[Bug 1999328] Review Request: perl-Devel-MAT-Dumper - Write a heap dump file for later analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999328 --- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman --- (In reply to Jitka Plesnikova from comment #1): > > FIX: *.bs file should be removed in section %install > find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name '*.bs' -empty -delete Done (and findutils added to BuildRequires). > BuildRequires are almost ok > FIX: Please add perl-devel and gcc, because it is XS package Done. Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Devel-MAT-Dumper/perl-Devel-MAT-Dumper.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Devel-MAT-Dumper/perl-Devel-MAT-Dumper-0.42-2.fc34.src.rpm Repo requested (https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36643). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1999332] Review Request: perl-Object-Pad - Simple syntax for lexical slot-based object
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999332 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2021-09-01 05:10:11 --- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman --- My bad. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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
[Red Hat Bugzilla] Your Outstanding Requests
The following is a list of bugs or attachments to bugs in which a user has been waiting more than 3 days for a response from you. Please take action on these requests as quickly as possible. (Note that some of these bugs might already be closed, but a user is still waiting for your response.) We'll remind you again tomorrow if these requests are still outstanding, or if there are any new requests where users have been waiting more than 3 days for your response. If you want these mails to stop you need to go to the bug[s] and cancel or ack the needinfo flags. See: * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=faq.html#flags point 3 * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=faq.html#miscellaneous point 2 needinfo Bug 1998270: Review Request: gtksourceview5 - gtk widget for source code (6 days old) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998270 To see all your outstanding requests, visit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/request.cgi?action=queue=package-review%40lists.fedoraproject.org=type ___ 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 1981585] Review Request: postfwd - Postfix policyd to combine complex restrictions in a ruleset
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981585 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7a430d838b has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7a430d838b -- 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 1981585] Review Request: postfwd - Postfix policyd to combine complex restrictions in a ruleset
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981585 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f28c661593 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f28c661593 -- 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 1981585] Review Request: postfwd - Postfix policyd to combine complex restrictions in a ruleset
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981585 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-5eb42c5d70 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-5eb42c5d70 -- 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 1497482] Review Request: dnsviz - Tools for analyzing and visualizing DNS and DNSSEC behavior
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497482 --- Comment #18 from Casey Deccio --- Thanks! I'll try to get to these by the end of the week - or early next week. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1991138] Review Request: python-pytest-postgresql - pytest plugin that allows to test code that relies on a running PostgreSQL database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991138 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-1171fbacef has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1171fbacef -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1684603] Review Request: bCNC - GRBL CNC command sender, autoleveler and G-code editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684603 --- Comment #8 from Jaroslav Škarvada --- Upstream already ported the code to the Python 3. This review request needs updated package. I am going to update it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1990685] Review Request: cpp-httplib - A C++11 single-file header-only cross platform HTTP/HTTPS library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990685 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed||2021-08-31 22:02:24 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-a9bbf37e6d has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1982286] Review Request: golang-github-path-network-mmproxy - Golang implementation of MMProxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982286 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed||2021-08-31 22:02:18 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-9274c8587f has been pushed to the Fedora 34 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 1981585] Review Request: postfwd - Postfix policyd to combine complex restrictions in a ruleset
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981585 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/postfwd -- 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 1991138] Review Request: python-pytest-postgresql - pytest plugin that allows to test code that relies on a running PostgreSQL database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991138 --- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pytest-postgresql -- 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 1999406] Review Request: python-nest-asyncio - Patch asyncio to allow nested event loops
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999406 --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-nest-asyncio -- 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 1993592] Review Request: dtkcommon - DTK common files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993592 --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dtkcommon -- 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 1999251] Review Request: rust-test-case - Procedural macro attribute for generating parametrized test cases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999251 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-test-case -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1999244] Review Request: rust-os_type - Detect the operating system type
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999244 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-os_type -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1999232] Review Request: rust-exitcode - Preferred system exit codes as defined by sysexits.h
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999232 --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-exitcode -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1998475] Review Request: perl-File-TreeCreate - Recursively create a directory tree
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998475 --- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-File-TreeCreate -- 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 1988168] Review Request: rust-signal-hook-mio - MIO support for signal-hook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988168 --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini --- Please also request f35 and f34 branches of this package. I need it as a dependency for something I myself am working on, and I'd like to build that eventually on f35 and f34 as well. -- 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 1990909] Review Request: rust-rd-agent-intf - Management agent for resctl-demo (interface library)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990909 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-rd-agent-intf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1988168] Review Request: rust-signal-hook-mio - MIO support for signal-hook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988168 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-signal-hook-mio -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1988952] Review Request: CSFML - C bindings for the C++ SFML library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988952 --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/CSFML -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1860688] Review Request: epic5 - irc client (currently retired)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860688 Paul Townsend changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(p...@kobol.org) | Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2021-08-31 19:58:25 --- Comment #9 from Paul Townsend --- It can be closed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1998821] Review Request: ft2-clone 1.47 - FastTracker II clone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998821 --- Comment #2 from js-fed...@nil.im --- Thank you for the review, really appreciated! The license is definitely the elephant in the room. I completley missed the non-free graphics, sorry! So thank you for pointing that out! Given that addressing any issues in the spec file doesn't make sense if the liccense situation cannot be fixed, I didn't do that for now and raised an issue with upstream about the license instead: https://github.com/8bitbubsy/ft2-clone/issues/23 Luckily, this seems to only affect ft2-clone and not pt2-clone (#1998755), though it also contains graphics. But I could not find anything indicating it would contain unfree graphics. How would you prefer to handle this bug in the meantime? Should it be closed until the license situation is fixed with upstream and then a new bug be created, or should it be left open until upstream responded? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1999406] Review Request: python-nest-asyncio - Patch asyncio to allow nested event loops
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999406 --- Comment #4 from Lumír Balhar --- Thanks for the review. I'm gonna update the spec when I import the package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1981585] Review Request: postfwd - Postfix policyd to combine complex restrictions in a ruleset
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981585 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge --- Thank you, looks good now. 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 1999328] Review Request: perl-Devel-MAT-Dumper - Write a heap dump file for later analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999328 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Source file is ok Summary is ok License is ok Description is ok URL and Source0 are ok All tests passed $ rpm -qp --requires perl-Devel-MAT-Dumper-0.42-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm | sort | uniq -c | grep -v rpmlib 1 libc.so.6()(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.34)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) 1 perl(File::Basename) 1 perl(File::Spec) 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.34.0) 1 perl(POSIX) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(warnings) 1 perl(XSLoader) 1 rtld(GNU_HASH) Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -qp --provides perl-Devel-MAT-Dumper-0.42-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(Devel::MAT::Dumper) = 0.42 1 perl-Devel-MAT-Dumper = 0.42-1.fc36 1 perl(Devel::MAT::Dumper::Helper) = 0.42 1 perl-Devel-MAT-Dumper(x86-64) = 0.42-1.fc36 Binary provides are Ok. $ rpmlint ./perl-Devel-MAT-Dumper* perl-Devel-MAT-Dumper.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Dumpfile -> Dump file, Dump-file, Dumpling perl-Devel-MAT-Dumper.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Dumpfile -> Dump file, Dump-file, Dumpling perl-Devel-MAT-Dumper.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Devel/MAT/Dumper/Dumper.bs 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. FIX: *.bs file should be removed in section %install find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name '*.bs' -empty -delete BuildRequires are almost ok FIX: Please add perl-devel and gcc, because it is XS package Please correct all 'FIX' items. Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guide lines. Resolution: Approved -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1981585] Review Request: postfwd - Postfix policyd to combine complex restrictions in a ruleset
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981585
--- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck ---
(In reply to Matthias Runge from comment #1)
> - 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 postfwd
> See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
> guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
Thank you very much for the review! This is indeed a mistake resulting from
missing %{?systemd_requires}.
Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/postfwd.spec
SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/postfwd-2.03-2.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 1997378] Review Request: pg_auto_failover - Postgres extension and service for automated failover and high-availability
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997378 --- Comment #5 from mku...@redhat.com --- Update: New SPEC file: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/mkulik-rh/0899b8f07bb6fabeee0c7a94e7b8d340/raw/85408546dcf5364dfa2c2ee9790dac6095e6972a/pg_auto_failover.spec New RPM builds: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mkulik/pg_auto_failover/fedora-35-x86_64/02676689-pg_auto_failover/pg_auto_failover-1.6.1-1.fc35.src.rpm Changes: - Moved HTML docs to separate package (docs) - Fix license for main and sub-packages - Fix manual(s) auto gz compression - Change Globs in %files macro to static ones - Move openssl package to Recommends, remove glibc Docs files contain the same information as man files but they also provide some additional information: - architecture-multi-standby.html - failover-state-machine.html - security.html -- 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 1999406] Review Request: python-nest-asyncio - Patch asyncio to allow nested event loops
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999406
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok ---
Opinionated style feedback:
I'd personally use:
# Already fixed upstream, not yet released
# loop argument for asyncio.gather is deprecated since 3.8 and removed in 3.10
Patch1: https://github.com/erdewit/nest_asyncio/commit/245dd5bd.patch
Over the hard to read sed.
I'd also not define %{pypi_source} but use the actual value over the spec, as
it makes it easier to read.
But not blockers, just unsolicited opinions :D
Nitpicks:
- %{buildroot}/%{python3_sitelib} evals to a path with two slashes, which
works but is technically not correct, I'd use %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}.
- %license LICENSE -- the LICENSE file is already included as
/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/nest_asyncio-1.5.1.dist-info/LICENSE and
there is no need to add it again (and on F35+, it is also marked as %license).
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Package APPROVED.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated".
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not
[Bug 1999251] Review Request: rust-test-case - Procedural macro attribute for generating parametrized test cases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999251 --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks for the review! https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36624 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36625 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36626 -- 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 1999244] Review Request: rust-os_type - Detect the operating system type
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999244 --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks for the review! https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36621 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36622 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36623 -- 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 1999232] Review Request: rust-exitcode - Preferred system exit codes as defined by sysexits.h
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999232 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks for the review! https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36618 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36619 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36620 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1999406] Review Request: python-nest-asyncio - Patch asyncio to allow nested event loops
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999406 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review? Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1999328] Review Request: perl-Devel-MAT-Dumper - Write a heap dump file for later analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999328 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com CC||jples...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1999251] Review Request: rust-test-case - Procedural macro attribute for generating parametrized test cases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999251
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Package APPROVED.
Followup questions:
- Should the metadata patch be submitted upstream?
- Why does the patch have a .diff extension and not .patch?
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License".
[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.
[-]: 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 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 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[?]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: 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,
[Bug 1999406] Review Request: python-nest-asyncio - Patch asyncio to allow nested event loops
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999406 --- Comment #2 from Lumír Balhar --- > I see you execute tests. When you do, please use %pyproject_buildrequires > -r. That ensures runtime dependencies (if any) are installed. Fixed, thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1999251] Review Request: rust-test-case - Procedural macro attribute for generating parametrized test cases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999251 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC||mhron...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1999244] Review Request: rust-os_type - Detect the operating system type
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999244
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Package APPROVED.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License".
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[?]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: 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
[Bug 1999406] Review Request: python-nest-asyncio - Patch asyncio to allow nested event loops
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999406 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mhron...@redhat.com Blocks||1948434 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1948434 [Bug 1948434] python-jupyter-client-7.0.2 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1999244] Review Request: rust-os_type - Detect the operating system type
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999244 --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok --- Yes, it works without it: https://github.com/schultyy/os_type/blob/d753fccedb649b8d9344ced9beb232fef4df5094/src/lib.rs#L187-L203 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1999244] Review Request: rust-os_type - Detect the operating system type
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999244 --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok --- README says: Requirements: On Linux based systems this library requires that lsb_release is installed. I am not quite sure if this should Require /usr/bin/lsb_release. It seems to work without it and uses /etc/redhat-release on Fedora. So, the answer is probably not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1998475] Review Request: perl-File-TreeCreate - Recursively create a directory tree
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998475 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Source file is ok Summary is ok License is ok Description is ok URL and Source0 are ok All tests passed BuildRequires are ok $ rpm -qp --requires perl-File-TreeCreate-0.0.1-1.fc36.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c | grep -v rpmlib 1 perl(autodie) 1 perl(Carp) 1 perl(File::Spec) 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.34.0) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(warnings) Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -qp --provides perl-File-TreeCreate-0.0.1-1.fc36.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(File::TreeCreate) = 0.0.1 1 perl-File-TreeCreate = 0.0.1-1.fc36 Binary provides are Ok. $ rpmlint ./perl-File-TreeCreate* 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint is ok -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1999244] Review Request: rust-os_type - Detect the operating system type
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999244 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC||mhron...@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1931183] Review Request: python-spikeextractors - Python module for extracting recorded and spike sorted extracellular data from different file types and formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1931183 --- Comment #19 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #17) > (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #16) > > Could you also enable the tests by default and see how that goes? We have > > the newest version of hdmf now, so maybe they'll all pass :D > > It didn't go quite well, unfortunately. It looks like now the package > python-datalad is also required :( > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74751027 > > Should I submit that one for review as well? That depends---is datalad an optional requirement? If yes, then for the time being we can proceed without it and disable the tests that need it. If it is a necessary requirement, though, we'll need to package it up. Could you check which scenario applies and we can proceed accordingly. I'm happy to help with the datalad package and its review etc. :) Cheers, Ankur -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1654670] Review Request: perl-Crypt-U2F-Server - Low level wrapper around the U2F C library (server side)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654670 Bug 1654670 depends on bug 1654667, which changed state. Bug 1654667 Summary: Review Request: perl-Authen-U2F-Tester - FIDO/U2F Authentication Test Client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654667 What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|NOTABUG |--- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1991138] Review Request: python-pytest-postgresql - pytest plugin that allows to test code that relies on a running PostgreSQL database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991138 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #11 from Miro Hrončok --- APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1654667] Review Request: perl-Authen-U2F-Tester - FIDO/U2F Authentication Test Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654667 Xavier Bachelot changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) | Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords||Reopened Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- 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 1953340] Review Request: dovecot-fts-xapian - Xapian plugin for Dovecot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340 --- Comment #33 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Hi Joan, For all branches other than rawhide, you need to: - request a branch - build your package - push an update https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=34417 shows that you've built for F34/F35/F36 but I don't see updates for F34/F35 yet, so that will be the next step there: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=dovecot-fts-xapian Please see the links given for commands and so on: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintenance_guide - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Submit_Package_as_Update_in_Bodhi Your build for el7 failed, so you'll have to fix that and then push an update etc. Please do note that the guidelines and pipeline for EL are not identical to Fedora releases, so if you are looking to make your packages available on EL, you also need to take a look at their guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging Additional note: Since you're opting out of the rpath check, you need to add a comment to your spec explaining this (as documented here): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Broken_RPATH_will_fail_rpmbuild#Opting_out https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dovecot-fts-xapian/blob/rawhide/f/dovecot-fts-xapian.spec#_1 The guideline for rpath is here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_beware_of_rpath (As noted there also, if it's just an internal library, noting that is sufficient) Cheers, -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1999406] Review Request: python-nest-asyncio - Patch asyncio to allow nested event loops
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999406 --- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok --- Sanity: I see you execute tests. When you do, please use %pyproject_buildrequires -r. That ensures runtime dependencies (if any) are installed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1484795] Review Request: golang-github-mattn-go-getopt - getopt for golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484795 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED Last Closed||2021-08-31 08:45:35 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1999549] Review Request: junitparams - Better parameterised tests for JUnit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999549 --- Comment #1 from Didik Supriadi --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74846472 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1999549] New: Review Request: junitparams - Better parameterised tests for JUnit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999549 Bug ID: 1999549 Summary: Review Request: junitparams - Better parameterised tests for JUnit Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: didiksupriad...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/junitparams.spec SRPM URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/junitparams-1.1.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: JUnitParams project adds a new runner to JUnit and provides much easier and readable parametrised tests for JUnit >= 4.12. Fedora Account System Username: didiksupriadi41 -- 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 1463492] Review Request: koko - container connector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463492 Bug 1463492 depends on bug 1484795, which changed state. Bug 1484795 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-mattn-go-getopt - getopt for golang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484795 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX -- 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 1998475] Review Request: perl-File-TreeCreate - Recursively create a directory tree
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998475 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jples...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1999406] New: Review Request: python-nest-asyncio - Patch asyncio to allow nested event loops
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999406 Bug ID: 1999406 Summary: Review Request: python-nest-asyncio - Patch asyncio to allow nested event loops Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lbal...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-nest-asyncio.spec SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-nest-asyncio-1.5.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: By design asyncio does not allow its event loop to be nested. This presents a practical problem: When in an environment where the event loop is already running it's impossible to run tasks and wait for the result. Trying to do so will give the error "RuntimeError: This event loop is already running". The issue pops up in various environments, such as web servers, GUI applications and in Jupyter notebooks. This module patches asyncio to allow nested use of asyncio.run and loop.run_until_complete. Fedora Account System Username: lbalhar This package is a new dependency of jupyter-client. Builds available together with jupyter-client and dependant packages in https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lbalhar/nest-asyncio/builds/ -- 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 1981585] Review Request: postfwd - Postfix policyd to combine complex restrictions in a ruleset
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981585
Matthias Runge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mru...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@redhat.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge ---
Taking this for review.
The package is NOT approved yet.
- There are files placed in unowned directories. You should probably require
systemd, you're distributing the service files anyways.
The linting errors look like false positive to me.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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 postfwd
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/mrunge/review/1981585-postfwd/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d,
/usr/lib/systemd, /usr/lib/systemd/system
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 337920 bytes in 15 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files
