[Bug 1907017] Review Request: rust-libnotcurses-sys - Rust wrappers for the Notcurses TUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907017 --- Comment #3 from Nick Black --- I've updated the spec to include %license, which was missing in 1907014. I've rebuilt the SRPM against f34, and updated to the current upstream version 2.1.7. https://nick-black.com/tabpower/fedora-rust/rust-libnotcurses-sys.spec https://nick-black.com/tabpower/fedora-rust/rust-libnotcurses-sys-2.0.10-1.fc34.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1907014] Review Request: rust-cty - Type aliases to C types like c_int for use with bindgen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907014 --- Comment #4 from Nick Black --- Thanks Igor, I've updated the spec and SRPM. I've also made the SRPM against f34 this time. https://nick-black.com/tabpower/fedora-rust/rust-cty.spec https://nick-black.com/tabpower/fedora-rust/rust-cty-0.2.1-1.fc34.src.rpm PTAL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1919606] Review Request: rnnoise - Recurrent neural network for audio noise reduction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919606 --- Comment #1 from Artem --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60332314 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1919606] New: Review Request: rnnoise - Recurrent neural network for audio noise reduction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919606 Bug ID: 1919606 Summary: Review Request: rnnoise - Recurrent neural network for audio noise reduction Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.corda...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/rnnoise.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/rnnoise-0-0.1.20210122git1cbdbcf.fc33.src.rpm Description: RNNoise is a noise suppression library based on a recurrent neural network. While it is meant to be used as a library, a simple command-line tool is provided as an example. It operates on RAW 16-bit (machine endian) mono PCM files sampled at 48 kHz. It can be used as: ./examples/rnnoise_demo The output is also a 16-bit raw PCM file. Fedora Account System Username: atim -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1919368] Review Request: gnome-break-timer - Break timer application for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919368 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-6c44c6360f 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 1919368] Review Request: gnome-break-timer - Break timer application for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919368 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-01-24 01:22:16 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-fce0cef0e5 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 1919601] New: Review Request: protontricks - Simple wrapper that does winetricks things for Proton enabled games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919601 Bug ID: 1919601 Summary: Review Request: protontricks - Simple wrapper that does winetricks things for Proton enabled games Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.corda...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/protontricks.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/protontricks-1.4.3-2.fc33.src.rpm Description: A simple wrapper that does winetricks things for Proton enabled games, requires Winetricks. This is a fork of the original project created by sirmentio. The original repository is available at Sirmentio/protontricks. Fedora Account System Username: atim -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1919600] Review Request: python-vdf - Package for working with Valve's text and binary KeyValue format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919600 --- Comment #1 from Artem --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60326692 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1919600] New: Review Request: python-vdf - Package for working with Valve's text and binary KeyValue format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919600 Bug ID: 1919600 Summary: Review Request: python-vdf - Package for working with Valve's text and binary KeyValue format Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.corda...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/python-vdf.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/python-vdf-3.3-2.fc33.src.rpm Description: Pure python module for (de)serialization to and from VDF that works just like json. Fedora Account System Username: atim -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1912856] Review Request: foot - Fast, lightweight and minimalistic Wayland terminal emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912856 Bug 1912856 depends on bug 1912855, which changed state. Bug 1912855 Summary: Review Request: fcft - Simple library for font loading and glyph rasterization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912855 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1912855] Review Request: fcft - Simple library for font loading and glyph rasterization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912855 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-23 21:57:59 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1914195] Review Request: python-awesomeversion - Python module to deal with versions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-awesomeversion -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1912855] Review Request: fcft - Simple library for font loading and glyph rasterization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912855 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fcft -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #20 from Neal Gompa --- Everything looks good now. PACKAGE 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 1912335] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xwayland - Xwayland standalone package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912335
--- Comment #19 from Neal Gompa ---
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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "NTP License (legal
disclaimer)", "NTP License", "SGI Free Software License B v2.0",
"Khronos License", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public
License", "ICU License", "ISC License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or
"Revised" License", "NTP License (legal disclaimer) BSD 3-clause "New"
or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "NTP License
(legal disclaimer) Expat License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified"
License". 1133 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/ngompa/1912335-xorg-x11-server-
Xwayland/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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-devel
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from
[Bug 1917128] Review Request: efitools - Tools to manipulate EFI secure boot keys and signatures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917128 --- Comment #3 from Vladislav Kazakov --- My reviews of other packages: BZ#1919349 BZ#1919347 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1919349] Review Request: crash-trace-command - Trace extension module for the crash utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919349
Vladislav Kazakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vpacka...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Vladislav Kazakov ---
Hello again!
I will duplicate the remarks I made in BZ#1919347.
It's better to start versioning your libraries. As the upstream maintainer you
can do that. Please, see:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning
> Release: 0%{?dist}
Release: tag starting with 1 (never 0).
> ExclusiveArch: x86_64 aarch64
What about other arches? Crash supports other arches too.
As stated in Packaging Guidlines, "Fedora packagers should make every effort to
support all primary architectures".
> BuildRequires: crash-devel >= 7.2.0-2
All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines.
You need at least gcc.
> make
Whenever possible, invocations of make should be done as %make_build.
> %defattr(-,root,root)
The %defattr directive in the %files list SHOULD ONLY be used when setting a
non-default value, or to reset to the default value after having set a
non-default value.
> %doc COPYING
It's more license than doc, so you can use %license here.
You can set REAMDE as %doc for example.
And some new:
> %clean
> rm -rf %{buildroot}
%clean section SHOULD NOT be used.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1919347] Review Request: crash-gcore-command - Gcore extension module for the crash utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347 --- Comment #3 from Vladislav Kazakov --- Also you need a sponsor to become a packager. Some potential sponsors will look at the FE-NEEDSPONSOR bug in Bugzilla to find packages to review. You can add your package to this list by editing your review request bug (which will be created once you click 'Commit' on the form) and adding FE-NEEDSPONSOR in the 'Blocks' field. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Create_Your_Review_Request 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 1919347] Review Request: crash-gcore-command - Gcore extension module for the crash utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347
Vladisalv Kazakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vpacka...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Vladisalv Kazakov ---
Hello. Thanks for bringing your package to Fedora!
I will make a couple of comments on your spec while you wait for a actual
reviewer.
It's better to start versioning your libraries. As the upstream maintainer you
can do that. Please, see:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning
> Release: 0%{?dist}
Release: tag starting with 1 (never 0).
> ExclusiveArch: x86_64 aarch64
What about other arches? Crash supports other arches too.
As stated in Packaging Guidlines, "Fedora packagers should make every effort to
support all primary architectures".
> BuildRequires: crash-devel >= 5.1.5
All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines.
You need at least gcc.
> make -C src -f gcore.mk
Whenever possible, invocations of make should be done as %make_build.
> %defattr(-,root,root)
The %defattr directive in the %files list SHOULD ONLY be used when setting a
non-default value, or to reset to the default value after having set a
non-default value.
> %doc COPYING
It's more license than doc, so you can use %license here.
You can set REAMDE as %doc for example.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1919118] Review Request: python-snaptime - Transforming timestamps simply
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919118 --- Comment #2 from Iztok Fister Jr. --- Hi Aniket, Thank you very much for your rapid response. I totally agree with you. Software is very old and currently not maintained. However, this is an important rpm package in order to pave the way for maya package (https://github.com/timofurrer/maya) which is a quite popular. I will try to fix some problems with exceptions in upstream repo in the near future. Anyway, I have already resolved issues that were identified in the first review round. Please find a new version in my GH repo. - 1. Source0 is now correct. 2. Tab was removed from SPEC file. - Thank you once again for your input. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884608] Review Request: dosbox-staging - DOS/x86 emulator focusing on ease of use
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884608
--- Comment #18 from Hans de Goede ---
Oops, I made a copy and paste error in the Provides/Obsoletes bits, the correct
lines are:
Provides: dosbox = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: dosbox < %{version}-%{release}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884608] Review Request: dosbox-staging - DOS/x86 emulator focusing on ease of use
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884608
Hans de Goede changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||hdego...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hdego...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #17 from Hans de Goede ---
As discussed by email I'm taking over this review from François.
I've done a full review, below is the list of all checks
run (generated with the help of the fedora-review tool)
Note there are a few (trivial) [!] fail items in here,
I've put a summary of those with some extra explanation at the
end of this comment as a small TODO/FIXME list.
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.
[-]: 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 (GPLv2+)
and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section
of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[!]: 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 81920 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 expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources
[Bug 1919118] Review Request: python-snaptime - Transforming timestamps simply
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919118
Aniket Pradhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||aniketpradhan1...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|aniketpradhan1...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Aniket Pradhan ---
Heyy Iztok!
I have some concerns regarding the package. First, it seems to be old and not
regularly maintained. But, I don't think that should affect anything. You can
try publishing some changes upstream so that they fix their tests
(Exception.message is deprecated and is no longer used. That is why the tests
fail)
Also the Source0 field should be a URL to the tarball. Since there is no
versioned release on Github, you can probably use this link:
`https://github.com/zartstrom/snaptime/tarball/master/snaptime-master.tar.gz`
(the folder name would change accordingly)
Please also have a look at the rpmlint information:
```
python-snaptime.src:21: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab:
line 21)
```
Other than that it looks great! Below is the automated review:
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/major/Documents/NeuroFedora/review/python-snaptime/review-
python-snaptime/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/snaptime,
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/snaptime/__pycache__
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.9/site-
packages/snaptime, /usr/lib/python3.9/site-
packages/snaptime/__pycache__
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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: 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 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
[Bug 1908338] Review Request: php-pecl-couchbase3 - Couchbase Server PHP extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908338 Sergey Avseyev changed: What|Removed |Added 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 1914195] Review Request: python-awesomeversion - Python module to deal with versions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1914195] Review Request: python-awesomeversion - Python module to deal with versions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
