[Bug 1919349] Review Request: crash-trace-command - Trace extension module for the crash utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919349
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Scott ---
Same first couple of topics as in BZ 1919347:
- No package seems to own the crash/extensions directory.
- Missing %doc - packagers choice to add README.
Additionally, the %clean section can be removed.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
(trace.so is a crash plugin, not intended for general developers use)
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[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". 1 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/nathans/review/1919349-crash-trace-command/review-crash-trace-
command/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/crash/extensions, /usr/lib64/crash
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/crash,
/usr/lib64/crash/extensions
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package 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
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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
[Bug 1919347] Review Request: crash-gcore-command - Gcore extension module for the crash utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347
Nathan Scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags||needinfo?(d.hatayama@fujits
||u.com)
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Scott ---
Hi Hatayama,
I've completed the first round of 'formal' review now. In addition to the
docs topic discussed earlier (mentioned below in the review re %doc files,
up to you whether you want to include that README) there's one other small
issue worth fixing, i.e.
No package seems to own the crash/extensions directory?
$ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/crash
file /usr/lib64/crash is not owned by any package
You can add ownership of these to your new package (it is OK if multiple
packages own these directories too BTW - although ideally 'crash' itself
would have provided them I guess) - by adding the following to %files ..
%dir %{_libdir}/crash
%dir %{_libdir}/crash/extensions
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
(gcore.so is a crash plugin, not intended for general developers use)
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/crash/extensions, /usr/lib64/crash
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/crash,
/usr/lib64/crash/extensions
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package 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
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 documenta
[Bug 1912914] Review Request: ksc - kernel source checker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912914 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ngomp...@gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa --- Your SRPM URL is invalid and causes fedora-review to choke. Please fix it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1897456] Review Request: ghc-OpenGLRaw - A raw binding for the OpenGL graphics system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897456 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-8284ddcd77 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 1924343] Review Request: proxygen - A collection of C++ HTTP libraries including an easy to use HTTP server.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924343 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(dcava...@fb.com) --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Trying to install the RPMs from Koji fail: - nothing provides libproxygencurl.so()(64bit) needed by proxygen-2021.02.01.00-1.fc34.x86_64 Looks like a library does not get installed? It's happened on a previous package since the shared lib targets were not well tested. -- 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 1897456] Review Request: ghc-OpenGLRaw - A raw binding for the OpenGL graphics system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897456 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-02-04 01:56:58 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-c7e9cdbede 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 1922869] Review Request: transactional-update - Transactional Updates with btrfs and snapshots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869 --- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to Carl George š¤ from comment #3) > Per guidelines [0], the license field refers to the license of the contents > of the binary rpm. I'm not sure how we handle that for the top level > license when there is no binary package corresponding to the top level > package (no %files section). Since several subpackages have tukit in their > name, would it make more sense to use tukit as the top level package name? > It's entirely possible in the future that transactional-update will become a binary package if the stuff is adapted for non-SUSE distributions. For now, I'd like to leave this as-is. > Based on the COPYING file tukit-libs and tukit-devel are "GPLv2+ or > LGPLv2+". If you believe that contradicts the header text in the relevant > files please raise the issue upstream. > > [0] > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field I definitely will talk to upstream about this to clarify it, but I'll go ahead an update it to match the COPYING file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1914292] Review Request: tkrzw - Fast key-value storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-02-04 02:16:45 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-d4545e33b7 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 1916648] Review Request: python-sphinx_lv2_theme - A minimal pure-CSS theme for Sphinx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f5b9c80f3b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 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 1922869] Review Request: transactional-update - Transactional Updates with btrfs and snapshots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869 --- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa --- Updated spec and SRPM: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/transactional-update/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01938854-transactional-update/transactional-update.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/transactional-update/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01938854-transactional-update/transactional-update-3.1.0-0.fc34.1.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 1924959] Review Request: f34-backgrounds - Fedora 34 default desktop background
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924959 Luya Tshimbalanga changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1829022 ||(BetaBlocker,F34BetaBlocker ||) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Luya Tshimbalanga --- Adding blocker for Fedora 34 Beta. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829022 [Bug 1829022] Fedora 34 Beta blocker bug tracker -- 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 1924959] New: Review Request: f34-backgrounds - Fedora 34 default desktop background
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924959 Bug ID: 1924959 Summary: Review Request: f34-backgrounds - Fedora 34 default desktop background Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: luya_...@thefinalzone.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/fxx-backgrounds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01938841-f34-backgrounds/f34-backgrounds.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/fxx-backgrounds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01938841-f34-backgrounds/f34-backgrounds-34.0.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: This package contains desktop backgrounds for the Fedora 34 default theme. Pulls in themes for GNOME, KDE, Mate and Xfce desktops. Fedora Account System Username:luya -- 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914739 John Kacur changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-02-04 01:11:06 -- 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914739 Bug 1914739 depends on bug 1914740, which changed state. Bug 1914740 Summary: Review Request: rteval-loads - Provide source for system loads for rteval https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914740 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 1914740] Review Request: rteval-loads - Provide source for system loads for rteval
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914740 John Kacur changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-02-04 01:10:41 -- 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)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922147 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-a53507408c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-a53507408c` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a53507408c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1924924] Review Request: R-MatrixGenerics - S4 Generic Summary Statistic Functions that Operate on Matrix-Like Objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924924 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- This is needed to update R-DelayedArray. -- 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 1924924] New: Review Request: R-MatrixGenerics - S4 Generic Summary Statistic Functions that Operate on Matrix-Like Objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924924 Bug ID: 1924924 Summary: Review Request: R-MatrixGenerics - S4 Generic Summary Statistic Functions that Operate on Matrix-Like Objects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: spo...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-MatrixGenerics.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-MatrixGenerics-1.2.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: S4 generic functions modeled after the 'matrixStats' API for alternative matrix implementations. Packages with alternative matrix implementation can depend on this package and implement the generic functions that are defined here for a useful set of row and column summary statistics. Other package developers can import this package and handle a different matrix implementations without worrying about incompatibilities. Fedora Account System Username: spot NOTE: This package depends on F34+ versions of R components, accordingly, it will only have builds in 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 1924918] New: Review Request: reprotest: Build packages and check them for reproducibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924918 Bug ID: 1924918 Summary: Review Request: reprotest: Build packages and check them for reproducibility Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: frederic.pier...@qubes-os.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora # reprotest: - Description: reprotest builds the same source code twice in different environments, and then checks the binaries produced by each build for differences. If any are found, then diffoscope (or if unavailable then diff) is used to display them in detail for later analysis. - GIT: https://github.com/fepitre/fedora-reprotest - SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fepitre/fedora-reprotest/master/reprotest.spec - COPR BUILDS: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fepitre/fedora/build/1938423/ - SRPM RAWHIDE: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fepitre/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01938423-reprotest/reprotest-0.7.16-1.fc34.src.rpm This packages depends on python-rstr and disorderfs not packaged yet in Fedora. ## python-rstr: - Description: Generate random strings in Python - GIT: https://github.com/fepitre/fedora-python-rstr - SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fepitre/fedora-python-rstr/master/python-rstr.spec - SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fepitre/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01938416-python-rstr/python-rstr-2.1.0-1.fc34.src.rpm ## disorderfs: - Description: FUSE filesystem that introduces non-determinism - GIT: https://github.com/fepitre/fedora-disorderfs - SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fepitre/fedora-disorderfs/master/disorderfs.spec - SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fepitre/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01938412-disorderfs/disorderfs-0.5.10-1.fc34.src.rpm. reprotest and disorderfs are developed as part of the "reproducible builds" Debian project. I've recently implemented RPM support into reprotest. This is my first packages for Fedora and I am seeking a sponsor. I would be happy to split the two dependencies as separate tickets if 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 1922858] Review Request: zmk - Collection of reusable Makefiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922858 --- Comment #2 from Zygmunt Krynicki --- Thanks Neal! I've updated the package for the 0.5 release which made packaging even more straightforward. The new URLs are: Spec URL: https://zyga.fedorapeople.org/zmk.spec SRPM URL: https://zyga.fedorapeople.org/zmk-0.5-1.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 1924900] Review Request: pmbootstrap - Sophisticated chroot/build/flash tool to develop and install postmarketOS.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924900 dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dan.cermak@cgc-instruments. ||com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- 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 1924900] New: Review Request: pmbootstrap - Sophisticated chroot/build/flash tool to develop and install postmarketOS.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924900 Bug ID: 1924900 Summary: Review Request: pmbootstrap - Sophisticated chroot/build/flash tool to develop and install postmarketOS. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://pagure.io/pmbootstrap/raw/be26a118d977cf107d869fca17d2c88b1ace4aa2/f/pmbootstrap.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/pmbootstrap/raw/be26a118d977cf107d869fca17d2c88b1ace4aa2/f/python-pmbootstrap-1.29.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: A sophisticated chroot/build/flash tool to develop and install postmarketOS Fedora Account System Username: defolos -- 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 1924343] Review Request: proxygen - A collection of C++ HTTP libraries including an easy to use HTTP server.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924343 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mic...@michel-slm.name Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mic...@michel-slm.name 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 1920606] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging - Logging facade used by GCP guest agents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920606 Neal Gompa 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 1920606] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging - Logging facade used by GCP guest agents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920606 Neal Gompa 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 1920606] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-logging - Logging facade used by GCP guest agents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920606 ericedens 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 1922869] Review Request: transactional-update - Transactional Updates with btrfs and snapshots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869 --- Comment #3 from Carl George š¤ --- Per guidelines [0], the license field refers to the license of the contents of the binary rpm. I'm not sure how we handle that for the top level license when there is no binary package corresponding to the top level package (no %files section). Since several subpackages have tukit in their name, would it make more sense to use tukit as the top level package name? Based on the COPYING file tukit-libs and tukit-devel are "GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+". If you believe that contradicts the header text in the relevant files please raise the issue upstream. [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field -- 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907017 --- Comment #8 from Nick Black --- I've: 1) released a new 2.1.8 upstream crate, containing `LICENSE` 2) amended the spec file to point at `LICENSE` rather than `LICENSE-APACHE` 3) updated the spec file for 2.1.8 4) rebuilt the SRPM Spec URL: https://nick-black.com/tabpower/fedora-rust/rust-libnotcurses-sys.spec SRPM URL: https://nick-black.com/tabpower/fedora-rust/rust-libnotcurses-sys-2.1.8-1.fc34.src.rpm The dep is now on libnotcurses 2.1.8, which is slated for rollout to f34. Feel free to PTAL, and thanks for your patience! -- 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 1878976] Review Request: python-bravado-core - Library for adding Swagger support to clients and servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878976 --- Comment #10 from Miro HronÄok --- The installation failure also impacts Fedora 32 except that it installs, but fails to function properly: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-bravado-core/pull-request/1 -- 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 1917278] Review Request: qt6-qtsvg - Qt6 - Support for rendering and displaying SVG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917278 --- Comment #4 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- Thanks, this makes a lot more sense now! And thank you for looking into the things I noticed. -- 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 1918275] Review Request: libusb-compat-0.1 - Compatibility shim around libusb-1.0 offering the old 0.1 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1918275
--- Comment #3 from Hans de Goede ---
I just realized that the:
Requires: libusb1
Should be:
Requires: libusb1%{?_isa}
--
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 1918275] Review Request: libusb-compat-0.1 - Compatibility shim around libusb-1.0 offering the old 0.1 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1918275
Hans de Goede changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede ---
Full review done, with the help of fedora-review; and with the parts which
fedora-review does not do automatically filled in manually.
I have found 2 small issues:
1. The F34 rebuild has build a libusb-0.1.7-3.fc34, so you need to bump the
release field for the Obsoletes to work.
2. When expecting the Requires of the new package (which the fedora-review tool
lists, see below) I noticed that it no longer has a (generated) Requires on:
'libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit)' . Digging a bit deeper this is related to
libusb-compat supporting ldopen-ing libusb1 so that it does not polute the ld
namespace with libusb1 symbols. This is not something new, but until now this
was not being used on Fedora:
The build log for the F33 build in koji has this:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/libusb/0.1.7/1.fc33/data/logs/x86_64/build.log
"checking for SONAME of libusb-1.0... sed: -e expression #1, char 40: Invalid
back reference unknown"
which is causing the configure script / code to fallback to direct linking.
Where as the build log for the F34 build in koji has this:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/libusb/0.1.7/3.fc34/data/logs/x86_64/build.log
"checking for SONAME of libusb-1.0... libusb-1.0.so.0"
And ldopen is used (I assume) and the (generated) Requires on:
'libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit)' is gone. This means that an explicit:
Requires: libusb1
Needs to be added to the spec-file for the main package.
I trust that you will fix these before importing this, so this packages is
Approved.
See below for all the review-checks done:
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.
[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
(LGPLv2+)
[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.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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 below).
[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]: Pac
[Bug 1916936] Review Request: libdispatch - Apple's Grand Central Dispatch library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916936 --- Comment #25 from Ron Olson --- Thank you very much for reviewing this, Vasiliy. -- 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923678
aegor...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(pemensik@redhat.c
||om)
--- Comment #4 from aegor...@redhat.com ---
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Alternatives/
Issues:
1. License.
"BSD License (two clause)" from list [1] is the most similar I can find to
the provided license, it's short name should be "BSD"
2. Requires.
Shouldn't the following two Requires be added?
Requires(post): %{_sbindir}/update-alternatives
Requires(postun): %{_sbindir}/update-alternatives
3. According to [2]:
* If a package is using alternatives, the files which would otherwise
conflict MUST be installed with an appropriate suffix (for example:
%{_sbindir}/sendmail.postfix instead of %{_sbindir}/sendmail), the original
locations MUST be touched (for example: touch %{_sbindir}/sendmail), the links
set up by alternatives MUST be listed as %ghost in the file list and proper
Requires: MUST be added, like in the examples below.
Could you add:
%install
...
touch %{buildroot}%{_sbindir}/resolvconf
...
%files
...
%ghost %{_sbindir}/resolvconf
4. I'm not sure if it makes sense, but please consider the following:
%files
...
%{_libexecdir}/resolvconf/*
...
^ this code uses a generic name "resolveconf" for a directory. As far as I know
at the momnent there are no other packages provides same directory, but it
looks dangarous when package provides directory with this kind of generic name.
I think it can cause troubles in case there'll be another package (alternative
to openresolv) in future. Can this directory also be handled by alternatives
system? In this case package will provide %{_libexecdir}/resolvconf.%{name}/
which will be pointed by symlink %{_libexecdir}/resolvconf/
5. Please handle the following rpmlint warnings/errors:
Rpmlint
---
Checking: openresolv-3.12.0-1.noarch.rpm
openresolv-3.12.0-1.src.rpm
openresolv.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause
openresolv.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/libexec/resolvconf/libc.d/avahi-daemon 644 /bin/sh
openresolv.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/libexec/resolvconf/libc.d/mdnsd 644 /bin/sh
openresolv.src: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Dist tag is present.
= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 6
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/eam/tmp/openresolv/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses
[Bug 1918275] Review Request: libusb-compat-0.1 - Compatibility shim around libusb-1.0 offering the old 0.1 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1918275 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||package-review@lists.fedora ||project.org Component|fedora-review |Package Review Assignee|ngomp...@gmail.com |hdego...@redhat.com Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |libusb-compat-0.1 to|libusb-compat-0.1 - |replace libusb |Compatibility shim around ||libusb-1.0 offering the old ||0.1 API --- Comment #1 from Hans de Goede --- I'm doing a full review of this now, taking this and moving it to assigned. Also fixing up the Component and Summary to match the template, to make sure non of the automated tooling trips over 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 1918269] Review Request: libusb1 - Library for accessing USB devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1918269 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: libusb1 to |Review Request: libusb1 - |replace libusbx |Library for accessing USB ||devices --- Comment #6 from Hans de Goede --- Fixing up the Summary to match the template, to make sure non of the automated tooling trips over 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 1918269] Review Request: libusb1 to replace libusbx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1918269
Hans de Goede changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Hans de Goede ---
Ok, that worked.
Full review done, with the help of fedora-review; and with the parts which
fedora-review does not do automatically filled in manually.
I have found 2 small issues:
1. The tests-examples package should have its own License tag, which should be
these 2 lines:
# The fxload example is GPLv2+, the rest is LGPLv2+, like libusb itself.
License:LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+
2. The devel-doc subpkg can be installed without the %license being brought in
by deps. Please make it have a Requires on the devel subpackage (or add the
%license to its %files).
3. The package really should have a "BuildRequires: gcc" atm this is being
brought in by the libtool BR, but it would be good to be explicit here.
I trust that you will fix at least 1. and 2. before importing this, so this
packages is Approved.
See below for all the review-checks done:
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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
(LGPLv2+)
(tests-examples subpackage license is wrong, fxload is GPLv2+)
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
(devel-docs can be installed without the %license being installed)
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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 below).
[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 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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.
[x]:
[Bug 1918269] Review Request: libusb1 to replace libusbx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1918269 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added CC||package-review@lists.fedora ||project.org Component|fedora-review |Package Review --- Comment #4 from Hans de Goede --- Erm, this bug actually is wrong, this is a bug against the fedora-review package which contains a script to help with reviewing new packages. The correct way to file a review bug is by using this template: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&format=fedora-review I think the biggest difference is the component, let me see if changing the component changes this in to a proper Review Request, allowing me to set the fedora-review flag... -- 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 1924660] New: Review Request: atari800 - An emulator of 8-bit Atari personal computers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924660 Bug ID: 1924660 Summary: Review Request: atari800 - An emulator of 8-bit Atari personal computers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ondr...@salstar.sk QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/SPECS/atari800.spec SRPM URL: https://www.salstar.sk/pub/fedora/33/SRPMS/atari800-4.2.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Atari800 is an emulator for the 800, 800XL, 130XE and 5200 models of the Atari personal computer. It can be used on console, FrameBuffer or X11. It features excellent compatibility, HIFI sound support, artifacting emulation, precise cycle-exact ANTIC/GTIA emulation and more. Fedora Account System Username: ondrejj This version doesn't require original ROM files, because Altirra ROM replacement is included. For basic usage it is possible to legally use internal BASIC or own binaries for Atari computers. -- 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 1917902] Review Request: python-docplex - The IBM Decision Optimization CPLEX Modeling for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917902 Stephen Coady changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(sco...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #2 from Stephen Coady --- Thanks, will make these changes. -- 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 1497482] Review Request: dnsviz - Tools for analyzing and visualizing DNS and DNSSEC behavior
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497482 Pierre-YvesChibon changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(pingou@pingoured. | |fr) | --- Comment #10 from Pierre-YvesChibon --- (In reply to Gwyn Ciesla from comment #8) > Good question. Indeed, reported at: https://pagure.io/fedscm-admin/issue/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 1916936] Review Request: libdispatch - Apple's Grand Central Dispatch library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916936
Vasiliy Glazov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #24 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
Approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_devel_packages
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
"Apache License 2.0". 60 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/include/dispatch, /usr/include/os
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/dispatch,
/usr/include/os
[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.
[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]: 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]: 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
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.
[Bug 1894911] Review Request: perl-PDF-Builder - Creation and modification of PDF files in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894911 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-PDF-Builder-3.019-2.fc ||34 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-02-03 08:17:48 --- Comment #9 from Petr Pisar --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- 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
