[Bug 1937302] Review Request: bitcoin-selinux - Bitcoin Core SELinux policy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937302 --- Comment #5 from Simone Caronni --- Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-selinux.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/bitcoin-selinux-0-5.fc33.src.rpm * Sun Mar 14 2021 Simone Caronni - 0-5 - Use forge macros from packaging guidelines. -- 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 1933950] Review Request: clipman - A simple clipboard manager for Wayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933950 --- Comment #4 from Bob Hepple --- Thank you, Davide! I'll apply for the repo now. -- 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 1938522] Review Request: gnome-activity-journal - unretire and update to 1.0.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938522 crvi changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1913779 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913779 [Bug 1913779] zeitgeist-1.0.3 python3 module not found in zeitgeist 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 1938522] New: Review Request: gnome-activity-journal - unretire and update to 1.0.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938522 Bug ID: 1938522 Summary: Review Request: gnome-activity-journal - unretire and update to 1.0.0 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: crvi...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://gitlab.gnome.org/crvi/gnome-activity-journal/-/blob/fedora/fedora/gnome-activity-journal.spec SRPM URL: https://gitlab.gnome.org/crvi/gnome-activity-journal/-/blob/fedora/fedora/SRPMS/gnome-activity-journal-1.0.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Unretire package and update to the latest version Fedora Account System Username: crvi Additional information: Upstream package maintainer: myself Refer: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9925 -- 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 1932728] Review Request: sway-systemd - Systemd integration for Sway session
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932728 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-03-14 04:13:41 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1928969] Review Request: chatty - mobile libpurple messaging client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928969
--- Comment #5 from sorensen...@tuta.io ---
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/chatty/-/raw/master/chatty.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02074354-chatty/chatty-0.2.0-5.fc35.src.rpm
Copr Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/2074354/
> - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros
This has been addressed.
> - The private library usage is... unfortunate. Is there any way to just
> disable
> the jabber support and not have to use it? Failing that, would it at least be
> possible
> to use the libpurple library at runtime? (currently this package installs the
> kind of generic sounding /usr/lib64/libjabber.so which it gets from libpurple
> during build instead of the /usr/lib64/purple-2/libjabber.so).
> Also if you can't use the libpurple one, make sure to add a
> Provides: bundled(libjabber.so) per
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling
So, all other info regarding this being linked, the only thing I could figure
out to continue is to resume using the "hacky patch" and to update to use the
correct bundled() = [version] addition.
Various other cleanups from the review as well (tabs/space etc...)
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 1938464] Review Request: ntfs2btrfs - Conversion tool from NTFS to Btrfs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938464 Davide Cavalca changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca --- Thanks, lgtm, 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 1938497] Review Request: progman - Simple X11 window manager modeled after Program Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938497 --- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca --- Thanks! It's a pretty fun window manager. $ fedpkg request-repo progman 1938497 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32790 -- 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 1938464] Review Request: ntfs2btrfs - Conversion tool from NTFS to Btrfs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938464 --- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa --- Updated build with suggested fixes: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/ntfs2btrfs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02074338-ntfs2btrfs/ntfs2btrfs.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/ntfs2btrfs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02074338-ntfs2btrfs/ntfs2btrfs-20210105-1.fc35.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 1938497] Review Request: progman - Simple X11 window manager modeled after Program Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938497 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa --- Looks good to me! I'm looking forward to playing with this more. :) 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 1938497] Review Request: progman - Simple X11 window manager modeled after Program Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938497
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 16 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/ngompa/1938497-progman/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.
[-]: 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]: 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 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$R
[Bug 1938497] Review Request: progman - Simple X11 window manager modeled after Program Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938497 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa --- This amuses me. :) I'm 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 1938500] New: Review Request: sdorfehs - A tiling window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938500 Bug ID: 1938500 Summary: Review Request: sdorfehs - A tiling window manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcava...@fb.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/sdorfehs/sdorfehs.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/sdorfehs/sdorfehs-1.1-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: sdorfehs (pronounced "starfish") is a tiling window manager descended from ratpoison (which itself is modeled after GNU Screen). sdorfehs divides the screen into one or more frames, each only displaying one window at a time but can cycle through all available windows (those which are not being shown in another frame). Like Screen, sdorfehs primarily uses prefixed/modal key bindings for most actions. sdorfehs's command mode is entered with a configurable keystroke which then allows a number of bindings accessible with just a single keystroke or any other combination. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca -- 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 1938500] Review Request: sdorfehs - A tiling window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938500 --- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63721825 -- 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 1933950] Review Request: clipman - A simple clipboard manager for Wayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933950 Davide Cavalca changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca --- This isn't a library, so I think it's ok to skip the gopkg/gopkginstall stuff. Looks good otherwise, 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 1933950] Review Request: clipman - A simple clipboard manager for Wayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933950
--- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 11 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/tmp/a/1933950-golang-github-yory8-clipman/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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in clipman
[x]: 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.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[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]: Package should compile and build into binary r
[Bug 1933950] Review Request: clipman - A simple clipboard manager for Wayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933950 Davide Cavalca changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dcava...@fb.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dcava...@fb.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca --- 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 1938497] New: Review Request: progman - Simple X11 window manager modeled after Program Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938497 Bug ID: 1938497 Summary: Review Request: progman - Simple X11 window manager modeled after Program Manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcava...@fb.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/progman/progman.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/progman/progman-1.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: progman is a simple X11 window manager modeled after Program Manager from the Windows 3 era. It is descended from aewm by Decklin Foster and retains its MIT license. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca -- 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 1938464] Review Request: ntfs2btrfs - Conversion tool from NTFS to Btrfs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938464 --- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca --- Looks like this project includes an embedded copy of https://github.com/ebiggers/ntfs-3g-system-compression/ under ntfs2btrfs-20210105/src/ebiggers. This doesn't look like the kind of thing that can be sanely packaged separately, but I think you should still declare it in the spec. Also, a minor rpmlint nit: ntfs2btrfs.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C ntfs2btrfs is a tool which does in-place conversion of Microsoft's NTFS filesystem -- 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 1938464] Review Request: ntfs2btrfs - Conversion tool from NTFS to Btrfs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938464
--- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
2", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General
Public License v2.0 or later". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /tmp/a/1938464-ntfs2btrfs/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[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.
[x]: 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]: Rev
[Bug 1925322] Review Request: google-guest-agent - Guest agent for Google Cloud Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925322 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Neal Gompa --- Everything looks good to me. The directory ownership thing with /etc/default doesn't make sense, since that should be owned by filesystem. 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 1925322] Review Request: google-guest-agent - Guest agent for Google Cloud Platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925322
--- Comment #10 from Neal Gompa ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No
copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause
"New" or "Revised" License", "zlib/libpng license". 24 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/ngompa/1925322-google-guest-agent/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /etc/default
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/default
[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.
[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 20480 bytes in 2 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: 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 google-guest-agent
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[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.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[Bug 1938464] Review Request: ntfs2btrfs - Conversion tool from NTFS to Btrfs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938464 Davide Cavalca changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||dcava...@fb.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dcava...@fb.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca --- 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 1925767] Review Request: python-openpaperwork-gtk - OpenPaperwork GTK plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925767 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||python-openpaperwork-gtk-2. ||0.2-1.fc35 -- 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 1920112] Review Request: rubygem-mixlib-log - A gem that provides a simple mixin for log functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920112 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-040d23010a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 #30 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-5548cf41d8 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-2021-5548cf41d8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-5548cf41d8 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 1933459] Review Request: rubygem-tty-color - Terminal color capabilities detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933459 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-39d8949d8a 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-2021-39d8949d8a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-39d8949d8a 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 1919704] Review Request: kirc - Tiny IRC client written in POSIX C99
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919704 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-4368d76ba1 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1924660] Review Request: atari800 - An emulator of 8-bit Atari personal computers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924660 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-77bf5a7792 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1928969] Review Request: chatty - mobile libpurple messaging client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928969 --- Comment #4 from sorensen...@tuta.io --- Thanks for the review! Regarding the libjabber thing, there was an issue opened here https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/chatty/-/issues/266 but seems to have stalled. There was already some discussion about it on previous reviews prior to this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870890 I'll do some playing around with the library and fix up those other issues as soon as possible. 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 1934390] Review Request: xmodmap - Edit and display the X11 core keyboard map
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934390 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 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 1916190] Review Request: overlayfs-tools - OverlayFS layers manipulation tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916190 --- Comment #9 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- Created attachment 1763177 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1763177&action=edit Hand-written man page Here is the hand-written man page I promised you. See https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/man-pages.7.html and https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/groff_man.7.html for documentation that can help you maintain it. Also, one of the biggest gotchas in hand-writing man pages is that there should be a newline after every period to get proper whitespace. Otherwise it should be simple enough to modify as needed, if upstream does not choose to adopt and maintain 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 1916190] Review Request: overlayfs-tools - OverlayFS layers manipulation tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916190 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- Looks great! All issues are resolved, and the package is approved. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1916190] Review Request: overlayfs-tools - OverlayFS layers manipulation tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916190
--- Comment #7 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2",
"Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1916190-overlayfs-
tools/20210312/1916190-overlayfs-tools/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.
[-]: 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 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
= 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of origin
[Bug 1928969] Review Request: chatty - mobile libpurple messaging client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928969
--- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi ---
Sorry for the delay here.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros
- The private library usage is... unfortunate. Is there any way to just disable
the jabber support and not have to use it? Failing that, would it at least be
possible
to use the libpurple library at runtime? (currently this package installs the
kind of generic sounding /usr/lib64/libjabber.so which it gets from libpurple
during build instead of the /usr/lib64/purple-2/libjabber.so).
Also if you can't use the libpurple one, make sure to add a
Provides: bundled(libjabber.so) per
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling
- rpmlint has:
(a bunch of stuff that can be ignored and)
chatty.src:42: W: unversioned-explicit-provides libjabber
(this related to the above)
chatty.src:21: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 15, tab: line 21)
(might be nice to stick to one or the other of tabs and spaces)
chatty.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Sun Feb 15
2021 Torrey Sorensen - 0.2.0-4
(The 15th was a monday :)
A bunch of weak symbols related to libjabber (see above).
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[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.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/bash-
completion(chocolate-doom, wlogout, driverctl, rtags, mt-st, skim,
git-annex, nitrokey-app, exa, devscripts-checkbashisms, tealdeer,
gpaste, fedmod, unar, stress-ng, ripgrep, rpmdevtools, toolbox, nnn,
beaker-client, yadifa, pipx, libqmi, restic, dotnet-host, git-core,
falkon, docopt, docker-compose, dnf, zypper, filesystem, rpmlint,
pdfgrep, clevis, cowsay, libmbim, cobbler, tracker, reprepro,
etckeeper, mercurial, maven, rpmspectool, fd-find, subversion, kmod,
alacritty, bodhi-client, gammu, task, bubblewrap, eg, git-delta,
yadifa-tools, swayidle, ModemManager, devscripts, glib2, python-
django-bash-completion, hyperfine, smc-tools, dconf-editor, cmake-
data, fedpkg, hstr, mtr, datamash, sway, monotone, buildah, playerctl,
source-highlight, vagrant, zeitgeist, lightdm, clufter-cli, lxc, tio,
golang-github-tdewolff-minify, calf, breezy, swaylock,
python3-catkin_tools, licensecheck, awscli, lxi-tools, ffsend, zola,
darcs, flatpak, pbuilder, ldc, policycoreutils, skopeo, stratis-cli,
rubygem-ronn-ng, tracker3, exercism, ethtool, bash-completion, cpu-x,
python3-trezor), /usr/share/bash-completion/completions(chocolate-
doom, wlogout, driverctl, rtags, mt-st, skim, git-annex, nitrokey-app,
exa, nbdkit-bash-completion, devscripts-checkbashisms, tealdeer,
gpaste, fedmod, unar, packit, stress-ng, ripgrep, rpmdevtools,
toolbox, nnn, beaker-client, firejail, yadifa, firewalld, pipx,
libqmi, flameshot, restic, dotnet-host, git-core, falkon, ndctl,
docopt, kompose, docker-compose, dnf, zypper, filesystem, rpmlint,
calibre, pdfgrep, clevis, cowsay, libmbim, cobbler, opensc, tracker,
reprepro, etckeeper, mercurial, maven, nordugrid-arc-client,
rpmspectool, fd-find, subversion, kmod, libappstream-glib, alacritty,
bodhi-client, lastpass-cli, gammu, task, bubblewrap, eg, git-delta,
yadifa-tools, swayidle, coccinelle-bash-completion, ModemManager,
devscripts, glib2, python-django-bash-completion, hyperfine, smc-
tools, dconf-editor, cmake-data, fedpkg, hstr, jo, mtr, tig, datamash,
sway, python3-pip, monotone, libguestfs-bash-completion, buildah,
playerctl, source-highlight, vagrant, zeitgeist, lightdm, clufter-cli,
lxc, tio, golang-github-
[Bug 1938478] New: Review Request: xbanish - Banish the mouse cursor when typing, show it again when the mouse moves
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938478 Bug ID: 1938478 Summary: Review Request: xbanish - Banish the mouse cursor when typing, show it again when the mouse moves Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcava...@fb.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/xbanish/xbanish.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/xbanish/xbanish-1.7-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: xbanish hides the mouse cursor when you start typing, and shows it again when the mouse cursor moves or a mouse button is pressed. This is similar to xterm's pointerMode setting, but xbanish works globally in the X11 session. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca -- 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 1938478] Review Request: xbanish - Banish the mouse cursor when typing, show it again when the mouse moves
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938478 --- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63711433 -- 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 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-703dbcacdc has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-703dbcacdc \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-703dbcacdc 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 1933459] Review Request: rubygem-tty-color - Terminal color capabilities detection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933459 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-fc89ef676f has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-fc89ef676f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fc89ef676f 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 1934396] Review Request: xstdcmap - Utility to define standard colormap properties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934396 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 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 1934394] Review Request: xset - User preference utility for X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934394 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 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 1934395] Review Request: xsetroot - Root window parameter setting utility for X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934395 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 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 1934393] Review Request: xrefresh - Refresh all or part of an X screen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934393 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 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 1934392] Review Request: xrdb - X server resource database utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934392 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 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 1934391] Review Request: xrandr - Commandline utility to change output properties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934391 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 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 1934389] Review Request: xkill - Utility to force-close an X client's connection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934389 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 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 1934387] Review Request: xinput - Utility to query X Input devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934387 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 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 1934386] Review Request: xhost - Manage hosts or users allowed to connect to the X server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934386 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 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 1934385] Review Request: xgamma - X utility to query and alter the gamma correction of a monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934385 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 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 1934384] Review Request: sessreg - Utility to manage utmp/wtmp entries for X sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934384 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 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 1934383] Review Request: rgb - X color name database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934383 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 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 1934382] Review Request: iceauth - Display the authorization information used in connecting with ICE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934382 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 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 1932760] Review Request: xisxwayland - Tool to check if the X server is XWayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932760 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-16525d15e0 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 1936263] Review Request: libv3270 - 3270 Virtual Terminal for GTK+3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936263 --- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270-5.3-3.fc35.src.rpm Changelog: - Add license to doc sub-package and make it noarch - Update URL -- 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 1936262] Review Request: lib3270 - TN3270 Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936262 --- Comment #10 from Davide Cavalca --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/lib3270/lib3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/lib3270/lib3270-5.3-3.fc35.src.rpm Changelog: - Add license to doc sub-package and make it noarch - Update URLs -- 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 1938471] Review Request: Disk-Utilities - Collection of utilities for ripping, dumping, analysing, and modifying disk images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938471 --- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63708698 -- 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 1938471] New: Review Request: Disk-Utilities - Collection of utilities for ripping, dumping, analysing, and modifying disk images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938471 Bug ID: 1938471 Summary: Review Request: Disk-Utilities - Collection of utilities for ripping, dumping, analysing, and modifying disk images Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcava...@fb.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/Disk-Utilities/Disk-Utilities.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/Disk-Utilities/Disk-Utilities-0-1.20210312git1b2ad04.fc35.src.rpm Description: Disk Utilities is a collection of utilities for ripping, dumping, analysing, and modifying disk images. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca -- 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 1936263] Review Request: libv3270 - 3270 Virtual Terminal for GTK+3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936263 Antonio T. sagitter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||trp...@rocketmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|trp...@rocketmail.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 1936262] Review Request: lib3270 - TN3270 Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936262 --- Comment #9 from Antonio T. sagitter --- doc sub-package must be noarch and must provide an its own 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 1936262] Review Request: lib3270 - TN3270 Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936262 --- Comment #8 from Davide Cavalca --- Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo lib3270 1936262 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32787 -- 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 1936262] Review Request: lib3270 - TN3270 Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936262
Antonio T. sagitter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Antonio T. sagitter ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Just a workaround for URL:
%{url}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
can be written
%{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
= 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
Version 3". 199 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1936262-lib3270/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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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
= 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 separa
[Bug 1936264] Review Request: pw3270 - IBM 3270 Terminal emulator for GTK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936264 --- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pw3270/pw3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pw3270/pw3270-5.3-2.fc35.src.rpm Changelog: - Do not remove buildroot on install - Make build output more verbose - Ensure build flags are applied -- 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 1936263] Review Request: libv3270 - 3270 Virtual Terminal for GTK+3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936263 --- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca --- Sorry, copypaste mistake. Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270-5.3-2.fc35.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 1936208] Review Request: manafirewall - ManaTools FirewallD configuration tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936208 --- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to Carl George 🤠from comment #1) > Items to fix: > > - License field doesn't match the actual license. Fixed upstream and in the packaging. > - Changelog not in prescribed format. This package is forked from Mageia, I'd rather leave their changelog entries as-is, even if they're not _exactly_ correct. > - Mixed use of spaces and tabs. This should be fixed now. > - Unowned directories: > - /usr/share/locale/es_419 > - /usr/share/locale/pa_IN/LC_MESSAGES > - /usr/share/locale/pa_IN > - /usr/share/locale/es_419/LC_MESSAGES > - rpmlint: incorrect-locale-subdir > /usr/share/locale/es_419/LC_MESSAGES/manafirewall.mo > - rpmlint: invalid-lc-messages-dir > /usr/share/locale/es_419/LC_MESSAGES/manafirewall.mo This seems to be a bug in the base system, since those are valid locales, and all of that was populated by %find_lang. -- 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 1936262] Review Request: lib3270 - TN3270 Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936262 --- Comment #6 from Davide Cavalca --- Sorry, copypaste mistake. Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/lib3270/lib3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/lib3270/lib3270-5.3-2.fc35.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 1936208] Review Request: manafirewall - ManaTools FirewallD configuration tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936208 --- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa --- Addressed most of the feedback with a new release. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/manafirewall/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02073994-manafirewall/manafirewall.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/manafirewall/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02073994-manafirewall/manafirewall-0.0.2-1.fc35.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 1936263] Review Request: libv3270 - 3270 Virtual Terminal for GTK+3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936263 --- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libv3270/libv3270-5.3-2.fc33.src.rpm Changelog: - Do not remove buildroot on install - Make build output more verbose - Ensure build flags are applied - Build docs -- 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 1936262] Review Request: lib3270 - TN3270 Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936262 --- Comment #5 from Antonio T. sagitter --- (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #4) > SRPM URL: > https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/lib3270/lib3270-5.3-2.fc33.src.rpm URL broken -- 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 1936262] Review Request: lib3270 - TN3270 Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936262 --- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/lib3270/lib3270.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/lib3270/lib3270-5.3-2.fc33.src.rpm Changelog: - Do not remove buildroot on install - Make build output more verbose - Ensure build flags are applied - Build docs -- 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 1938464] New: Review Request: ntfs2btrfs - Conversion tool from NTFS to Btrfs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938464 Bug ID: 1938464 Summary: Review Request: ntfs2btrfs - Conversion tool from NTFS to Btrfs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ngomp...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/ntfs2btrfs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02073972-ntfs2btrfs/ntfs2btrfs.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/ntfs2btrfs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02073972-ntfs2btrfs/ntfs2btrfs-20210105-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: ntfs2btrfs is a tool which does in-place conversion of Microsoft's NTFS filesystem to the open-source filesystem Btrfs, much as btrfs-convert does for ext2. The original image is saved as a reflink copy at image/ntfs.img, and if you want to keep the conversion you can delete this to free up space. Fedora Account System Username: ngompa -- 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 1937810] Review Request: sysmontask - Linux system monitor with the compactness and usefulness of WTM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937810 Alessio changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alcir...@posteo.net 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 1936262] Review Request: lib3270 - TN3270 Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936262 --- Comment #3 from Antonio T. sagitter --- I'm correcting myself... - Try to get Make output more verbose; if you can't, try with %make_build SHELL='sh -x' -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936262] Review Request: lib3270 - TN3270 Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936262
--- Comment #2 from Antonio T. sagitter ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
- Compiler flags are not used
- 'rm -rf %{buildroot}' is not needed
- Try to get Make output more verbose; if you can't try with
%make_build SHELL='sh -x'
- 'doxygen' directory contains Doxygen's script files to compile manpages and
HTML 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
Version 3". 199 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1936262-lib3270/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
[Bug 1938451] Review Request: stellarsolver - The Cross Platform Sextractor and Internal Astrometric Solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938451 --- Comment #1 from Christian Dersch --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63694998 -- 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 1938451] New: Review Request: stellarsolver - The Cross Platform Sextractor and Internal Astrometric Solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938451 Bug ID: 1938451 Summary: Review Request: stellarsolver - The Cross Platform Sextractor and Internal Astrometric Solver Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lupinix.fed...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/stellarsolver.spec SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/stellarsolver-1.6-0.1.20210313gitf3f1456.fc34.src.rpm Description: StellarSolver is the Cross Platform Sextractor and Internal Astrometric Solver: * An Astrometric Plate Solver for Mac, Linux, and Windows, built on Astrometry.net and SEP (sextractor) * Meant to be an internal library for use in a program like KStars for internal plate solving on all supported operating systems Fedora Account System Username: lupinix -- 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 1893327] Review Request: human-theme-gtk - Human theme for GTK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893327
--- Comment #10 from c...@luigifab.fr ---
Hi, I work on the next release and I need to do a strange thing during
installation.
One of the installed file must be modified depending on Pango package version.
For pango >= 1.44, I need to replace bottom="3" by bottom="4".
I did that:
%post
currentver=`rpm -q --queryformat="%{RPMTAG_VERSION}" pango`
requiredver=1.44
if [ "$(printf '%s\n' "$requiredver" "$currentver" | sort -V | head -n1)" =
"$requiredver" ]; then
sed -i 's/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 1936262] Review Request: lib3270 - TN3270 Protocol Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936262 Antonio T. sagitter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|trp...@rocketmail.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 1925766] Review Request: python-openpaperwork-core - OpenPaperwork's core
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925766 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||python-openpaperwork-core-2 ||.0.2-1.fc35 -- 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 1919606] Review Request: rnnoise - Recurrent neural network for audio noise reduction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919606
Vasiliy Glazov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
Approved.
But need to fix:
1. Change URL and Source to https://gitlab.xiph.org/xiph/rnnoise
2. Add AUTHORS and README to %doc.
3. rnnoise.src: W: strange-permission rnnoise.spec 775
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "GNU General Public
License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 17 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/vascom/1919606-rnnoise/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest vers
[Bug 1919606] Review Request: rnnoise - Recurrent neural network for audio noise reduction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919606 --- Comment #6 from Artem --- https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rnnoise.spec https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rnnoise-0-0.2.20210122git1cbdbcf.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
