 Based Raster File Format as a GDAL plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876864
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Do not repeat the name in the Summary:
Summary:HDF5 Based Raster File Format as a GDAL plugin
Package approved.
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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/kealib/review-
kealib/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.
[-]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: 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 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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
[Bug 1885642] Review Request: sid - Storage Instantiation Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885642 Vojtech Trefny changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST -- 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 1885642] Review Request: sid - Storage Instantiation Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885642
Vojtech Trefny changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Vojtech Trefny ---
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 sid
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
spec contains all three mentioned scripts:
```
%post
%systemd_post sid.socket sid.service
%preun
%systemd_preun sid.service sid.socket
%postun
%systemd_postun sid.sevice sid.socket
```
so I assume this is a fedora-review bug, most likely
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725584
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x: Package contains no static executables.
[x: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 133120 bytes in 13 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Rpmlint
---
Checking: sid-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
sid-debuginfo-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
sid-debugsource-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
sid-base-libs-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
sid-base-libs-devel-0.0.4-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
[Bug 1879692] Review Request: rust-quick-xml - High performance xml reader and writer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879692 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||rust-quick-xml-0.18.1-1.fc3 ||4 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-10-06 18:26:34 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- Built for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1621129 I'll put the 0.19 update (released after I submitted this review request) on my TODO list. -- 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 1880205] Review Request: python-cppheaderparser - Parse C++ header files and generate a data structure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880205
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 ---
- Try to get a license file from upstream if you can
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: "Unknown or generated", "Public domain", "BSD 3-clause "New" or
"Revised" License". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
cppheaderparser/review-python-cppheaderparser/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 153600 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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.
[-]:
[Bug 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943
Susi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Susi Lehtola ---
There is a number of minor issues. The package has been
APPROVED by jussilehtola
provided the issues below are rectified before import to the Fedora build
system.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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.
licensecheck reports "Expat license". License is MIT "Modern style with
sublicense",
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense
[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". 653 files have unknown
license.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
The common package should require -libs for the license.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
Changelog is not in predescribed format. Also the comment is wrong: this is not
the initial import (which would be the git commit message for import), but the
initial version of the packaging!
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
This is an aesthetic issue, but the use of curly brackets is inconsistent:
%build
%{cmake}
%cmake_build
[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 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as
[Bug 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 1880200] Review Request: python-pyairnow - Python wrapper for EPA AirNow Air Quality API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880200
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", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pyairnow/review-
python-pyairnow/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
[Bug 1885684] New: Review Request: rocm-smi - AMD ROCm System Management Interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885684 Bug ID: 1885684 Summary: Review Request: rocm-smi - AMD ROCm System Management Interface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: c...@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/rocm-smi-rpm/-/raw/master/rocm-smi.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6769/52876769/rocm-smi-3.8.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: AMD ROCm System Management Interface Fedora Account System Username: music This is a command-line tool for clock and temperature management of a ROCm enabled system, i.e., one with an AMD GPU. It does not directly depend on the AMDGPU (open-source) or AMDGPU-PRO (proprietary) GPU driver; instead, it is a monolithic pure-Python script that interacts with any supported GPU via sysfs. Koji build for Fedora 34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52876746 Koji build for Fedora 33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52876923 Koji build for Fedora 32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52877091 Koji build for EPEL8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52877312 Koji build for EPEL7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52877482 This is my first package for Fedora, and I am seeking a sponsor. As instructed on https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/, I will apply for sponsorship once the package review process is completed for this package. Once the package is in Fedora, I plan to request EPEL branches as well. I have also added the upstream package to release monitoring: https://release-monitoring.org/project/138112/. While I have about a decade of experience with RPM packaging, this has generally not been public work. I offer the following recent contributions to demonstrate my understanding of RPM packaging and of Fedora guidelines and processes. My PR to build rasqal against system libraries (libgcrypt) instead of using bundled cryptographic hash implementations was accepted, resolving a six-year-old issue: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099251. My PR to unbundle mathjax from spyder was accepted, resolving a seven-year-old issue: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017213. I fixed a couple of cases where applications showed a generic fallback icon under GNOME/Wayland. In the case of spyder, the correct fix was to make an upstream bug report and supply an upstream PR, which was accepted: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832579. In the case of boinc-client, the correct fix was a change in the Fedora packaging: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880553. I have also written a spec file for the SLEEF Vectorized Math Library, which demonstrates my ability to correctly handle more complicated packages than this one: https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/sleef-rpm/-/blob/master/sleef.spec. I have not submitted a review request for that package because there are still a few unresolved test failures on the s390x platform. Thanks for your time. -- 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 1880197] Review Request: python-august - Python API for August Smart Lock and Doorbell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880197
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", "Expat License". 65 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-august/review-python-
august/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.
[Bug 1879716] Review Request: rust-pure-rust-locales - Pure Rust locales imported directly from the GNU C Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879716 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||rust-pure-rust-locales-0.5. ||2-1.fc34 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-10-06 17:32:40 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- Built for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1621100 I'll work on the update to 0.5.3 (which was released after I submitted this review request) soon. -- 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 1885642] Review Request: sid - Storage Instantiation Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885642 --- Comment #3 from Peter Rajnoha --- OK, thanks, I tried to address these, the new build is here: https://prajnoha.fedorapeople.org/bz1885642-2/ -- 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 1880191] Review Request: python-pyvlx - Python wrapper for the Velux KLF 200 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880191
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", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version
3". 152 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-pyvlx/review-python-
pyvlx/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
[Bug 1885679] New: Review Request: paper - Query paper size database and retrieve the preferred size
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885679 Bug ID: 1885679 Summary: Review Request: paper - Query paper size database and retrieve the preferred size Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/paper/paper.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/paper/paper-2.2-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: This package enables users to indicate their preferred paper size, provides the paper(1) utility to find the user's preferred default paper size and give information about known sizes, and specifies system-wide and per-user paper size catalogs, which can be can also be used directly (see paperspecs(5)). Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- 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 1885679] Review Request: paper - Query paper size database and retrieve the preferred size
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885679 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1686644 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686644 [Bug 1686644] psutils-2.03 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1885495] Review Request: qatengine - Intel(R) QuickAssist Technology (QAT) OpenSSL Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885495 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter --- Just some quick comments: - The URL for the SPEC file needs to point to a raw text for fedora-review to work. - Remove the license from the SPEC file header. - qatlib is not present in the Fedora Package Collection. - This package needs to provide a -devel subpackage -- 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 1771346] Review Request: attestation-hub-4.5-1 - Intel SecL Attestation Hub for Security Attribute Orchestration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771346 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter --- The URL for the SPEC file needs to point to a raw text for fedora-review to work. -- 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 1881285] Review Request: python-nocasedict - A case-insensitive ordered dictionary for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881285 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 1881285] Review Request: python-nocasedict - A case-insensitive ordered dictionary for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881285 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter --- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pywbem/nocasedict/andy/fedora-packaging/packaging/fedora/python-nocasedict.spec returns a 404 error. -- 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 1880160] Review Request: python-pylotoncycle - Module to access your Peloton workout data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880160
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 2-clause "Simplified" License". 12
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-pylotoncycle/review-python-
pylotoncycle/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.
[Bug 1880150] Review Request: python-habitipy - Python library for Habitica RESTful API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880150
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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-habitipy/review-
python-habitipy/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 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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
[Bug 1880098] Review Request: python-aioeafm - Python wrapper for the UK Environment Agency Flood Monitoring API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880098
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". 14
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-aioeafm/review-python-
aioeafm/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:
[Bug 1885642] Review Request: sid - Storage Instantiation Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885642
--- Comment #2 from Vojtech Trefny ---
Also there are some problems with %files -- some of the directories are not
owned by any packages:
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd,
> /usr/lib64/sid/modules/ucmd/block, /usr/include/sid/iface,
> /usr/include/sid/resource, /usr/lib64/sid/modules/ucmd/type,
> /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib64/sid/modules,
> /usr/lib/udev/rules.d, /usr/lib64/sid, /usr/lib/udev,
> /usr/include/sid/log, /usr/include/sid, /usr/lib64/sid/modules/ucmd,
> /usr/include/sid/base
I guess you need to add dependencies on systemd and udev if you are using their
directories. And sid-iface-libs-devel should own/usr/include/sid/iface using
"%dir %{_includedir}/sid/iface/" (and same fo other unowned directories).
--
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 1880077] Review Request: python-awsume - CLI that makes using AWS IAM credentials easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880077
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 #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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 46
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-awsume/review-python-
awsume/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.
[-]:
[Bug 1880002] Review Request: python-pyairvisual - Python API client for AirVisual air quality data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880002
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Bump to 5.0.2
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pyairvisual/review-
python-pyairvisual/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.
[!]: 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 1885642] Review Request: sid - Storage Instantiation Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885642
--- Comment #1 from Vojtech Trefny ---
Few issues in the spec file:
Missing BuildRequires: gcc
> rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/sid/*.{a,la}
> rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/sid/modules/ucmd/block/*.{a,la}
> rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/sid/modules/ucmd/type/*.{a,la}
Change these to %{buildroot}, it is not allowed to use both macros and
variables in the spec file, you need to choose one --
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_using_buildroot_and_optflags_vs_rpm_build_root_and_rpm_opt_flags
systemd_postun call is missing in %postun --
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
Typo on line 177 Instatiation -> Instantiation
--
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 1884983] Review Request: prelockd - Lock binaries and libraries in memory to improve system responsiveness
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884983 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #2 from Artem --- https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/prelockd/fedora-33-x86_64/01696223-prelockd/prelockd.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/prelockd/fedora-33-x86_64/01696223-prelockd/prelockd-0.7-2.fc33.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 1879992] Review Request: python-pysmb - Python SMB/CIFS library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879992
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 ---
- Bump to 1.2.4
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", "*No copyright* zlib/libpng license",
"Expat License GNU Lesser General Public License", "*No copyright*
Expat License GNU Lesser General Public License", "Expat License",
"*No copyright* Public domain Expat License GNU Lesser General Public
License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete
FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 220 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
pysmb/review-python-pysmb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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]:
[Bug 1879964] Review Request: python-homeworks - Lutron Homeworks Series 4 and 8 interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879964
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]: 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". 5 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-homeworks/review-python-
homeworks/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 1885642] Review Request: sid - Storage Instantiation Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885642 Vojtech Trefny changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vtre...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vtre...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879888] Review Request: rust-const_fn - Attribute for easy generation of const functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879888 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-10-06 15:31:07 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- Built for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1620975 -- 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 1876508] Review Request: jpcre2 - C++ wrapper for PCRE2 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876508 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-366f6d032d 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-2020-366f6d032d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-366f6d032d 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 1885642] New: Review Request: sid - Storage Instantiation Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885642 Bug ID: 1885642 Summary: Review Request: sid - Storage Instantiation Daemon Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: prajn...@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/sidproject/MVP/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01696163-sid/sid.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sidproject/MVP/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01696163-sid/sid-0.0.4-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: This is an initial package (with subpackages) for Storage Instantiation Daemon (SID) which is new and which I would like to add to Fedora package repository. SID aims to help with Linux storage device state tracking that encompasses complex device layers, groups and whole stacks by monitoring progression of events (udev events only at the moment). It will provide an infrastructure and an API for various storage device subsystems to create modules that handle specific device types and their abstractions, reacting to events, defining triggers and associated actions. More resources here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SID https://sid-project.github.io https://github.com/sid-project/sid Please review the new package/subpackages and let me know if there are any remaining issues to be resolved before I can add this package with subpackages to the repository. Fedora Account System Username: prajnoha -- 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 1878079] Review Request: python-easyco - Configuration with YAML files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878079 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e7e51db523 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-e7e51db523 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e7e51db523 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 1879595] Review Request: memavaild - Improve responsiveness during heavy swapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879595 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d25c72fe33 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d25c72fe33 -- 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 1879595] Review Request: memavaild - Improve responsiveness during heavy swapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879595 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d5d8f79f44 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d5d8f79f44 -- 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 1879595] Review Request: memavaild - Improve responsiveness during heavy swapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879595 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-cd65ba6e04 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cd65ba6e04 -- 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 1879595] Review Request: memavaild - Improve responsiveness during heavy swapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879595 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-cd4fb54269 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cd4fb54269 -- 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 1879928] Review Request: python-airthings - Fetch sensor measurements from Airthings devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879928 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878069] Review Request: python-stackprinter - Debug-friendly stack traces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878069 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-a85b21087f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a85b21087f -- 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 1879957] Review Request: python-xboxapi - Python XBOX One API wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879957 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-xboxapi -- 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 1882470] Review Request: python-didl-lite - DIDL-Lite (Digital Item Declaration Language) tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882470 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-didl-lite -- 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 1879765] Review Request: python-insteon - Python API for controlling Insteon devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879765 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-insteon -- 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 1879755] Review Request: python-daikin - Python Daikin HVAC appliances interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879755 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-daikin -- 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 1879745] Review Request: python-danfossair - Python interface for Danfoss Air HRV systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879745 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-danfossair -- 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 1879742] Review Request: python-deconz - Python library for communicating with deCONZ REST API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879742 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-deconz -- 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 1879595] Review Request: memavaild - Improve responsiveness during heavy swapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879595 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/memavaild -- 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 1879762] Review Request: python-wiffi - Python module to interface devices from STALL WIFFI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879762 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-wiffi -- 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 1882470] Review Request: python-didl-lite - DIDL-Lite (Digital Item Declaration Language) tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882470 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1) > Added to the python-iot COPR project: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andymenderunix/python-iot/build/ > 1686657/ > > > BuildRequires: python3-devel > > #BuildRequires: python3dist(defusedxml) > > Can you add a comment above the last line explaining why it's commented out? > I'm assuming python3-defusedxml is needed for the tests? I see the package > is in Fedora's official repositories. You can do it on package import. It's commented out because the package is not running the tests for now. I will move up the comment. Thanks for your feedback and the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
