[Bug 1882547] Review Request: osslsigncode - OpenSSL based Authenticode signing for PE/MSI/Java CAB files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882547



--- Comment #3 from Artem  ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #2)
> TODO: Source0 URL differs from the one listed on the releases page
> . I'd prefer to
> have them the same.

Disagree here, this is normal to use GitHub API for downloading release
tarballs like that in Fedora
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags
If all sources will named like that ("2.0.tar.gz") there will be a real mess
and file naming conflicts in rpmbuild/SOURCES or just hard to find necessary
source if there are many.

> TODO: Perform upstream tests. You can install mingw32-gcc and
> /usr/bin/keytool, then comile a trivial C program with 
> i686-w64-mingw32-gcc to produce a PE executable, then rename it to
> tests/putty.exe, slightly patch tests/testsign.sh
> not to delete putty.exe, and finaly execute tests/testsign.sh.

I've added tests now and they are passed. Network not required during tests.
But you need to review this and i'm not sure how you feel about it. :) Anyway
we can improve this in future.

The rest is fixed look like. Thanks for great review.

---

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedora-33-x86_64/01703705-osslsigncode/osslsigncode.spec

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/playground/fedora-33-x86_64/01703705-osslsigncode/osslsigncode-2.0-3.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 1880719] Review Request: rust-palette_derive - Automatically implement traits from the palette crate

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880719



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


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1887091] Review Request: jack-mixer - JACK Audio Mixer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091



--- Comment #5 from Erich Eickmeyer  ---
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01703606-jack-mixer/jack-mixer.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01703606-jack-mixer/jack-mixer-13-1.fc34.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 1887091] Review Request: jack-mixer - JACK Audio Mixer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091



--- Comment #4 from Erich Eickmeyer  ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #2)
> Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53166967
> 
> It fails on armv7hl and i686. Please, have a look at the logs.
> 

Oops, forgot to check for build failures in my copr builds. In fact, it's not
meant to build on either of those architectures, so I'll have to exclude those
archs.

> > License:GPLv2
> 
> licensecheck found a file with the MIT license. If it's not a mistake, that
> should be included in the License field with a comment above mentioning that
> only this file has a different license.
> 
> Expat License
> -
> jack_mixer-release-13/nsmclient.py

Looks like Expat, not MIT. They're two different licenses (ran into something
like this in my Ubuntu packages where it was Expat but I said MIT).

> 
> > BuildRequires:  autoconf
> > BuildRequires:  automake
> > BuildRequires:  python3-gobject-devel
> > BuildRequires:  python3-cairo-devel
> > BuildRequires:  python3-devel
> > BuildRequires:  jack-audio-connection-kit-devel
> > BuildRequires:  glib2-devel
> > Requires:   jack-audio-connection-kit
> > Requires:   python3-gobject
> > Requires:   python3
> > Requires:   python3-cairo
> 
> Python dependencies should be declared following the format
> "python3dist(foo)".

Ran into this when I tried that:

No matching package to install: 'python3dist(cairo)'
No matching package to install: 'python3dist(gobject)'

So, considering every other package I've done with python dependencies, this is
the first time I've run into that requirement. Apparently it doesn't work.

> > %changelog
> > * Sat Oct 10 2020 Erich Eickmeyer 
> > - New package for Fedora
> 
> %changelog entries should contain the version and release like so:
> > * Sat Oct 10 2020 Erich Eickmeyer  - 13-1

Yep, minor oversight. Fixed.

> 
> There is extra stuff covered in the main review body:
> 
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> Issues:
> ===
> - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
>   BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
>   Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
> - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
>   Note: jack-mixer : /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/jack_mixer_c.la
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>   guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
> - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
>   file-validate if there is such a file.
> 
> 
> = MUST items =
> 
> C/C++:
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [ ]: 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.
>  Review: are these internal to the package?

They should indeed be internal to the package. This is not intended as a
development library but as a standalone application.

> [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
> 
> 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.
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>  found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License",
>  "GPL (v2)", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)",
>  "Expat License". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
>  licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/jack-mixer/jack-
>  mixer/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>  Note: Directories without known owners:
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps,
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22,
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps,
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps
>  Review: jack-mixer should have a Requires on hicolor-icon-theme

Fixed.

> [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flag

[Bug 1887091] Review Request: jack-mixer - JACK Audio Mixer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091



--- Comment #3 from Erich Eickmeyer  ---
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #1)
> 1: Remove
> 
> BuildRequires:  autoconf
> 
> $ rpm -q --requires automake |grep auto
> autoconf >= 2.65

Done

> 2: You are running configure twice, change
> 
> ./autogen.sh
> 
> to
> 
> NOCONFIGURE=1 ./autogen.sh

Done

> 3: You haven't validated the desktop file
> 
> %{_datadir}/applications/jack_mixer.desktop
> 
> See
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> #_desktop_file_install_usage

Done

> 4: Why two %doc?, change
> 
> %doc README.md
> %doc NEWS
> 
> to
> 
> %doc NEWS README.md

I had been told one %doc per file before.

> 
> 5: Remove
> 
> Requires:   jack-audio-connection-kit
> 
> and
> 
> Requires:   python3
> 
> 
> Autorequires takes care of them

As far as python3, sure, but I most certainly will not remove the
jack-audio-connection-kit line. What is happening is that Autorequires is
making applications that are looking for jack-audio-connection-kit not actually
do that, but look for the libjack.so.0. This is causing problems for
applications transitioning to pipewire-jack, which has a Provides line for
jack-audio-connection-kit that is not honored by packages relying on
Autorequires. This is something that I'm going to be pushing for all packages
that Require jack-audio-connection-kit to explicitly call it regarless of
BuildRequires since it's causing problems for the Pipewire tranition.

> 
> rpm -qp --requires
> /home/leigh/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/jack-mixer-13-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm |grep
> libjack.so.0
> libjack.so.0()(64bit)
> 

Exactly, we can't be looking for libjack.so.0. We must provide compatibility
with pipewire-jack, and this shatters that.

> and
> 
> $ rpm -qp --requires
> /home/leigh/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/jack-mixer-13-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm |grep
> /usr/bin/python3
> /usr/bin/python3


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1882527] Review Request: python-sklearn-nature-inspired-algorithms - Nature Inspired Algorithms for scikit-learn

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882527



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-b2a0d0bfe9 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-b2a0d0bfe9 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b2a0d0bfe9

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 1887076] Review Request: rust-line_drawing - Collection of line-drawing algorithms for use in graphics and video games

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887076

Fabio Valentini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||rust-line_drawing-0.8.0-1.f
   ||c34
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2020-10-10 22:45:54



--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Built for rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1623219


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1886478] Review Request: rust-foreign-types-macros - Internal crate used by foreign-types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886478

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2020-10-10 22:42:14



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-38a53d1866 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1884983] Review Request: prelockd - Lock binaries and libraries in memory to improve system responsiveness

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884983



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-f3bd65c643 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1881370] Review Request: wwl - Calculates distance and azimuth between two Maidenhead locators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881370



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-d78f66a05a has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1884983] Review Request: prelockd - Lock binaries and libraries in memory to improve system responsiveness

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884983

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2020-10-10 21:58:36



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-87f5b0d2b0 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1881370] Review Request: wwl - Calculates distance and azimuth between two Maidenhead locators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881370



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-7ce8f17663 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1876737] Review Request: ghc-git-lfs - Git-lfs protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876737



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-c8beae383f has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1881782] Review Request: accel-config - Utility library for configuring the accelerator subsystem

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881782



--- Comment #6 from Andy Mender  ---
Fresh Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53169430
I think that the artifacts from the previous one were removed.

> According to upstream developer, most users won't use the unit test. So here 
> I updated the spec and src.rpm again to remove the test stuff:

I would add tests under %check if possible.

> BuildRequires:autoconf
> BuildRequires:asciidoc
> BuildRequires:xmlto
> BuildRequires:automake
> BuildRequires:libtool
> BuildRequires:pkgconfig
> BuildRequires:pkgconfig(libkmod)
> BuildRequires:pkgconfig(uuid)
> BuildRequires:pkgconfig(json-c)
> BuildRequires:pkgconfig(libudev)
> BuildRequires:systemd

"gcc" and/or "gcc-c++"" are missing from this list.

> %description
> Utility library for configuring the accelerator subsystem.
> 
> %package -n %{name}-devel

It's not necessary to explicitly name subpackages like this if they begin with
%{name}. It's enough to declare them like this:
> %package devel

The same is true for the %files block and other blocks which require package
names.

> %package -n %{name}-libs
> Summary:  Configuration library for accelerator subsystem devices
> License:  LGPLv2

Are the libs useful in any way outside of the main "accel-config" package? If
not, they should contain the following line:
> Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

Or was it made so one can use only "accel-config-devel” and not be bothered
with the main package when developing software including accel-config headers
and/or linking against the SO files?

> %post -n %{name}-libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
> 
> %postun -n %{name}-libs -p /sbin/ldconfig

These ldconfig calls ought to be removed.

> %files
> %license Documentation/COPYING licenses/BSD-MIT licenses/CC0

The License field contains only "GPLv2" and "LGPLv2" for the -devel and -libs
subpackages. If the package is licensed using several licenses, all of them
need to be included in the License field and their breakdown indicated in a
comment above that line.

Other potential issues are covered in the main review body:

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
  BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
  Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
  Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in accel-config-libs
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets


= MUST items =

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

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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2)", "GNU General Public License
 (v2) GNU Lesser General Public License", "*No copyright* Expat
 License". 89 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/accel-config/accel-
 config/licensecheck.txt
 Review: mentioned in an earlier comment.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /etc/accel-config
 Review: Should probably be owned by the main package. Add it to %files.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/accel-config
 Review: As above.
[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
[?]: 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 

[Bug 1887076] Review Request: rust-line_drawing - Collection of line-drawing algorithms for use in graphics and video games

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887076



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-line_drawing


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1886478] Review Request: rust-foreign-types-macros - Internal crate used by foreign-types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886478



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-foreign-types-macros


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1881782] Review Request: accel-config - Utility library for configuring the accelerator subsystem

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881782

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 1887091] Review Request: jack-mixer - JACK Audio Mixer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091



--- Comment #2 from Andy Mender  ---
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53166967

It fails on armv7hl and i686. Please, have a look at the logs.

> License:GPLv2

licensecheck found a file with the MIT license. If it's not a mistake, that
should be included in the License field with a comment above mentioning that
only this file has a different license.

Expat License
-
jack_mixer-release-13/nsmclient.py


> BuildRequires:  autoconf
> BuildRequires:  automake
> BuildRequires:  python3-gobject-devel
> BuildRequires:  python3-cairo-devel
> BuildRequires:  python3-devel
> BuildRequires:  jack-audio-connection-kit-devel
> BuildRequires:  glib2-devel
> Requires:   jack-audio-connection-kit
> Requires:   python3-gobject
> Requires:   python3
> Requires:   python3-cairo

Python dependencies should be declared following the format "python3dist(foo)".

> %changelog
> * Sat Oct 10 2020 Erich Eickmeyer 
> - New package for Fedora

%changelog entries should contain the version and release like so:
> * Sat Oct 10 2020 Erich Eickmeyer  - 13-1

There is extra stuff covered in the main review body:

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
  BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
  Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
  Note: jack-mixer : /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/jack_mixer_c.la
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
  file-validate if there is such a file.


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: 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.
 Review: are these internal to the package?
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License",
 "GPL (v2)", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)",
 "Expat License". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/jack-mixer/jack-
 mixer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners:
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps
 Review: jack-mixer should have a Requires on hicolor-icon-theme
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
 Review: mentioned before.
[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
 

[Bug 1887091] Review Request: jack-mixer - JACK Audio Mixer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091



--- Comment #1 from leigh scott  ---
1: Remove

BuildRequires:  autoconf

$ rpm -q --requires automake |grep auto
autoconf >= 2.65


2: You are running configure twice, change

./autogen.sh

to

NOCONFIGURE=1 ./autogen.sh

3: You haven't validated the desktop file

%{_datadir}/applications/jack_mixer.desktop

See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_install_usage

4: Why two %doc?, change

%doc README.md
%doc NEWS

to

%doc NEWS README.md


5: Remove

Requires:   jack-audio-connection-kit

and

Requires:   python3


Autorequires takes care of them


rpm -qp --requires
/home/leigh/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/jack-mixer-13-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm |grep
libjack.so.0
libjack.so.0()(64bit)

and

$ rpm -qp --requires
/home/leigh/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/jack-mixer-13-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm |grep
/usr/bin/python3
/usr/bin/python3


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1880719] Review Request: rust-palette_derive - Automatically implement traits from the palette crate

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880719

Stefano Figura  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Stefano Figura  ---
- ACCEPT
- LGTM!




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". 14 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /var/home/returntrip/devel/packaging/reviews/1880719-rust-
 palette_derive/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
 palette_derive-devel , rust-palette_derive+default-devel , rust-
 palette_derive+strict-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
 publishes signatures.
 Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer 

[Bug 1887076] Review Request: rust-line_drawing - Collection of line-drawing algorithms for use in graphics and video games

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887076



--- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Thanks for the fast review! It looks like I changed the .spec file comment for
disabling the tests after uploading the SRPM file.
I will reconcile this before import :)


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1886858] Review Request: pngcheck - Verifies the integrity of PNG, JNG and MNG files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886858



--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender  ---
Very nice and comprehensive description and big props for running Koji builds
on several Fedora releases!

> A small patch is used to allow the program to build without disabling 
> -Werror=format-security. This patch, and a separate file containing the MIT 
> license text, would generally be good suggestions to push back upstream; 
> however, given the lack of upstream activity, it does seem unlikely that a 
> new release would be made merely to accommodate Fedora’s preferences.

I would still contact upstream and see what they have to say about it, and
whether they're responsive at all. Worst case scenario, you can fork the
project and add the missing components into your fork.

> Source0:
> https://downloads.sourceforge.net/png-mng/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> 
> Patch0: pngcheck-2.3.0-format-security.patch

You can reuse %{name} and %{version} in the Patch0 line. Also, please add a
note above explaining why the patch is needed. That information needs to be in
the SPEC file. You already have it in your first post:
> A small patch is used to allow the program to build without disabling 
> -Werror=format-security.

> %package extras
> Summary:Helper utilities distributed with %{name}
> License:GPLv2+

Should pngcheck-extras depend on pngcheck? If so, and it's very likely, it
needs an appropriate line like this:
> Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

> %install
> install -d '%{buildroot}%{_bindir}'
> install -d '%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1'
> find . -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm /0111 | while read -r bin
> do
>   install -t '%{buildroot}%{_bindir}' "${bin}"
>   install -t '%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1' -m 0644 "${bin}.1"
> done

Since you're not using %make_install, please add the -p flag to your "install"
calls to preserve timestamps.

Extra comments in the full review below:

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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", "NTP License", "GNU Lesser General
 Public License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 8
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/pngcheck/pngcheck/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other pa

[Bug 1880718] Review Request: rust-rusttype - Pure Rust alternative to libraries like FreeType

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880718

Stefano Figura  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1887091] Review Request: jack-mixer - JACK Audio Mixer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091

Andy Mender  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1887076] Review Request: rust-line_drawing - Collection of line-drawing algorithms for use in graphics and video games

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887076

Stefano Figura  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Stefano Figura  ---
- ACCEPT

Just a small find from fedora-review you might want to fix when importing:

[!]: 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)

Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
-
---
/var/home/returntrip/devel/packaging/reviews/1887076-rust-line_drawing/srpm/rust-line_drawing.spec
 2020-10-10 20:46:22.355344528 +0200
+++
/var/home/returntrip/devel/packaging/reviews/1887076-rust-line_drawing/srpm-unpacked/rust-line_drawing.spec
2020-10-10 18:17:37.0 +0200
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
 # Generated by rust2rpm 13
-# test dependencies are broken in fedora
+# * test dependencies are either too new in fedora or not packaged yet
 %bcond_with check
 %global debug_package %{nil}



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". 27 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /var/home/returntrip/devel/packaging/reviews/1887076-rust-
 line_drawing/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency 

[Bug 1887091] New: Review Request: jack-mixer - JACK Audio Mixer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091

Bug ID: 1887091
   Summary: Review Request: jack-mixer - JACK Audio Mixer
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: er...@ericheickmeyer.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01703172-jack-mixer/jack-mixer.spec

SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01703172-jack-mixer/jack-mixer-13-1.fc34.src.rpm

Description: JACK Audio mixer

jack_mixer is an audio mixer for JACK with a look similar to its hardware
counterparts. Many features are available, here is a short list:

 - Mix any number of input channels (mono or stereo).
 - Control balance and faders with MIDI commands.
 - Handle session management with LASH.
 - Create as many outputs as necessary.
 - Quickly monitor inputs (PFL) and outputs.

Fedora Account System Username: eeickmeyer


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880200

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-cb363d22b0 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-cb363d22b0 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cb363d22b0

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 1885045] Review Request: python-teslajsonpy - Python library to work with Tesla API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885045

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-5909226dad 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-2020-5909226dad \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5909226dad

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 1879964] Review Request: python-homeworks - Lutron Homeworks Series 4 and 8 interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879964

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-254be400a2 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-2020-254be400a2 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-254be400a2

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 1879745] Review Request: python-danfossair - Python interface for Danfoss Air HRV systems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879745

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-300c281c76 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-2020-300c281c76 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-300c281c76

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 1882527] Review Request: python-sklearn-nature-inspired-algorithms - Nature Inspired Algorithms for scikit-learn

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882527

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-4706b3d63c 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-2020-4706b3d63c \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4706b3d63c

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 1879742] Review Request: python-deconz - Python library for communicating with deCONZ REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879742

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-85b398487a 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-2020-85b398487a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-85b398487a

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 1880150] Review Request: python-habitipy - Python library for Habitica RESTful API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880150

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-30b885fce0 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-2020-30b885fce0 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-30b885fce0

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 1879957] Review Request: python-xboxapi - Python XBOX One API wrapper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879957

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-f4a7f6fcfd 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-f4a7f6fcfd \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f4a7f6fcfd

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 1880399] Review Request: python-smart-gardena - Python client to communicate with Gardena systems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880399

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-104053dff4 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-2020-104053dff4 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-104053dff4

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 1882121] Review Request: fennel - A Lisp that compiles to Lua

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882121

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-fb1740d1a9 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-fb1740d1a9 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fb1740d1a9

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 1886858] Review Request: pngcheck - Verifies the integrity of PNG, JNG and MNG files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886858

Andy Mender  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1885721] Review Request: python-hatasmota - Python module to help parse and construct Tasmota MQTT messages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885721

Andy Mender  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Andy Mender  ---
Koji build from the latest SRPM:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53157840

> BuildRequires:  python3-devel
> BuildRequires:  python3dist(setuptools)
> %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pypi_name}}

Try to switch to the %py_provides macro:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro

The rest looks good. Package approved. Full review below:

Package Review
==

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


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


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 25 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-hatasmota/python-
 hatasmota/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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

=

[Bug 1885721] Review Request: python-hatasmota - Python module to help parse and construct Tasmota MQTT messages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885721

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 1887076] New: Review Request: rust-line_drawing - Collection of line-drawing algorithms for use in graphics and video games

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887076

Bug ID: 1887076
   Summary: Review Request: rust-line_drawing - Collection of
line-drawing algorithms for use in graphics and video
games
   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-line_drawing.spec
SRPM URL:
https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-line_drawing-0.8.0-1.fc32.src.rpm

Description:
Collection of line-drawing algorithms for use in graphics and video games.

Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe

koji scratch build for rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53155682


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1886478] Review Request: rust-foreign-types-macros - Internal crate used by foreign-types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886478



--- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Thanks for the review!
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/29625

Everything else is now also in place:

- pull request to update foreign-types to version 0.5.0 (not yet merged):
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-foreign-types/pull-request/1

- pull request to update foreign-types-shared to version 0.3.0 (not yet
merged):
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-foreign-types-shared/pull-request/1

- compat package for foreign-types 0.3 (not yet built):
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-foreign-types0.3/c/08930f0126f9f2ad15e9425eb94aabdc6ced7dc3?branch=master

- compat package for foreign-types 0.1 (not yet built):
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-foreign-types-shared0.1/c/c49f233df81f9034d571797af0036385c7b54f4e?branch=master

I created the compat packages with "rust2rpm -s foreign-types 0.3.2 --suffix
0.3" and "rust2rpm -s foreign-types-shared 0.1.0 --suffix 0.1" and then merged
changes from the existing fedora packages. Then I requested the repos with
"fedpkg request-repo --exception" to circumvent the review process (which is
not necessary for compat packages).


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1881183] Review Request: freeorion - Turn-based space empire and galactic conquest (4X) computer game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881183



--- Comment #13 from josef radinger  ---
working with upstream to fix small issues


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1885721] Review Request: python-hatasmota - Python module to help parse and construct Tasmota MQTT messages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885721



--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter  ---
%changelog
* Sat Oct 10 2020 Fabian Affolter  - 0.0.13-1
- Update to latest upstream release 0.0.13

Updated files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-hatasmota.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-hatasmota-0.0.13-1.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 1879742] Review Request: python-deconz - Python library for communicating with deCONZ REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879742

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-85b398487a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-85b398487a


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880200

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-cb363d22b0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cb363d22b0


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1880150] Review Request: python-habitipy - Python library for Habitica RESTful API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880150

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-30b885fce0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-30b885fce0


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1879964] Review Request: python-homeworks - Lutron Homeworks Series 4 and 8 interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879964

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-254be400a2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-254be400a2


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879745

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-300c281c76 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-300c281c76


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1886478] Review Request: rust-foreign-types-macros - Internal crate used by foreign-types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886478

Stefano Figura  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Stefano Figura  ---
- ACCEPT
- Looks go to me!


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". 7 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /var/home/returntrip/devel/packaging/reviews/1886478-rust-foreign-
 types-macros/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
 foreign-types-macros-devel , rust-foreign-types-macros+default-devel ,
 rust-foreign-types-macros+std-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
 publishes signatures.
 Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
   

[Bug 1886957] Review Request: mod2c - NMODL to C adapted for CoreNEURON simulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886957

Andy Mender  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender  ---
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53143276

> Name:   mod2c
> Version:2.1.0

I was wondering where the version comes from, but I see it's inside the
CMakeLists file:
https://github.com/BlueBrain/mod2c/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt#L35
However, the official GitHub release tag is at 0.9. Do you think there's a
chance to encourage upstream to leverage GitHub releases?

Looks great otherwise. 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]: 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 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
 License". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in
 /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/mod2c/mod2c/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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 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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHO

[Bug 1886957] Review Request: mod2c - NMODL to C adapted for CoreNEURON simulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886957

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 1886485] Review Request: python-zuul-client - a zuul client library and CLI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886485



--- Comment #4 from Andy Mender  ---
> I'm sponsoring Mathieu, I can vouch for his skills and willingness to 
> maintain properly his packages.

Awesome! Thanks for the heads-up :)


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1859627] Review Request: arm-none-eabi-gdb - GDB for (remote) debugging ARM bare-metal targets

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859627



--- Comment #16 from Andy Mender  ---
> 1. How should I check whether a license can have "GPLx with exception"? It is 
> listed in gdb package but I didn't see any license listed in licensecheck.txt 
> have such short name in the license guide.

I think you need to have a look at specific files listed in licensecheck.txt
and see whether the license header in them contains clauses which could be
considered exceptions from the general text of a particular GPL license. The
doc you mentioned earlier
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses)
gives examples of licenses which are GPL-like, but contain such clauses (for
instance, covering font embedding).

> 2. If license like "NTP" is not listed in the license guide, can it simply be 
> listed as "NTP"?

No, licenses which are not listed in the license guide need to go through
Fedora Legal (le...@lists.fedoraproject.org) for verification. NTP is actually
a misnomer for one of the MIT licenses:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT
When you compare the text of the NTP license to one of the "old style" variants
of the MIT license, it's exactly the same. I thought it was supposed to be
added to the license matrix in the license guide, but wasn't yet it seems.

> 3. What does "XXX GPL" mean(e.g. ISC License GPL)? How does it related with 
> GPL and the license itself? And how should I specify them in License field?

This I don't know, since ISC and GPL are different licenses. Have a look at the
file with the license header and compare to both the ISC license and the GPL3
license to see which one's more likely. If it's absolutely unclear, run it
through Fedora Legal.

I think your package should also contain the "Boost" license tag, even though
the original "gdb" package doesn't mention it.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1887041] New: Review Request: R-procmaps - Portable Address Space Mapping

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887041

Bug ID: 1887041
   Summary: Review Request: R-procmaps - Portable Address Space
Mapping
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/R-procmaps/R-procmaps.spec
SRPM URL:
https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/R-procmaps/R-procmaps-0.0.3-1.fc32.src.rpm

Description:
Portable '/proc/self/maps' as a data frame. Determine which library or
other region is mapped to a specific address of a process. -- R packages
can contain native code, compiled to shared libraries at build or
installation time. When loaded, each shared library occupies a portion of
the address space of the main process. When only a machine instruction
pointer is available (e.g. from a backtrace during error inspection or
profiling), the address space map determines which library this instruction
pointer corresponds to.


Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53135935


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880399

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-104053dff4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-104053dff4


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1887037] New: Review Request: R-textshaping - Bindings to the HarfBuzz and Fribidi Libraries for Text Shaping

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887037

Bug ID: 1887037
   Summary: Review Request: R-textshaping - Bindings to the
HarfBuzz and Fribidi Libraries for Text Shaping
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/R-textshaping/R-textshaping.spec
SRPM URL:
https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/R-textshaping/R-textshaping-0.1.2-1.fc32.src.rpm

Description:
Provides access to the text shaping functionality in the HarfBuzz library and
the bidirectional algorithm in the Fribidi library. textshaping is a low-level
utility package mainly for graphic devices that expands upon the font tool-set
provided by the systemfonts package.


Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53134721


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879957

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-f4a7f6fcfd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f4a7f6fcfd


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1885045] Review Request: python-teslajsonpy - Python library to work with Tesla API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885045

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-5909226dad has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5909226dad


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org