[Bug 1880731] Review Request: sweet-gtk-theme - Light and dark, colorful GTK+ theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880731 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f337e268d1 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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 1881675] Review Request: yubikey-manager-qt - Cross-platform application for configuring any YubiKey over all USB interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881675 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7397914a3b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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 1882617] Review Request: php-pecl-ip2location - Get geo location information of an IP address
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882617 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-3427ea21f9 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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 1883251] Review Request: php-phpspec-prophecy-phpunit - Integrating the Prophecy mocking library in PHPUnit test cases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1883251 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-26a72323ac has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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 1884542] Review Request: php-ramsey-uuid - Library for generating and working with UUIDs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884542 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-846a6499dc has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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 1880731] Review Request: sweet-gtk-theme - Light and dark, colorful GTK+ theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880731 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-9ba766e78e 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 1880731] Review Request: sweet-gtk-theme - Light and dark, colorful GTK+ theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880731 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-15 01:49:29 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-553ce44637 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 1881675] Review Request: yubikey-manager-qt - Cross-platform application for configuring any YubiKey over all USB interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881675 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-15 01:49:25 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7c60aa2071 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 1884542] Review Request: php-ramsey-uuid - Library for generating and working with UUIDs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884542 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-15 01:49:19 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-bc33e85705 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 1883251] Review Request: php-phpspec-prophecy-phpunit - Integrating the Prophecy mocking library in PHPUnit test cases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1883251 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-15 01:49:23 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e6c94cfa72 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 1882617] Review Request: php-pecl-ip2location - Get geo location information of an IP address
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882617 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-15 01:49:21 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-da825e18fe 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 1897738] Review Request: virtualpg - A loadable dynamic extension to both SQLite and SpatiaLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897738 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani --- > Sorry, I should have been more specific. That has to come after %configure > (which generates the libtool file) and before %make_build (which invokes the > libtool file). Oh ups, could have thought of that... Thanks again!! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1843300] Review Request: cgreen - C unit-test library with mocks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1843300 --- Comment #8 from Egor Artemov --- Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55602746 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1843300] Review Request: cgreen - C unit-test library with mocks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1843300 --- Comment #7 from Egor Artemov --- Upstream has fixed the bugs in the unit-tests so now tests are passed on s390x and ppc64le architectures. Enabling back unit-tests on all platforms and backporting patches from the master branch with fixes. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/souryogurt/cgreen-rpm/master/cgreen.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/souryogurt/cgreen-rpm/master/cgreen-1.3.0-1.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 1897738] Review Request: virtualpg - A loadable dynamic extension to both SQLite and SpatiaLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897738 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jerry James --- (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #3) > Regarding the unversioned library, all sqlite extensions must be present as > unversioned libraries, as sqlite looks for them by the filename > mod_. (with library_suffix being > dll/dylib/so). I'm actually not sure whether the versioned ones are even > necessary, but libspatialite and librasterlite2 (the other two packages also > shipping sqlite extensions) also ship those. Got it. Thanks for the explanation. > - Add libtool fix Sorry, I should have been more specific. That has to come after %configure (which generates the libtool file) and before %make_build (which invokes the libtool file). Everything else looks good, so just move that into the right place before importing. This package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1897738] Review Request: virtualpg - A loadable dynamic extension to both SQLite and SpatiaLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897738 --- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani --- Regarding the unversioned library, all sqlite extensions must be present as unversioned libraries, as sqlite looks for them by the filename mod_. (with library_suffix being dll/dylib/so). I'm actually not sure whether the versioned ones are even necessary, but libspatialite and librasterlite2 (the other two packages also shipping sqlite extensions) also ship those. Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/virtualpg.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/virtualpg-2.0.1-2.fc34.src.rpm %changelog * Sat Nov 14 2020 Sandro Mani - 2.0.1-2 - Drop 0 bytes changelog - Reformulate description - Add libtool fix - Remove ldconfig scriptlets -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1897735] Review Request: libxslxwriter - A C library for creating Excel XLSX files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897735 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jerry James --- Looks good. This package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1897738] Review Request: virtualpg - A loadable dynamic extension to both SQLite and SpatiaLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897738
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in virtualpg
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_devel_packages
^^^ That is a fedora-review complaint. It's pointing out that the main
package contains %{_libdir}/mod_virtualpg.so. I see the comment in %files
stating that it must be this way. I'm curious why, but if it's a long story
you can leave me in the dark.
- The %description starts with a pronoun referring to something unspecified,
presumably this package: "Its intended scope is ...". The English in the
rest is a bit awkward. I suggest rewording it like this:
Virtualpg supports direct SQL access to PostgreSQL and PostGIS tables,
enabling simple and straightforward data exchanges between these two
popular open source Spatial DBMSs.
- libtool is (in)famous for reordering options, in particular for pushing
-Wl,--as-needed *after* the libraries on the link line, rendering it useless.
Sure enough:
$ ldd -u /usr/lib64/mod_virtualpg.so.0.1.1
Unused direct dependencies:
/lib64/libsqlite3.so.0
I usually put this in spec files that use libtool, both to defeat rpaths and
to deal with -Wl,--as-needed:
# Get rid of undesirable hardcoded rpaths; workaround libtool reordering
# -Wl,--as-needed after all the libraries.
sed -e 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' \
-e 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' \
-e 's|CC="\(.*g..\)"|CC="\1 -Wl,--as-needed"|' \
-i libtool
This is a suggestion, not a demand.
- ChangeLog is 0 bytes, so there isn't much point in including it in %doc.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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
[Bug 1879119] Review Request: gitlint - Git commit message linting tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879119 Stephen Kitt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||sk...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-11-14 22:07:20 --- Comment #5 from Stephen Kitt --- The package was uploaded, it’s in FC33. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1897735] Review Request: libxslxwriter - A C library for creating Excel XLSX files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897735 --- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani --- Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/libxlsxwriter.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/libxlsxwriter-1.0.0-2.fc34.src.rpm %changelog * Sat Nov 14 2020 Sandro Mani - 1.0.0-2 - Fix license - Start with soversion 0 - Remove ldconfig scriptlets -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1897738] Review Request: virtualpg - A loadable dynamic extension to both SQLite and SpatiaLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897738 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |loganje...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this 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 1879119] Review Request: gitlint - Git commit message linting tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879119 Miguel Angel Ajo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(st...@sk2.org) --- Comment #4 from Miguel Angel Ajo --- Stephen we have repo ^ do you know what are the next steps? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1897735] Review Request: libxslxwriter - A C library for creating Excel XLSX files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897735
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in libxlsxwriter
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets
- The license name "MPLv2" should be "MPLv2.0"; see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
- If you are going to add an soname independent of upstream, I recommend making
the major version number be zero instead of one. That reduces the chances
that upstream will later add an soname that is lower than the one you chose.
= 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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[Bug 1897735] Review Request: libxslxwriter - A C library for creating Excel XLSX files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897735 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this 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 1897734] Review Request: librttopo - Create and manage SQL/MM topologies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897734 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani --- Thanks! Let me know if I can review anything in exchange! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1893901] Review Request: ansible-base - A radically simple IT automation system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893901 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi --- Thanks so much for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1885048] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885048 --- Comment #4 from Ville-Pekka Vainio --- Thank you for the review! I ended up simplifying the patch after going through the build process once again. I also added a comment on why the patch is needed. Nice catch on the copy-paste typo. For some reason rpmlint did not catch it. Updated SPEC: https://vpv.fedorapeople.org/packages/foma-2020/foma.spec SRPM: https://vpv.fedorapeople.org/packages/foma-2020/foma-0.9.18-0.9.20200928gitb44022c.fc32.src.rpm As this is an unretirement review request, I'll have to do some reading on how to proceed from here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1894726] Review Request: gr-iio - GNU Radio interface for IIO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894726 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com | |) | --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- LGTM, package approved. You still need to find a sporsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1891961] Review Request: uARMSolver - Universal Association Rule Mining Solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891961 Iztok Fister Jr. changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-11-14 15:42:21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1897796] Review Request: rust-aes-gcm - AES-GCM (Galois/Counter Mode) AEAD Cipher implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897796 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1897795 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897795 [Bug 1897795] Review Request: rust-ctr - CTR block mode of operation -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1897795] Review Request: rust-ctr - CTR block mode of operation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897795 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1897796 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897796 [Bug 1897796] Review Request: rust-aes-gcm - AES-GCM (Galois/Counter Mode) AEAD Cipher implementation -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1897796] New: Review Request: rust-aes-gcm - AES-GCM (Galois/Counter Mode) AEAD Cipher implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897796 Bug ID: 1897796 Summary: Review Request: rust-aes-gcm - AES-GCM (Galois/Counter Mode) AEAD Cipher implementation 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-aes-gcm.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-aes-gcm-0.8.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Pure Rust implementation of the AES-GCM (Galois/Counter Mode) Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) Cipher with optional architecture- specific hardware acceleration. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe Note that this package requires a yet-to-be-reviewed package (rust-ctr) and a yet-to-be-pushed update to rust-aes 0.6.0, and requires (and is required for) a coordinated update of 17 packages. Builds are available in COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/decathorpe/RustCrypto-updates/monitor/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1897795] New: Review Request: rust-ctr - CTR block mode of operation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897795 Bug ID: 1897795 Summary: Review Request: rust-ctr - CTR block mode of operation 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-ctr.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-ctr-0.6.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: CTR block mode of operation Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe Note that this package requires a yet-to-be-pushed update to rust-aes 0.6.0, and requires (and is required for) a coordinated update of 17 packages. Builds are available in COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/decathorpe/RustCrypto-updates/monitor/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1892756] Review Request: python-managesieve - Accessing a Sieve-Server for managing Sieve scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1892756
Germano Massullo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Germano Massullo ---
Package approved. Please use the following spec and srpm files since I made
some minor changes
https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/python-managesieve/python-managesieve.spec
https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/python-managesieve/python-managesieve-0.6-3.fc33.src.rpm
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Python Software
Foundation License GNU General Public License". 27 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/user/rpmbuild/python-managesieve/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query
[Bug 1897460] Review Request: deepin-session-shell - Deepin desktop-environment - session-shell module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897460 Qiyu Yan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|yanqiy...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Qiyu Yan --- LGTM and approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1897277] Rename Review Request: deepin-qt5platform-plugins - Qt platform integration plugins for Deepin Desktop Environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897277
Qiyu Yan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Qiyu Yan ---
I think this package is ready.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Verified and excluded from provides
[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.
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
later", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3 GNU General
Public License, Version 2", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "*No
copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 47 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/yan/review/1897277-deepin-qt5platform-plugins/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 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: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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]:
[Bug 1872427] Review Request: ec2-hibinit-agent - support for hibernation for Amazon ec2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872427 --- Comment #13 from Neal Gompa --- > %global release_number 3 Actually, to more concretely word this correctly: Do not use upstream release versions in the "Release:" tag. Please decouple them so things like mass rebuilds don't break. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872427] Review Request: ec2-hibinit-agent - support for hibernation for Amazon ec2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872427
--- Comment #12 from Neal Gompa ---
> %global release_number 3
Please use "baserelease" here, so that Release Engineering automation will be
able to correctly auto-bump the Release field. Alternatively, decouple the
upstream "release" field from the Release number being used in the "Release:"
tag.
Recommendation for upstream: Don't tag versions with release numbers, just bump
the patch version.
> %py3_build_egg
> %py3_install_egg
Why are we building eggs instead of just doing the normal "%py3_build" and
"%py3_install" macros? Egg installations mean that everything is installed as a
zip bundle rather than as files on disk. This is not the recommended way to
build Python stuff as RPMs.
> Requires: python3
> Requires: python3-setuptools
This should no longer be needed, as they will be autogenerated correctly if we
install Python code the normal way. If you're also trying to build this for EL8
without EPEL, you will also want to add the following at the top of your spec:
# Enable Python dependency generation
%{?python_enable_dependency_generator}
> %selinux_requires
This requires "BuildRequires: selinux-policy, selinux-policy-devel". Also,
please do "%{?selinux_requires}" so that SRPM builds don't fail.
> # Disable THP by switching to nothp_profile profile
Is there a reason we're doing this?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1872427] Review Request: ec2-hibinit-agent - support for hibernation for Amazon ec2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872427 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Flags|needinfo?(nobody@fedoraproj |fedora-review? |ect.org)| --- Comment #11 from Neal Gompa --- I will take this formal review, since nobody has so far. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1897734] Review Request: librttopo - Create and manage SQL/MM topologies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897734
Mattia Verga changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Mattia Verga ---
Package APPROVED, but please remove the ldconfig call before importing the
package (see below).
Also, you should report upstream about the usage of deprecated AutoTools macro.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in librttopo
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]: 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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public
License v2.0 or later". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in
/home/rpmbuild/reviews/1897734-librttopo/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]: 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 4 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]:
[Bug 1897460] Review Request: deepin-session-shell - Deepin desktop-environment - session-shell module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897460
--- Comment #2 from Robin Lee ---
Change:
- Requires dbus-common
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/cheeselee/deepin-packit-testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01768952-deepin-session-shell/deepin-session-shell.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/cheeselee/deepin-packit-testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01768952-deepin-session-shell/deepin-session-shell-5.3.0.22-2.fc34.src.rpm
(In reply to Qiyu Yan from comment #1)
> - Why the usage of %{?fedora}, will this spec file be used to build for
> other distros? While I think it is better to leave only fedora (or epel)
> suport here.
As I said in the first comment, we work with upstream to create a unified
specfile for different distributions.
This makes the life of the Fedora packager happier.
> - Add dbus-common as dependency
Done.
>
> Issues:
> ===
> - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
> file-validate if there is such a file.
> False alarm, /usr/share/xgreeters/lightdm-deepin-greeter.desktop isn't
> application desktop file
> - Dist tag is present.
> using %{?fedora:%dist}, but why?
Another targeted distribution of this specfile, openEuler, don't use %dist.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1897734] Review Request: librttopo - Create and manage SQL/MM topologies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897734 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mattia.ve...@protonmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mattia.ve...@protonmail.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
