[Bug 1935255] Review Request: python-jaraco-path - cross platform hidden file detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935255
--- Comment #8 from Tomáš Hrnčiar ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7)
> 1. Have you considered using this patch definition?
That's a good idea, I will do it.
> If you'd like to both use this AND have a nicer filename, you can do:
>
> Patch1:
> https://github.com/jaraco/jaraco.path/pull/1.patch#/better-filename.patch
Thanks, I wondered how to do it. I'll stick to 1.patch with full URL.
> 2. Have you considered having a nicer source filename? E.g. this:
>
> Source0:
> https://github.com/jaraco/jaraco.path/archive/v%{version}/jaraco.path-
> %{version}.tar.gz
I have to write this down :). I always struggle to use the correct GitHub URL's
when working with archives.
> 3. What is the benefit of defining the %pkg_name and %pypi_name macros? I
> find the spec file harder to read and it is not likely the values would
> change with time (unlike e.g. %version). IMHO it is much simpler if the
> values are used explicitly (especially since there are two different names
> used here).
My spec file is based on the other jaraco packages and I was trying to be
consistent. But since I used pyproject-rpm-macros this is probably the only
"consistency" that left there so I'll just remove 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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936393] Review Request: rust-newsblur_api - Rust implementation of the NewsBlur-API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936393 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1922584 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922584 [Bug 1922584] rust-news-flash-1.1.4 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936393] New: Review Request: rust-newsblur_api - Rust implementation of the NewsBlur-API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936393 Bug ID: 1936393 Summary: Review Request: rust-newsblur_api - Rust implementation of the NewsBlur-API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decatho...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-newsblur_api.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-newsblur_api-0.1.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Rust implementation of the NewsBlur-API. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe -- 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 1917073] Review Request: cLaTeXMath - A dynamic and cross-platform LaTeX rendering library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917073
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Export the license to a separate file
sed -e '0,/^# License/d' README.md > LICENSE
- Split the doc into a separate noarch subpackage:
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 2826240 bytes in 25 files.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_documentation
- Please add the license breakdown above the License: field
- Don't install this file:
cLaTeXMath.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/clatexmath/.clatexmath-res_root
cLaTeXMath.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/clatexmath/.clatexmath-res_root
- The fonts files could be replaced with symbolic links to the fonts provided
by texlive fonts packages.
This is a Should item so I wouldn't block the package on that alone.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 2826240 bytes in 25 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]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "GNU General Public
License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* zlib/libpng license", "SIL
Open Font License 1.1". 221 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/cLaTeXMath/review-
cLaTeXMath/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]:
[Bug 1923776] Review Request: linux-thermaltake-rgb - Python driver and daemon to control thermaltake Riing fans and pumps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923776 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |linux_thermaltake_riing - |linux-thermaltake-rgb - |Python driver and daemon to |Python driver and daemon to |control thermaltake Riing |control thermaltake Riing |fans and pumps |fans and pumps --- Comment #3 from Artem --- Hello @eclipseo. You right, thank you. Nice to see you. New spec and srpm: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/linux-thermaltake-rgb.spec https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/linux-thermaltake-rgb-0.2.0-1.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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922315] Review Request: wdt - Warp speed Data Transfer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922315 Gabriel Gaspar Becker changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jskar...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ggasp...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1923776] Review Request: linux_thermaltake_riing - Python driver and daemon to control thermaltake Riing fans and pumps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923776
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- I think you should use linux-thermaltake-rgb instead, this would be in sync
with Arch too. There is a policy about that actually:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_separators
- Own %{_sysconfdir}/%{pypi_name}:
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{pypi_name}
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", "GNU General Public License, Version
2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 19 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/linux_thermaltake_riing/review-
linux_thermaltake_riing/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /etc/linux_thermaltake_rgb
[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).
[?]: 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]: 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 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in linux_thermaltake_riing
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned
[Bug 1935255] Review Request: python-jaraco-path - cross platform hidden file detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935255
--- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok ---
Thanks Karolina for the detailed review. I'm here with just a few nit picks,
nothing is critical:
1. Have you considered using this patch definition?
Patch1: https://github.com/jaraco/jaraco.path/pull/1.patch
Or is the patch manually rebased?
I find this beneficial, because the reader knows the patch is identical to this
PR if this is the case.
If you'd like to both use this AND have a nicer filename, you can do:
Patch1:
https://github.com/jaraco/jaraco.path/pull/1.patch#/better-filename.patch
(However I don't find it particularly useful, by using the URL you communicate
"this patch is PR#1".)
2. Have you considered having a nicer source filename? E.g. this:
Source0:
https://github.com/jaraco/jaraco.path/archive/v%{version}/jaraco.path-%{version}.tar.gz
This is useful when somebody works with this package in standard rpmbuild
source directories (i.e. outside of dist-git), where all the sources are in one
directory and v%{version}.tar.gz might clash with another package.
3. What is the benefit of defining the %pkg_name and %pypi_name macros? I find
the spec file harder to read and it is not likely the values would change with
time (unlike e.g. %version). IMHO it is much simpler if the values are used
explicitly (especially since there are two different names used here).
4. The comment in %check seem pretty much copy-pasted from the referenced
bugzilla. I'd change "if upstream sets
https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/reference.html#confval-norecursedirs ..."
with something like "jaraco.path redefines norecursedirs without `.*`" -- the
bugzilla text tries to explain a situation in general terms, but this is a
specific package, so we can afford being more specific -- and hence shorter and
easier to understand. Whoever want's to know the details can visit the
referenced bugzilla.
--
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 1912585] Review Request: golang-github-insomniacslk-xjson - Extended JSON marshallers and unmarshallers (like URL, Time, etc)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912585 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1806219] Review Request: golang-github-jingweno-ccat - Colorizing `cat`
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806219 Nikola Forró changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(nfo...@redhat.com |needinfo?(brand...@gmail.co |) |m) --- Comment #6 from Nikola Forró --- Breno, are you still interested in packaging 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
needinfo canceled: [Bug 1806219] Review Request: golang-github-jingweno-ccat - Colorizing `cat`
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Nikola Forró has canceled Package Review 's request for Nikola Forró 's needinfo: Bug 1806219: Review Request: golang-github-jingweno-ccat - Colorizing `cat` https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806219 --- Comment #6 from Nikola Forró --- Breno, are you still interested in packaging this? ___ 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 1910502] Review Request: mk-files - Support files for bmake, the NetBSD make(1) tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910502
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Not needed:
rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}
- Use -p to keep timestamps:
install -m 755 -d ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/mk
- Try asking upstream to include a clear separate license 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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1935255] Review Request: python-jaraco-path - cross platform hidden file detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935255
--- Comment #6 from Karolina Surma ---
Hi Tomas,
The main issue was indeed solved.
There is a typo in %files section, in line: %exclude %dir
%{python3_sitelib}/jaraco/__pychache__ (should be: __pycache__) resulting in
both jaraco packages owning the directory.
This is considered a blocker for approval.
Also, it would be still handy to have the patch file renamed, as "1.patch"
doesn't really describe what the contents is.
As noted before, it's better when comments are of reasonable length, please
consider splitting the extra-long line of comment above the patch.
After fixes, the next review iteration is likely to be approval as no other
major issues were found.
For details see summary below.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable
= 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". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/ksurma/tmp/1935255-python-jaraco-
path/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.9/site-
packages/jaraco/__pycache__(python3-jaraco)
[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.
[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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 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-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
[Bug 1910893] Review Request: hakrawler - Web crawler for the discovery of endpoints and assets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910893 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1910877] Review Request: golang-github-oxffaa-gopher-parse-sitemap - High effective Golang library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910877 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1910890] Review Request: golang-github-gocolly-colly - Elegant Scraper and Crawler Framework for Golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910890 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1910889] Review Request: golang-github-kennygrant-sanitize - Functions for sanitizing text in golang strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910889 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1910886] Review Request: golang-github-antchfx-xmlquery - Golang XPath package for XML query
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910886 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Bump 1.3.5 - License ok - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1910884] Review Request: golang-github-antchfx-htmlquery - Golang XPath package for HTML query
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910884 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1910865] Review Request: venom - Golang multi-hop proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910865 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - for cmd in admin agent; do admin and agent are too generic and might conflict with other packager. I suggest you to prefix them with venom. - The import path is v3 in the sources and go.mod: BuildRequires: golang(github.com/cheggaaa/pb/v3) This was fixed in https://github.com/Dliv3/Venom/commit/0f02860e8c4bfc7abade1c159787bc0e46dce5d6 I suggest you package the tip to fix the issue. # https://github.com/Dliv3/Venom %global goipath github.com/Dliv3/Venom Version:1.1.0 %global commit 2b84e6846992399edf72eb6375825fc9062b2f01 […] %changelog * Thu Dec 24 2020 Fabian Affolter - 1.1.0-1.20210308git2b84e68 - Initial package for Fedora -- 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 1935650] Review Request: rubygem-ffi-rzmq-core - This gem provides only the FFI wrapper for the ZeroMQ (0mq) networking library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935650 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vondr...@redhat.com --- Comment #9 from Vít Ondruch --- I just wonder, do we really need this package? As far as I understand, this is required to satisfy Cucumber test requirements. I realize this can be also runtime dependency if chosen, but we don't have this use case, or do we? -- 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 1910860] Review Request: golang-github-cheggaaa-pb - Console progress bar for Golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910860 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #1) > If you want v3, this should be named golang-github-cheggaaa-pb-3, and you > should use github.com/cheggaaa/pb/v3 as import path. This but also, due to how this package is made, with a v3 subdirectory, you should do something like this in %prep: # https://github.com/cheggaaa/pb %global goipath github.com/cheggaaa/pb/v3 %global forgeurlhttps://github.com/cheggaaa/pb […] %prep %goprep rm *.go && mv v3/* ./ Otherwise it could create conflicts if a dependency chain both depend on v1 and v3. This way we have the correct import path (github.com/cheggaaa/pb/v3) and the correct location for the .goipath file. Needinfo me for review once fixed. -- 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 1933471] Review Request: golang-github-hub - A command-line tool that makes git easier to use with GitHub
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933471 --- Comment #26 from Miro Hrončok --- Thanks for the explanation. -- 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 1910862] Review Request: golang-github-libp2p-reuseport - Reuse TCP/UDP ports in Golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910862 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933419] Review Request: js-jquery-ui - jQuery user interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933419 Silvie Chlupova 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1933419] Review Request: js-jquery-ui - jQuery user interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933419 --- Comment #4 from Silvie Chlupova --- > I hope I have addressed your comments. You have, 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 1910810] Review Request: rsms-inter-fonts - The Inter font family
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910810
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "Unknown or generated". 103 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/rsms-inter-fonts/review-rsms-inter-
fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[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 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless
[Bug 1910429] Review Request: golang-github-araddon-gou - Go logging and JSON helpers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910429 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1910428] Review Request: golang-github-bitly-hostpool - Pool among multiple hosts from your Go application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910428 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922427] Review Request: rust-human-sort - Human sort (natural sort) implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922427 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-03-08 08:43:06 -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
