[Bug 1913786] Review Request: bottles - Easily manage Wine prefix in a new way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913786 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-0c8295842d 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 1916041] Review Request: rubygem-xmlrpc - XMLRPC is a lightweight protocol that enables remote procedure calls over HTTP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916041 --- Comment #2 from Pavel Valena --- We use XMLRPC for Bughunting (not in Fedora yet), but xmlrpc was removed from Ruby. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1912335] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xwayland - Xwayland standalone package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912335 --- Comment #15 from Neal Gompa --- Your package is missing BR for gcc, per the C/C++ guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1916648] Review Request: python-sphinx_lv2_theme - A minimal pure-CSS theme for Sphinx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
--- Comment #4 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
In my suggestion above,
%elif 0%{?fedora} == 32
should have been
%endif
%if 0%{?fedora} == 32
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1914638] Review Request: nsntrace - Perform network trace of a program by using network namespaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914638
c...@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
Great! Approved. Re-review below.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or
generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later".
15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/ben/src/fedora/reviews/nsntrace/re-
review/1914638-nsntrace/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]: 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]: 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
[Bug 1916648] Review Request: python-sphinx_lv2_theme - A minimal pure-CSS theme for Sphinx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
c...@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(guido.aulisi@gmai
||l.com)
--- Comment #3 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
So the issues I found were mostly a matter of excessive macro complexity. I
think there is no need to try to be compatible with situations that do not
occur in supported Fedora releases or in EPEL8. Otherwise, this seems to be a
nice, clean package.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= Issues =
[!]: The %python_provide macro is obsolete, and should not be used on Fedora.
Its replacement, %py_provides, is only needed on Fedora 32, at least for
python3-* packages. To remind yourself to remove the latter when no longer
needed, I recommend the following if you want to build for F32-F34 and
EPEL8:
%if 0%{?epel} && 0%{?epel} <= 8
%{?python_provide:%python_provide
python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pypi_name}}
%elif 0%{?fedora} == 32
%py_provides python3-%{pypi_name}
%endif
See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro.
[!]: %{?!python3_pkgversion:%global python3_pkgversion 3} is not needed; it
will already be defined in EPEL7 as “36” and in EPEL8 and Fedora as “3”.
See (non-authoritative)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts:Python3EPEL.
[!]: %{?python_enable_dependency_generator} does not really do anything. The
dependency generator is enabled by default on all supported Fedoras and
EPEL8, and not available on EPEL7.
[!]: Since you are not targeting EPEL7, the conditional manual Requires are not
needed either.
[?]: There is no rule against repeating yourself, but a common pattern is:
%global common_description %{expand:
Lots of text
goes here
and here.}
%description %{common_description}
# (later in the spec file)
%description -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pypi_name} \
%{common_description}
You don’t have to do that, but it does tidy up the spec file a bit.
[?]: Please consider the following simplification:
URL:https://gitlab.com/lv2/%{pypi_name}
Source0:
%{url}/-/archive/v%{version}/%{pypi_name}-v%{version}.tar.bz2
= 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* ISC License". 16 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/ben/src/fedora/reviews/python-sphinx_lv2_theme/1916648-python-
sphinx_lv2_theme/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
No compiled or minified CSS or JavaScript may be included, unless it is
created from the original sources as part of the RPM build and the
original sources are included; see
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Web_Assets/#_css
and
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/JavaScript/.
The good news is, this package has no JavaScript and uses simple,
hand-written CSS, so there is no problem.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package
[Bug 1916648] Review Request: python-sphinx_lv2_theme - A minimal pure-CSS theme for Sphinx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c...@musicinmybrain.net 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 1908526] Review Request: python-opentracing - OpenTracing interface for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908526 --- Comment #2 from n...@mykolab.com --- Hello, I have improved the spec. Here are updated links: - Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/noon/python-opentracing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01881290-python-opentracing/python-opentracing.spec - SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/noon/python-opentracing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01881290-python-opentracing/python-opentracing-2.4.0-1.fc34.src.rpm - Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59796679 Description: This library is a Python platform API for OpenTracing. It allows Python programs to interact with any OpenTracing-compliant server such as JaegerTracer. This is my first Fedora package. Could anybody please sponsor it? Thanks a lot! Best regards Fabrice -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1916936] Review Request: libdispatch - Apple's Grand Central Dispatch library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916936 --- Comment #2 from Ron Olson --- Should I remove the reference now, or could I update it when it's available? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1916936] Review Request: libdispatch - Apple's Grand Central Dispatch library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916936 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- CMake 3.18 is coming in RHEL 8.4 in the spring. This is tracked in bug 1816874. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1912335] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xwayland - Xwayland standalone package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912335 --- Comment #14 from Neal Gompa --- Fair points. I would suggest keeping these in the back of your mind if the "standalone Xwayland" thing lands upstream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1916936] New: Review Request: libdispatch - Apple's Grand Central Dispatch library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916936 Bug ID: 1916936 Summary: Review Request: libdispatch - Apple's Grand Central Dispatch library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tachokni...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/libdispatch/libdispatch.spec SRPM URL: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/libdispatch/libdispatch-5.3.2-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Apple's Grand Central Dispatch library Fedora Account System Username: tachoknight -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1916648] Review Request: python-sphinx_lv2_theme - A minimal pure-CSS theme for Sphinx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648 Guido Aulisi changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(guido.aulisi@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #2 from Guido Aulisi --- I'm planning to build for all fedora supported releases: f32, f33, f34. If it's not too problematic I will try a build for epel8, but it's not mandatory. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1912419] Review Request: python-asyncwhois - Python module for performing WHOIS queries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912419 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c...@musicinmybrain.net --- Comment #1 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- Before a full review, would you mind taking care of these? - The %python_provide macro is obsolete, and you do not even need %py_provides if you are not packaging for Fedora 32. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro (Somebody really needs to update pyp2rpm to match the current guidelines; the same things keep coming up over and over.) - A new version 0.2.2 is available. - You can use the GitHub tarball and run the tests, because your issue https://github.com/pogzyb/asyncwhois/issues/10 is now fixed. You’ll need to add the install_requires as BR’s. - Upstream added the separate license file in https://github.com/pogzyb/asyncwhois/pull/11, too. This is not mandatory, but please consider whether you might want to use the pyproject-rpm-macros (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros). Generated BR’s are really nice; you get the version requirements from upstream if applicable, and you’ll never forget to update them. In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914450, I provided an example of rewriting a simple spec file to use the pyproject-rpm-macros. In this case, you would use “%pyproject_buildrequires -r” to get the install_requires as BR’s, and ”%pytest” in %check, adding a manual BR on python3dist(pytest). By the way, if you need to use a GitHub tarball, the %forgemeta macro is really helpful, *especially* if releases are not properly tagged. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ for examples. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1914450] Review Request: python-jupyter-packaging - Tools to help build and install Jupyter Python packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914450 --- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok --- Ah! The wording was misleading, so we have updated the README, but we apparently forgot to update the package %description. Nice catch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1914638] Review Request: nsntrace - Perform network trace of a program by using network namespaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914638 Mikel Olasagasti Uranga changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mikel@olasagasti. | |info) | --- Comment #7 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga --- Spec URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/nsntrace.spec SRPM URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/nsntrace-4-2.fc33.src.rpm got it and updated spec file with a comment, thanks for reviewing! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1914638] Review Request: nsntrace - Perform network trace of a program by using network namespaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914638 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |needinfo?(mikel@olasagasti. |in.net) |info) --- Comment #6 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- Normally, one of the SHOULD points in a review is “%check is present and all tests pass.” The upstream tarball *does* have tests, but they all require privilege (sudo). I’d just like to see a comment where the %check section would be, explaining that this is why there is no %check section, so the reason is clear to anyone reading the spec file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1914638] Review Request: nsntrace - Perform network trace of a program by using network namespaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914638 Mikel Olasagasti Uranga changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mikel@olasagasti. |needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |info) |in.net) --- Comment #5 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga --- > You cannot run the tests because they require privileged operations > (sudo), but you should add a comment explaining this. I'm confused as spec has no tests or %check. Which tests are you referring to? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1914638] Review Request: nsntrace - Perform network trace of a program by using network namespaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914638
c...@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(mikel@olasagasti.
||info)
--- Comment #4 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
Okay, one small nitpick and then I will be ready to approve:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= Issues =
[!]: You cannot run the tests because they require privileged operations
(sudo), but you should add a comment explaining this.
= 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or
generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later".
15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/ben/src/fedora/reviews/nsntrace/1914638-nsntrace/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]: 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources
[Bug 1914638] Review Request: nsntrace - Perform network trace of a program by using network namespaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914638 --- Comment #3 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- (In reply to code from comment #2) > This looks fine. Sorry, that was premature and accidentally posted. Full review to follow. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1914638] Review Request: nsntrace - Perform network trace of a program by using network namespaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914638 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c...@musicinmybrain.net Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c...@musicinmybrain.net Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- This looks fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1914292] Review Request: tkrzw - Fast key-value storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c...@musicinmybrain.net Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c...@musicinmybrain.net 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 1916648] Review Request: python-sphinx_lv2_theme - A minimal pure-CSS theme for Sphinx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c...@musicinmybrain.net Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||needinfo?(guido.aulisi@gmai ||l.com) --- Comment #1 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- To verify which compatibility macros are, and are not, required, can I ask which supported releases you are planning to build for? F34 obviously, but what about F33, F32, EPEL8, EPEL7? All of the above? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1911928] Review Request: python-ncclient - Python library for the NETCONF protocol - unretire
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911928 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- I have given up on fixing python-ryu and orphaned it again, but I still think unretiring this package is worthwhile. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1914292] Review Request: tkrzw - Fast key-value storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292 --- Comment #3 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- Created attachment 1747888 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1747888=edit Candidate patch to skip tests that mlock more memory than is allowed by default -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1914292] Review Request: tkrzw - Fast key-value storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292 --- Comment #2 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- Created attachment 1747887 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1747887=edit Candidate patch to stop overriding build flags -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1914292] Review Request: tkrzw - Fast key-value storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c ||om) --- Comment #1 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- Thanks for submitting this. I have listed quite a few issues, but please don’t give up! They can all be fixed. Let me know if you are having trouble with any of them. Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: === [!]: License field is wrong. Use the standard abbreviations from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses. Apache License 2.0 should be abbreviated ASL 2.0. [!]: Shared libraries in %files should be listed without globs/wildcards, or with a more restrictive glob, to reduce the likelihood of missing an SONAME bump in an update. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files. [!]: Is there a reason for tkrzw-libs to provide tkrzw-lib? I suspect this is copied from the kyotocabinet spec file, where it may have been needed at one time, but in my opinion it is just unnecessary noise for a new package. If it was intentional and there is a concrete reason I am missing, please let me know. [!]: Build system injects “-O0” when you pass --enable-debug and/or --disable-opt to the configure script, which disables optimizations and certain hardening options. Even without these, the build system overrides compiler flags that it should not; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags. My testing shows that you can fix this with tkrzw-0.9.3-do-not-override-build-flags.patch, to be attached. Per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/, you would at least need a comment explaining that this patch is specific to Fedora. I’m not sure it’s suitable for offering upstream as-is, although it wouldn’t hurt to ask upstream for a way to build without any unnecessary compiler flag overrides. (It shouldn’t have been necessary to still add -fPIC in this patch; -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 should have taken care of it. I am not sure why. Nor am I sure why using -fPIE instead doesn’t work.) [!]: You can build in parallel even better with “%make_build apidoc all” instead of “%make_build” followed by “make apidoc”. [!}: The HTML docs from doc/ should not be installed in two places; currently they are in both the -libs subpackage and the -devel subpackage. Plus, while they are only about half a MB, that is enough to significantly increase the size of each of those packages. I think they should be combined with the API docs in a single documentation subpackage. See the following issue. [!]: I don’t think the idiosyncratic -apidocs subpackage name from kyotocabinet should be maintained here. The guidelines imply that -doc is the proper name for a documentation subpackage (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_separate_documentation_packages), and existing practice matches. There are only eight -apidocs packages in Fedora 33, compared to 128 -docs packages and 5259 -doc packages. Personally, I would rename -apidocs to -doc, add “cp -rp doc html” and “mv api-doc api” at the end of %build, and then have “%doc html api” in the %files section for the -doc subpackage. fedora-review said: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 6000640 bytes in 303 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation [!]: Documentation subpackage should mark COPYING as %license, not %doc. [!}: The HTML docs from doc/ should not be installed in two places; currently they are in both the -libs subpackage and the -devel subpackage. Plus, while they are only about half a MB, that is enough to significantly increase the size of each of those packages. Personally, I would tend to rename the -apidocs subpackage to -doc (there are only eight -apidocs packages in Fedora 33, compared to 128 -docs packages and 5259 -doc packages); add “cp -rp doc html” and do think it is strange to already have a documentation subpackage but then install some documentation elsewhere. [!]: You need to run the test suite in %check. The comment says “Koji err: "no enough memory". This is not a general out-of-memory error, but an attempt to lock too many pages with mlock. This is mentioned in the HTML documentation (search for mlock). The
[Bug 1916480] Review Request: gimp-ofn-stroke-fill-paths - Gimp plugin that renders all visible paths
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916480 --- Comment #6 from Josef Ridky --- They should be bytecompiled. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1916480] Review Request: gimp-ofn-stroke-fill-paths - Gimp plugin that renders all visible paths
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916480 --- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Škarvada --- (In reply to Josef Ridky from comment #4) Josef thanks for your reply. Is it required to bytecompile the python plugins? Or are the plugins shipped without bytecompilation? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1916648] New: Review Request: python-sphinx_lv2_theme - A minimal pure-CSS theme for Sphinx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648 Bug ID: 1916648 Summary: Review Request: python-sphinx_lv2_theme - A minimal pure-CSS theme for Sphinx Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: guido.aul...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://tartina.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx_lv2_theme.spec SRPM URL: https://tartina.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx_lv2_theme-1.0.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: This is a minimal pure-CSS theme for Sphinx that uses the documentation style of the LV2 plugin specification and related projects. Fedora Account System Username: tartina This theme is needed to build documentation for new versions of several LV2 plugin packages like serd, sord, lv2... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1881167] Review Request: mvel - MVFLEX Expression Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881167 --- Comment #15 from Severin Gehwolf --- JDK-8245051 will be fixed in 11u for 11.0.10 (Jan CPU). I'd suggest to wait a week or so and try again if the issue is gone. Either way, this seems a JDK bug, not mvel. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1905143] Review Request: rust-iocuddle - Safely call ioctls from Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1905143 Igor Raits changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST --- Comment #5 from Igor Raits --- Also please join #fedora-rust on freenode so that we can coordinate rust packaging better :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1905143] Review Request: rust-iocuddle - Safely call ioctls from Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1905143 Igor Raits changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|igor.ra...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Igor Raits --- Package looks good! I've sponsored you, so you would need to login/logout on src.fedoraproject.org before requesting the repos. I think https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers should describe what to do next. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
