date:20210201

[Bug 1908922] Review Request: libopenaptx - Open Source implementation of Audio Processing Technology codec (aptX)

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908922



--- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
It's been forwarded to the appropriate people. We're waiting for the
resolution.


-- 
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 1908922] Review Request: libopenaptx - Open Source implementation of Audio Processing Technology codec (aptX)

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908922



--- Comment #11 from Gergely Gombos  ---
(In reply to Ben Cotton from comment #4)
> Ack on the legal review. I'll get the patent status verified and then update
> this bug.

Hi @Ben, any advancements on the legal review? Looks like this still is still
blocking the FE-Legal ticket.


-- 
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

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916936



--- Comment #21 from Vasiliy Glazov  ---
We have problems:
libdispatch.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion libblocksruntime < 7.0.0-5 obsoletes
libblocksruntime = 5.3.3-1.fc34
libdispatch.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libBlocksRuntime.so
libBlocksRuntime.so
libdispatch.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libdispatch.so libdispatch.so
libdispatch.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libdispatch.so
['$ORIGIN']

1. Need more investigate about obsoletion in this case.
2. Is it possible to add version for libs?
3. Add BuildRequires:  chrpath
and
chrpath --delete %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libdispatch.so
after %cmake_install


-- 
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

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919349

Nathan Scott  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nath...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nath...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?




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

[Bug 1919347] Review Request: crash-gcore-command - Gcore extension module for the crash utility

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347

Nathan Scott  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nath...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nath...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?




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

[Bug 1807365] Review Request: nuspell - Free and open source C++ spell checking library

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807365

vishal vijayraghavan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||vvija...@redhat.com



--- Comment #18 from vishal vijayraghavan  ---
Nuspell package updated[1] to latest release 4.2.0.
This update is build currently for rawhide only, please review and suggest
updates if any.
Thanks :)

[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nuspell/blob/master/f/nuspell.spec


-- 
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 1922869] Review Request: transactional-update - Transactional Updates with btrfs and snapshots

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
(In reply to Carl George 鸞 from comment #1)
> What's the purpose of the %_distconfdir macro?  Gentle reminder that only
> Fedora and EPEL macros are allowed in Fedora spec files [0].
> 

Right, %_distconfdir is something from openSUSE, which points to /usr/etc[1]. I
can, of course, drop it and just change it back to %_prefix/%_sysconfdir, since
I'm only using it to delete stuff right now.

[1]: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_UsrEtc

> From how I'm reading the upstream license [1], there needs to be some
> license adjustments in the spec file.  The -libs and -devel subpackages are
> "GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+", and need the license field and %license files to
> reflect that.  Everything else is just GPLv2+.
> 
> [0]
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_legibility
> [1] https://github.com/openSUSE/transactional-update/blob/v3.0.0/COPYING

The source package includes all the things, so I put the "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+"
term there, while appropriately setting the licenses (GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+) for
each subpackage based on what the headers in the files said for each
subpackage.


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

[Bug 1914195] Review Request: python-awesomeversion - Python module to deal with versions

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2021-02-02 03:09:32



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-55644180c4 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 1786732] Review Request: python-pyhocon - module and utilitiy to read hocon and convert between yaml, json and properties

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786732

Martin Jackson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2021-02-02 03:04:58




-- 
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 1923830] New: Review Request: Diffuse - Diff Utility (Re-introducing Retired Package)

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923830

Bug ID: 1923830
   Summary: Review Request: Diffuse - Diff Utility (Re-introducing
Retired Package)
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: notinsideofhereiamnotins...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/niohiani/Diffuse-Python-3/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01817739-diffuse/diffuse3-meson.spec

SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/niohiani/Diffuse-Python-3/srpm-builds/01817739/

Description: This is a light - yet very capable - GUI diff tool, that
integrates nicely with GNOME and other GTK-based environments. It was included
in the default repos until a couple of releases back. The project was revived
somewhat recently, and has been ported to Python 3, seeing regular stable
releases. You can see my post about it on devel here:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZEWIMVHWNQVHVDR4RIXZWNUJCJLAZ7YX/

Fedora Account System Username: niohiani


-- 
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 1920606] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging - Logging facade used by GCP guest agents

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920606

ericedens  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review+  |fedora-review?



--- Comment #10 from ericedens  ---
Great, thanks! Last iteration fixes the lint errors:


Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-33-x86_64/01930355-google-guest-logging/golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-33-x86_64/01930355-google-guest-logging/golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging-0-1.20210202git6cbb518.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 1920606] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging - Logging facade used by GCP guest agents

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920606

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |



--- Comment #9 from Neal Gompa  ---
I've sponsored Eric Edens as a packager. Welcome to the Fedora packagers group!

Now you are now able to proceed to the next step in the process to add this
package to Fedora.



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1920606] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging - Logging facade used by GCP guest agents

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920606

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #8 from Neal Gompa  ---
Package was generated through go2rpm, simplifying the review considerably.

- Conforms to packaging guidelines (go2rpm generated spec)
- license correct and valid
- only sources installed
- no serious issues from rpmlint

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 1920606] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging - Logging facade used by GCP guest agents

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920606



--- Comment #7 from ericedens  ---
fedora-review appears to take the last links on the page, so adding the correct
ones here:

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/EricEdens/fedora-packages/google-guest-logging/golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-33-x86_64/01905931-golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging/golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging-0-1.20210126git6cbb518.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 1920606] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging - Logging facade used by GCP guest agents

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920606

ericedens  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Comment|0   |updated



--- Comment #0 has been edited ---

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/EricEdens/fedora-packages/google-guest-logging/golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-33-x86_64/01905931-golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging/golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging-0-1.20210126git6cbb518.fc33.src.rpm
COPR:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/build/1905931/
Description: Logging facade for Google Cloud Platform guest agents. Required to
complete .
Fedora Account System Username: ericedens

-- 
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 1920606] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging - Logging facade used by GCP guest agents

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920606



--- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa  ---
Can you please update the Spec URL to point to the raw path to the spec file
itself (not the Github rendered HTML version)? fedora-review is choking on the
current URL.

ngompa@fedkde-ryo-ohki-winvm ~> fedora-review -b 1920606 -m
fedora-rawhide-x86_64
INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 1920606
INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 1920606
INFO:   --> SRPM url:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-33-x86_64/01905931-golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging/golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging-0-1.20210126git6cbb518.fc33.src.rpm
INFO:   --> Spec url:
https://github.com/EricEdens/fedora-packages/blob/google-guest-logging/golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging.spec
INFO: Using review directory:
/home/ngompa/1920606-golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging
INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files
error: line 7: Unknown tag: 
ERROR: "Can't parse specfile: can't parse specfile\n" (logs in
/home/ngompa/.cache/fedora-review.log)
Exception ignored in: 
AttributeError: '_Null' object has no attribute 'flush'


-- 
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 1922869] Review Request: transactional-update - Transactional Updates with btrfs and snapshots

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869



--- Comment #1 from Carl George 鸞  ---
What's the purpose of the %_distconfdir macro?  Gentle reminder that only
Fedora and EPEL macros are allowed in Fedora spec files [0].

From how I'm reading the upstream license [1], there needs to be some license
adjustments in the spec file.  The -libs and -devel subpackages are "GPLv2+ or
LGPLv2+", and need the license field and %license files to reflect that. 
Everything else is just GPLv2+.

[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_legibility
[1] https://github.com/openSUSE/transactional-update/blob/v3.0.0/COPYING


-- 
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 1923015] Review Request: golang-github-badoux-checkmail - Golang package for email validation

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923015



--- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
Thank you for the review, Fabian

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/31981


-- 
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 1923779] New: Review Request: catalyst -

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923779

Bug ID: 1923779
   Summary: Review Request: catalyst -
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: or...@nwra.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Blocks: 1923074
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/catalyst.spec
SRPM URL:
https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/catalyst-2.0-0.1.20201218git2fc94c5.fc34.src.rpm

Description:
Catalyst is an API specification developed for simulations (and other
scientific data producers) to analyze and visualize data in situ.

Originally, Catalyst was part of ParaView. However, with ParaView version
5.9, the Catalyst API was revamped quite extensively and release as an
independent project. This repository includes the definition together with a
lightweight implementation of this revamped Catalyst API.

The documentation describing the details, including build instructions and
how to use Catalyst for in situ analysis and visualization in simulations is
available here: https://catalyst-in-situ.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html

Fedora Account System Username: orion

Scratch build - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61063693



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923074
[Bug 1923074] F34FailsToInstall: paraview, paraview-mpich, paraview-openmpi
-- 
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 1923776] New: Review Request: linux_thermaltake_riing - Python driver and daemon to control thermaltake Riing fans and pumps

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923776

Bug ID: 1923776
   Summary: Review Request: linux_thermaltake_riing - Python
driver and daemon to control thermaltake Riing fans
and pumps
   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/linux_thermaltake_riing.spec
SRPM URL:
https://atim.fedorapeople.org/linux_thermaltake_riing-0.2.0-1.fc33.src.rpm

Description:
Linux driver and daemon for Thermaltake Riing

Currently supported devices are (as they show up in thermaltakes TTRGBPLUS
software:

- Flow Riing RGB
- Lumi Plus LED Strip
- Pacific PR22-D5 Plus
- Pacific Rad Plus LED Panel
- Pacific V-GTX 1080Ti Plus GPU Waterblock
- Pacific W4 Plus CPU Waterblock
- Riing Plus

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 1907017] Review Request: rust-libnotcurses-sys - Rust wrappers for the Notcurses TUI library

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907017



--- Comment #7 from Nick Black  ---
Good catch regarding the `LICENSE`, thanks. I've added it to the crate, and it
will be present with the 2.1.8 release. I'm expecting that any day now, so I'll
go ahead and push a new spec/SRPM when it drops.


-- 
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 1919639] Review Request: DOSBox-X - DOS/x86 emulator

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919639



--- Comment #10 from Robert  ---
In addition to the SPEC and SRPM files linked above, here are the koji builds:

F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61053742
F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61054003

Note: I had to disable building for 32bit ARM for now, I have created a bug
report for 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 1923678] Review Request: openresolv - DNS management framework

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923678

aegor...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||aegor...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|aegor...@redhat.com




-- 
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

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916936



--- Comment #20 from Ron Olson  ---
Okay, I updated the spec with what I think is the appropriate values based on
the link you provided, plus some research I did to make sure I was doing it
correctly.


-- 
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 1922774] Review Request: perl-Test-DiagINC - List modules and versions loaded if tests fail

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922774

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
Source file is ok
Summary is ok
License is ok
Description is ok
URL and Source0 are ok
All tests passed

BuildRequires
FIX: Please add 'coreutils', it is needed for macro %{_fixperms}

$ rpm -qp --requires perl-Test-DiagINC-0.008-1.fc34.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
| grep -v rpmlib
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.32.1)
  1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.6.0
Binary requires 
FIX: Please add following run-requires, they are not found by generators:
 - perl(B)
 - perl(Cwd)
 - perl(File::Spec)
 - perl(strict)
 - perl(warnings)


$ rpm -qp --provides perl-Test-DiagINC-0.008-1.fc34.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
  1 perl(Test::DiagINC) = 0.008
  1 perl-Test-DiagINC = 0.008-1.fc34
Binary provides are Ok.

$ rpmlint ./perl-Test-DiagINC*
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint is ok

Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guide lines.
Please correct all 'FIX' items. 

Resolution:
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 1916936] Review Request: libdispatch - Apple's Grand Central Dispatch library

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916936



--- Comment #19 from Vasiliy Glazov  ---
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages


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

[Bug 1916936] Review Request: libdispatch - Apple's Grand Central Dispatch library

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916936



--- Comment #18 from Vasiliy Glazov  ---
I think versioned Obsoletes needed.


-- 
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

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916936



--- Comment #17 from Ron Olson  ---
I made the change to the spec file to your suggestion, thanks! 

I was thinking of retiring the libblockruntime package as libdispatch basically
replaces it. Would it be a good idea to add an "Obsoletes" entry to the spec
file for libblocksruntime?


-- 
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

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916936



--- Comment #16 from Vasiliy Glazov  ---
/usr/include/Block.h already provided by libblocksruntime-devel package. May be
conflict.

And requires for devel change to 
Requires:   %{name}%{?_isa} = %{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 1923678] Review Request: openresolv - DNS management framework

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923678



--- Comment #3 from Petr Menšík  ---
Originally this package was blocked by systemd package. Now it uses
alternatives [1] to provide just alternative to resolvconf. It resets and
breaks resolvectl link when uninstalled.
More details in bug #1923727.

1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Alternatives/


-- 
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 1923678] Review Request: openresolv - DNS management framework

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923678

Petr Menšík  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1923727





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923727
[Bug 1923727] systemd-resolved: resolvconf link prevents installation of
alternative
-- 
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 1914739] Review Request: rteval - Measure realtime behavior under load

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914739

John Kacur  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: - rteval|Review Request: rteval -
   |Measure realtime behavior   |Measure realtime behavior
   |under load  |under load




-- 
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 1914739] Review Request: - rteval Measure realtime behavior under load

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914739

John Kacur  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: rteval  |Review Request: - rteval
   |Measure realtime behavior   |Measure realtime behavior
   |under load  |under load




-- 
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 1922427] Review Request: rust-human-sort - Human sort (natural sort) implementation

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922427

Robert-André Mauchin   changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1923272





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923272
[Bug 1923272] rust-lsd: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f34
-- 
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 1923678] Review Request: openresolv - DNS management framework

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923678



--- Comment #2 from Petr Menšík  ---
Prepared COPR repository with this package:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pemensik/openresolv/


-- 
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 668153] Review Request: openresolv - Management framework for resolv.conf

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668153

Petr Menšík  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1923678





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923678
[Bug 1923678] Review Request: openresolv - DNS management framework
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
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 1923678] Review Request: openresolv - DNS management framework

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923678

Petr Menšík  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||668153



--- Comment #1 from Petr Menšík  ---
It was originally reviewed as bug #668153, which were later closed.

I still think that provided package is useful in several use cases, including
split dns configuration independent on local DNS cache used.



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668153
[Bug 668153] Review Request: openresolv - Management framework for resolv.conf
-- 
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 1923678] New: Review Request: openresolv - DNS management framework

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923678

Bug ID: 1923678
   Summary: Review Request: openresolv - DNS management framework
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: pemen...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pemensik/openresolv/fedora/openresolv.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~pemensik/srpm/openresolv-3.12.0-1.src.rpm
Description: Implementation independent maintenance of /etc/resolv.conf
scripts.
  Provides resolvconf implementation.
Fedora Account System Username: pemensik


-- 
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 1914740] Review Request: rteval-loads - Provide source for system loads for rteval

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914740



--- Comment #6 from Jiri Kastner  ---
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.

see above comment, license is known


-- 
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 1914739] Review Request: rteval Measure realtime behavior under load

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914739

Jiri Kastner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cz172...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #8 from Jiri Kastner  ---
= 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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or
 generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General
 Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]",
 "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address
 (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License", "BSD 2-clause
 "Simplified" License". 38 files have unknown license. Detailed output
 of licensecheck in /home/indy/packaging/review/review-
 rteval/licensecheck.txt

let file bz for fixing fsf address in upstream

[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package

rteval has -devel dependencies because kcompile load means kernel compilation

[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 40960 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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


-- 
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

[Bug 1914740] Review Request: rteval-loads - Provide source for system loads for rteval

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914740

Jiri Kastner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cz172...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Jiri Kastner  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[ ]: 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.

license of kernel source is known, no objections

[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
 licenses manually.
see above

[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/rteval

this package provides 'payload' for kcompile test, which is default
in rteval.

[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/rteval

see above

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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 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


-- 
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

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916936



--- Comment #15 from Ron Olson  ---
Great that it's working for you! I added the -devel package. 

Spec URL: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/libdispatch/libdispatch.spec
SRPM URL:
https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/libdispatch/libdispatch-5.3.3-1.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 1922774] Review Request: perl-Test-DiagINC - List modules and versions loaded if tests fail

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922774

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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




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

[Bug 1919037] Review Request: dotnet5.0 - .NET Runtime and SDK

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919037

Omair Majid  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2021-02-01 15:01:15



--- Comment #7 from Omair Majid  ---
Thanks again for the review!

The package has been built for rawhide:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2cf45ff8b3


-- 
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 1919045] Review Request: dotnet5.0-build-reference-packages - Reference packages needed by the .NET 5.0 SDK build

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919045

Omair Majid  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2021-02-01 15:01:28



--- Comment #4 from Omair Majid  ---
Thanks again for the review!

The package has been built for rawhide:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2cf45ff8b3


-- 
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 1912706] Review Request: ziglang - open-source programming language designed for robustness, optimality, and clarity

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912706



--- Comment #7 from serge_sans_paille  ---
Thanks for all the comments. Spec file updated here

Spec URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/zig.spec
SRPM URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/zig-0.7.1-1.src.rpm

scratch-build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61017957


-- 
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 1923015] Review Request: golang-github-badoux-checkmail - Golang package for email validation

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923015

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@fabian-affolter.ch
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter  ---
Package APPROVED



Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. Licenses found: "Expat License", "*No copyright*
 Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1923015-golang-github-badoux-
 checkmail/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-mwitkow-conntrack-
 devel, golang-github-cucumber-messages-devel, golang-github-uber-
 jaeger-lib-devel, golang-github-marusama-semaphore-devel, golang-
 github-exoscale-egoscale-devel, golang-github-gehirninc-crypt-devel,
 compat-golang-github-commonmark-puny-devel, golang-github-h2non-parth-
 [...]
 github-modern-reflect2-devel, golang-github-howeyc-fsnotify-devel,
 golang-github-vmware-govmomi-devel, golang-github-gin-contrib-cors-
 devel, golang-github-zeebo-incenc-devel)
[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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not

[Bug 1922869] Review Request: transactional-update - Transactional Updates with btrfs and snapshots

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869

Carl George 鸞  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||c...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c...@redhat.com
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review?




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

[Bug 1912335] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xwayland - Xwayland standalone package

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912335

Olivier Fourdan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2021-02-01 13:03:06



--- Comment #22 from Olivier Fourdan  ---
Rawhide build complete, closing. Thanks!


-- 
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 1922147] Review Request: libdatovka - Client library for accessing SOAP services of ISDS (Czech Data Boxes)

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922147

Jan Žerdík  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |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 1922147] Review Request: libdatovka - Client library for accessing SOAP services of ISDS (Czech Data Boxes)

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922147



--- Comment #6 from Jan Žerdík  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: libdatovka-doc : /usr/share/doc/libdatovka-doc/client/common.h
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_devel_packages
  (False positive: header file of example implementation)



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
 Version 3", "[generated file]", "GNU Lesser General Public License
 v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General
 Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public
 License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License
 v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "FSF
 Unlimited License [generated file]", "Expat License [generated file]",
 "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License
 (with Retention) GNU Lesser General Public License GNU General Public
 License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public
 License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright*
 Public domain". 235 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/jzerdik/TMP/1922147-libdatovka/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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]: 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 358400 bytes in 6 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

[Bug 1919639] Review Request: DOSBox-X - DOS/x86 emulator

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919639



--- Comment #9 from Robert  ---
DOSBox-X 0.83.10 was just released, and I have updated the spec and srpm. It
now uses the %configure macro.

SPEC file: https://github.com/rderooy/dosbox-x-rpm/blob/master/dosbox-x.spec
SRPM file:
https://github.com/rderooy/dosbox-x-rpm/raw/master/dosbox-x-0.83.10-1.fc33.src.rpm

I don't have any koji builds right, but will get some done later today when I'm
back home.

The new version is also already up on flathub:
https://flathub.org/apps/details/com.dosbox_x.DOSBox-X


-- 
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 1922147] Review Request: libdatovka - Client library for accessing SOAP services of ISDS (Czech Data Boxes)

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922147



--- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Škarvada  ---
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/datovka/libdatovka.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/datovka/libdatovka-0.1.0-2.fc33.src.rpm


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

[Bug 1922147] Review Request: libdatovka - Client library for accessing SOAP services of ISDS (Czech Data Boxes)

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922147



--- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Škarvada  ---
(In reply to Jan Žerdík from comment #3)

Thanks for the review.

> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> 
> 
> Issues:
> ===
> - package does not own directory /usr/include/libdatovka

It should be fixed now.

> - "client" folder to "-doc" package?

It makes sense. Maybe -examples could be better? But I went with the -doc in
case there will be some more docs (e.g. API docs) in the future.

> - czech description and summary?

Nice to have, but there are no Czech docs in the Datovka itself, so I am not
adding it.

> Generic:
> [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
>  Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
>  See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools

Upstream was notified about the problem.


-- 
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 1923015] Review Request: golang-github-badoux-checkmail - Golang package for email validation

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923015

Elliott Sales de Andrade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1917065
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61021462



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917065
[Bug 1917065] htmltest-0.14.0 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1923015] New: Review Request: golang-github-badoux-checkmail - Golang package for email validation

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923015

Bug ID: 1923015
   Summary: Review Request: golang-github-badoux-checkmail -
Golang package for email validation
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-badoux-checkmail/golang-github-badoux-checkmail.spec
SRPM URL:
https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-badoux-checkmail/golang-github-badoux-checkmail-1.2.1-1.fc33.src.rpm

Description:

Golang package for email validation.


-- 
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 1894911] Review Request: perl-PDF-Builder - Creation and modification of PDF files in Perl

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894911



--- Comment #7 from Petr Pisar  ---
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/31971


-- 
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 1912914] Review Request: ksc - kernel source checker

2021-02-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912914

Cestmir Kalina  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(ngomp...@gmail.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #2 from Cestmir Kalina  ---
Hello, has there been any development on the package review, please? Can I help
in any way? Thanks!


-- 
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

58 matches

Mail list logo