[Bug 1856005] Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005 --- Comment #20 from Paul Grosu --- Hi Orion, Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/rawhide/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/rawhide/dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc35.src.rpm We fixed the issues for rawhide. One test will work best if the machine (rawhide) is not too loaded. Above are the updated links. Let us know what we need to do next. Thank you, Paul and Gene -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1926149] Review Request: python-maya - Datetimes for Humans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1926149
Aniket Pradhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Aniket Pradhan ---
Heyy Iztok
Everything seems fine to me. Below is the automated review. Review approved.
Just a heads up though... `%{?python_enable_dependency_generator}` is no longer
needed as it is enabled by deafault.
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
/home/major/Documents/NeuroFedora/review/1926149-python-
maya/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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-tim
[Bug 1926149] Review Request: python-maya - Datetimes for Humans
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1926149 Aniket Pradhan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||aniketpradhan1...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|aniketpradhan1...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922869] Review Request: transactional-update - Transactional Updates with btrfs and snapshots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869
Carl George 🤠 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Carl George 🤠 ---
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]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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: "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later
GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF All Permissive
License", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General
Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1
or later", "GNU General Public License". 54 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/carl/packaging/reviews/transactional-update/copr-
build-1938854/review-transactional-update/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 must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system,
/usr/lib/systemd
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[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 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd
[Bug 1922869] Review Request: transactional-update - Transactional Updates with btrfs and snapshots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869 --- Comment #10 from Carl George 🤠 --- > This is a common thing done in Fedora when you want to guarantee they're > updated together, especially as I don't know what the interface boundaries > are for tukit with libtukit, so I prefer to keep the explicit dependency. The guidelines say not to do this with libraries [0], but that seems more targeted at libraries that are not part of the same spec file. It's understandable to want these subpackages to always be updated together, so I won't block on this. > No idea how to deal with this. I found some notes on how to fix it [1]. It's just a warning so we don't need to block on it, but try to fix later if you can. [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_requires [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1925322] Review Request: google-guest-agent - Guest agent for Google Cloud Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925322 ericedens changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-github-googlecloudpl |google-guest-agent - Guest |atform-guest-agent - Guest |agent for Google Cloud |agent for Google Cloud |Platform |Platform| --- Comment #6 from ericedens --- Great! Changed to `google-guest-agent`. `fedora-review --copr-build 1963695` passes. SRPM url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01963695-google-guest-agent//google-guest-agent-20201217.02-1.fc35.src.rpm Spec url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ericedens/gcp-guest-packages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01963695-google-guest-agent//google-guest-agent.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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[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 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-7cce18d674 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-7cce18d674 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7cce18d674 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-aa732c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-aa732c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-aa732c 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1923830] Review Request: Diffuse - Diff Utility (Re-introducing Retired Package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923830 --- Comment #5 from niohiani --- Starting to make changes now! Sorry for the delay. Long trip. Will share a modified spec file when I think I have everything in order. Thanks again! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1925322] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-agent - Guest agent for Google Cloud Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925322 --- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to ericedens from comment #4) > > Why aren't we naming the package itself "google-guest-agent"? > > I'd like to name it "google-guest-agent"; the current name, though, comes > from this: "Golang source packages MUST be named after their main import > path" > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/#_naming > > Or am I misreading this since this package doesn't *provide* Go libraries, > it just happens to use Go code. That rule applies to libraries, not applications. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1925322] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-agent - Guest agent for Google Cloud Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925322 --- Comment #4 from ericedens --- > Why aren't we naming the package itself "google-guest-agent"? I'd like to name it "google-guest-agent"; the current name, though, comes from this: "Golang source packages MUST be named after their main import path" https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/#_naming Or am I misreading this since this package doesn't *provide* Go libraries, it just happens to use Go code. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1925812] Review Request: python-tkrzw - python binding for tkrzw key-value library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925812 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c...@musicinmybrain.net Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c...@musicinmybrain.net Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1899337] Review Request: python3-configobj - Config file reading, writing, and validation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1899337 Felix Schwarz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2021-02-12 22:18:19 --- Comment #8 from Felix Schwarz --- package imported + built for epel7 thank you. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1926700] Review Request: python-BatAlgorithm - Implementation of Bat Algorithm in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1926700
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Looks pretty good. No blockers. XXX APPROVED XXX
A few suggestions to consider before the import:
- Should we improve the description/summary to say "Bat global optimisation
algorithm" or something of the sort? That'll make it easier for users to
search, for example with "sudo dnf search optimisation". Otherwise unless they
know of this package, they will not be able to find it.
- the package isn't tagged on GitHub, but it's released on Pypi:
https://pypi.org/project/BatAlgorithm/
Since you are using the Git tarball, it'll be good to ask upstream to also
tag on GitHub so that it's clear what pypi release corresponds to what Git
commit.
- it's suggested to use lowercase naming: python-batalgorithm, since it'll make
it easier for users to install: python3-batalgorithm vs python3-BatAlgorithm.
This is only suggested in the the guidelines, so I'll leave this for you to
decide:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_general_naming
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-
reviews/1926700-python-BatAlgorithm/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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]:
[Bug 1925322] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-agent - Guest agent for Google Cloud Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925322
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ---
> Provides: google-guest-agent = %{version}-%{release}
Why aren't we naming the package itself "google-guest-agent"?
--
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1925322] Review Request: golang-github-googlecloudplatform-guest-agent - Guest agent for Google Cloud Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925322 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1926331 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1926331 [Bug 1926331] systemd presets request - google-guest-agent.service google-startup-scripts.service google-shutdown-scripts.service -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922869] Review Request: transactional-update - Transactional Updates with btrfs and snapshots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869 --- Comment #9 from Neal Gompa --- Updated spec and SRPM: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/transactional-update/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01959489-transactional-update/transactional-update.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/transactional-update/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01959489-transactional-update/transactional-update-3.1.2-0.fc35.1.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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1928272] New: Review Request: fx - Command-line JSON processing tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928272 Bug ID: 1928272 Summary: Review Request: fx - Command-line JSON processing tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: c...@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/fedora-rpm/-/raw/54139bb15a7376a2ec2538bb2e442739c5c9385a/topojson-server.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9293/61839293/fx-20.0.2-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Command-line JSON processing tool Features: * Easy to use * Standalone binary * Interactive mode * Streaming support Fedora Account System Username: music Note that this package is for Fedora 34+ only, and is under the brand-new Node.js packaging guidelines at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Node.js. If you are not familiar with the recent significant changes (most notably, bundling of all dependencies), then please read through the guidelines carefully before reviewing. Thanks! Koji scratch builds: F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61839292 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61839610 -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1927444] Review Request: ocaml-luv - OCaml binding to libuv for cross-platform asynchronous I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927444 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James --- Thank you for the review. I have added a doc subpackage. New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-luv/ocaml-luv.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-luv/ocaml-luv-0.5.6-2.fc34.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1927443] Review Request: ocaml-ctypes - Combinators for binding to C libraries without writing any C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927443 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James --- Thank you for the review. I will make a doc subpackage before importing. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1927442] Review Request: ocaml-integers - Various signed and unsigned integer types for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927442 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James --- Thank you for the review, Jan. You're right, there should be a doc subpackage. I will make one before importing. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1927441] Review Request: ocaml-bigarray-compat - Compatibility library to use Stdlib.Bigarray when possible
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927441 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James --- Oh great. I'll add the license file with a reference to that pull request before committing. Thanks for the review, Dan! -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1927444] Review Request: ocaml-luv - OCaml binding to libuv for cross-platform asynchronous I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927444
--- Comment #1 from Jan Staněk ---
Mostly looks good, but this one definitely deserves separate -docs subpackage.
Once that is fixed, it should be good to go.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 3706880 bytes in 656 files.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_documentation
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installe
[Bug 1927033] Review Request: eth-fast-fabric - Intel Ethernet Fast Fabric Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927033 Jijun Wang changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1919019 -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1927033] Review Request: eth-fast-fabric - Intel Ethernet Fast Fabric Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927033 Jijun Wang changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1919015 -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1927444] Review Request: ocaml-luv - OCaml binding to libuv for cross-platform asynchronous I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927444 Jan Staněk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jsta...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsta...@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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1927443] Review Request: ocaml-ctypes - Combinators for binding to C libraries without writing any C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927443
Jan Staněk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jan Staněk ---
Package APPROVED; but see notes.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= Notes =
- Documentation size is 737280 bytes in 90 files;
this may merit separate -doc subpackage.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
License", "GNU Lesser General Public License". 39 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jstanek/redhat/fedora/review/1927443-ocaml-
ctypes/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[?]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 737280 bytes in 90 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep i
[Bug 1925758] Review Request: python-rstr - Generate random strings in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925758 --- Comment #3 from Mohan Boddu --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rstr -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1925759] Review Request: disorderfs - FUSE filesystem that introduces non-determinism
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925759 --- Comment #5 from Mohan Boddu --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/disorderfs -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1917528] Review Request: python-prefixed - Alternative numeric library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917528 --- Comment #7 from Mohan Boddu --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-prefixed -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1921853] Review Request: rust-derive-new - Derive simple constructor functions for structs and enums
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921853 --- Comment #9 from Mohan Boddu --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-derive-new -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1927443] Review Request: ocaml-ctypes - Combinators for binding to C libraries without writing any C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927443 Jan Staněk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jsta...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsta...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jan Staněk --- I'm taking this review. Thanks for the rust roll! :) -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1927442] Review Request: ocaml-integers - Various signed and unsigned integer types for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927442
Jan Staněk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||jsta...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsta...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jan Staněk ---
Package APPROVED. Please consider -docs subpackage (see note below) – although
I do not know OCaml ecosystem enough to determine if this should count as
"large" documentation or not :)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= Notes =
- Documentation size is 430080 bytes in 50 files;
this may merit consideration of -docs subpackage.
= 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.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[?]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 430080 bytes in 50 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publis
[Bug 1927927] Review Request: git-remote-codecommit - Git remote helper for AWS CodeCommit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927927
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ---
Initial review notes:
> Source0:
> https://github.com/aws/git-remote-codecommit/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Nit: you can simplify this by doing "Source0:
%{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz"
> rm -rf %{buildroot}
This is unnecessary and should be removed.
> %{__python3} -m pytest
Please change %__python3 to %python3.
Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_macros
--
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1927927] Review Request: git-remote-codecommit - Git remote helper for AWS CodeCommit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927927 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa --- Taking this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1928111] Review Request: perl-Crypt-PBKDF2 - The PBKDF2 password hashing algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928111 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth --- Looks like this package has been in Fedora before but was retired last March due to having been orphaned for 6+ weeks. Previous review request was #1098097, which I didn't find when I initially created this package. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1834731] Review Request: bitcoin - Peer to Peer Cryptographic Currency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731
--- Comment #61 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
> %package server
> Requires: %{name}-utils%{_isa} = %{version}
Really?
--
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1928111] Review Request: perl-Crypt-PBKDF2 - The PBKDF2 password hashing algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928111 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1926922 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1926922 [Bug 1926922] Upgrade perl-Crypt-CBC to 3.01 -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1928111] New: Review Request: perl-Crypt-PBKDF2 - The PBKDF2 password hashing algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928111 Bug ID: 1928111 Summary: Review Request: perl-Crypt-PBKDF2 - The PBKDF2 password hashing algorithm Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: p...@city-fan.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-Crypt-PBKDF2/branches/fedora/perl-Crypt-PBKDF2.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Crypt-PBKDF2/perl-Crypt-PBKDF2-0.161520-2.fc35.src.rpm Description: PBKDF2 is a secure password hashing algorithm that uses the techniques of "key strengthening" to make the complexity of a brute-force attack arbitrarily high. PBKDF2 uses any other cryptographic hash or cipher (by convention, usually HMAC-SHA1, but Crypt::PBKDF2 is fully pluggable), and allows for an arbitrary number of iterations of the hashing function, and a nearly unlimited output hash size (up to 2**32-1 times the size of the output of the backend hash). The hash is salted, as any password hash should be, and the salt may also be of arbitrary size. Fedora Account System Username: pghmcfc This is needed for the updated version of perl-Crypt-CBC (#1926922) -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[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||fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from aegor...@redhat.com --- Looks good to me. 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1834731] Review Request: bitcoin - Peer to Peer Cryptographic Currency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731 --- Comment #60 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #7) > Also create a logrotate file for the log: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_logrotate_config_file And this is not solved yet too. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1834731] Review Request: bitcoin - Peer to Peer Cryptographic Currency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731 --- Comment #59 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- Seems hardcoded selinux dependency not resolved. What about moving selinux things into -selinux 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1927441] Review Request: ocaml-bigarray-compat - Compatibility library to use Stdlib.Bigarray when possible
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927441 --- Comment #2 from dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com --- FYI: https://github.com/mirage/bigarray-compat/pull/5 -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
