[Bug 1980723] Review Request: fluent-bit - Fast data collector for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1980723 --- Comment #10 from Ben Kircher --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bkircher/fluent-bit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02988699-fluent-bit/fluent-bit.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bkircher/fluent-bit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02988699-fluent-bit/fluent-bit-1.8.10-3.fc36.src.rpm Changes: - Re-add systemd-devel BR, needed for systemd input plugin, missed that in 1.8.10-2 - Drop devel package rpmlint *.spec *.rpm rpmlint session starts rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 2 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1980723 ___ 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 2026516] Review Request: SentryPeer - a peer to peer SIP honeypot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2026516
Jan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||copper_...@hotmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Jan ---
I think following is redundant:
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
As per
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/creating-rpm-packages/index.html
Section name should be %clean and is no longer needed.
"Note that this section is now redundant in Fedora and is only necessary
for EPEL. Typically this contains only the following command: rm -rf
%{buildroot}"
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2026516
___
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 2011828] Review Request: perl-IO-Compress-Zstd - Write zstd files/buffers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011828 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-c9e94ecb8c has been pushed to the Fedora 35 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011828 ___ 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 2011828] Review Request: perl-IO-Compress-Zstd - Write zstd files/buffers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011828 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-47cf878d89 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011828 ___ 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 2011830] Review Request: perl-Archive-Zip-SimpleZip - Create Zip Archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011830 Bug 2011830 depends on bug 2011828, which changed state. Bug 2011828 Summary: Review Request: perl-IO-Compress-Zstd - Write zstd files/buffers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011828 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011830 ___ 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 2011828] Review Request: perl-IO-Compress-Zstd - Write zstd files/buffers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011828 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-11-25 00:58:59 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-c89259807f 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011828 ___ 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 2026516] New: Review Request: SentryPeer - a peer to peer SIP honeypot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2026516 Bug ID: 2026516 Summary: Review Request: SentryPeer - a peer to peer SIP honeypot Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ghe...@sentrypeer.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ghenry/SentryPeer/fedora-35-x86_64/02988431-sentrypeer/sentrypeer.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ghenry/SentryPeer/fedora-35-x86_64/02988431-sentrypeer/sentrypeer-0.0.2-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: SentryPeer is a distributed peer to peer list of bad IP addresses and phone numbers collected via a SIP Honeypot Fedora Account System Username: ghenry Hi all, this isn't my first package for Fedora (as ghe...@suretecsystems.com) I used to maintain RPMs back in 2005. Been around since Fedora 1. I used to be ghe...@fedoranews.org! I'll need a sponsor to get back into things. From https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/active, I do know of: Paul Wouters (from back in 2006 if my emails are correct) Peter Robinson (from Perl world) David Cantrell (from Perl world too - @DrHydeous) I'm the upstream maintainer/project founder. Project presentation: https://blog.tadsummit.com/2021/11/17/sentrypeer/ I'm also a podcast host for Software Engineering Radio: https://www.se-radio.net/team/gavin-henry/ I've not done Koji yet (https://docs.pagure.org/koji/HOWTO/) Thanks for reading, Gavin. -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2026516 ___ 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 2025751] Review Request: libptytty - pty/tty and utmp/wtmp/lastlog handling library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025751 Robbie Harwood changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://pagure.io/releng/fe ||dora-scm-requests/issue/381 ||27 --- Comment #10 from Robbie Harwood --- Thanks, repo requested. -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025751 ___ 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 1871171] Review Request: python-rpi-gpio2 - A libgpiod compatibility layer for the RPi.GPIO API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871171 Joel Savitz changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(jsav...@redhat.co |needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com |m) |) -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871171 ___ 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 1859627] Review Request: arm-none-eabi-gdb - GDB for (remote) debugging ARM bare-metal targets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859627 s...@k-7.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||s...@k-7.ch --- Comment #27 from s...@k-7.ch --- Hello, any news? -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859627 ___ 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 2025751] Review Request: libptytty - pty/tty and utmp/wtmp/lastlog handling library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025751 --- Comment #9 from David Cantrell --- Only *one* remaining problem: Source1 has a typo in the URL. It's "schmorp" not "schmore". I trust you to fix that and given that my PTO starts in 5 minutes I am going to approve this now so you can request the branch and get things built. -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025751 ___ 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 2025751] Review Request: libptytty - pty/tty and utmp/wtmp/lastlog handling library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025751 David Cantrell changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025751 ___ 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 2025751] Review Request: libptytty - pty/tty and utmp/wtmp/lastlog handling library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025751
--- Comment #8 from David Cantrell ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= 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]: 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: 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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source1:
http://dist.schmore.de/libptytty/libptytty-2.0.tar.gz.sig
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/SourceURL/
[-]: 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.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
[Bug 2025751] Review Request: libptytty - pty/tty and utmp/wtmp/lastlog handling library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025751
David Cantrell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(dcantrell@redhat. |
|com)|
--- Comment #7 from David Cantrell ---
(In reply to Robbie Harwood from comment #5)
> Updated spec and srpm - note new locations:
> - https://rharwood.fedorapeople.org/libptytty.spec
> - https://rharwood.fedorapeople.org/libptytty-2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm
>
> > The %{?_isa} part was missing from the Requires on the devel package.
>
> Fixed, thanks.
np
> > Upstream appears to have a .sig file, so this package could probably do the
> > gpgverify thing.
>
> Thanks for helping offline with this. signify verification added. I'll add
> it to rxvt-unicode during the update, and possibly send a PR to libev as
> well.
>
> (signify doesn't seem to exist for fc34, so I've moved to doing this with a
> rawhide VM.)
>
> Note though that all of this is still being fetched over plain HTTP because
> schmorp doesn't work over HTTPS. So it's basically all moot anyway:
Sounds good. And yeah, I know it's sort of moot but I do also like the idea of
having our build infrastructure migrating in this direction to verify source
origin because eventually upstream source locations move and whatnot.
> > * libptytty.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid
> > /usr/lib64/libptytty.so.0
>
> Also assumed this was an rpmlint bug. Looking at it more, I think it's
> complaining about actual function calls in the library, which seems like not
> rpmlint's problem.
>
> The code in question is pttytty::drop_privileges() in proxy.C - I don't know
> whether this is an actual bug, since I'm not sure where it would *get*
> ancillary groups, given nothing's setuid. Or to put it differently: this
> particular code is copied wholesale out of rxvt-unicode, so any issue here
> is pre-existing unless there's some interaction with it being a library now
> that I'm not immediately seeing.
Oh, ok, I see. I thought rpmlint was reporting setuid permissions, I didn't
know it was looking at symbols.
Patch looks good.
> > And not required, but kind of convention... Changes and README could go in
> > %doc
>
> Done.
Changes look good, I'll post the newly completed fedora-review that I just ran.
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025751
___
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 1980191] Review Request: golang-github-tscholl2-siec - Super-Isolated Elliptic Curve Implementation in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1980191 --- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca --- Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo golang-github-tscholl2-siec 1980191 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/38126 -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1980191 ___ 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 1871171] Review Request: python-rpi-gpio2 - A libgpiod compatibility layer for the RPi.GPIO API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871171 mg...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com |needinfo?(jsav...@redhat.co |) |m) --- Comment #14 from mg...@redhat.com --- Here is the spec and SRPM urls Spec URL: https://github.com/underground-software/RPi.GPIO2/blob/packaging3/packaging/python-rpi-gpio2.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/underground-software/RPi.GPIO2/blob/packaging3/packaging/python-rpi-gpio2-0.3.0-1.a3.el8.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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871171 ___ 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 2025908] Review Request: pyp2spec - Generate valid Fedora spec files for Python projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025908 --- Comment #3 from Karolina Surma --- Thanks for pointing out possible update problems. I'm starting to think maybe it's too early to bring the package to Fedora at all; as for now it could be enough to have it in a Copr repository and come back to including it when it's more mature. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025908 ___ 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 2020883] Review Request: kalendar - A calendar application using Akonadi to sync with external services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020883
Maxwell G changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(thunderbirdtr@fed
||oraproject.org)
--- Comment #12 from Maxwell G ---
Hi Onuralp,
I have a couple more pointers. I will approve your package once everything is
fixed. In retrospect, I should have done that in the first place.
(In reply to Maxwell G from comment #11)
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners:
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable,
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor
>
> I think you should add 'Requires: hicolor-icon-theme`. Admittedly, I'm
> not super sure about this issue.
I confirmed that you need to own those icon directories. One option is to add
`Requires: hicolor-icon-theme`. You can alternatively put `%dir
$unowned_directory` in the `%files` section for each of the unowned
directories. I prefer the former, but both solutions are valid.
> appstream-util validate-relax --nonet
> %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/org.kde.%{name}.appdata.xml
> %files -f %{name}.lang
> [...]
> %{_kf5_datadir}/metainfo/org.kde.kalendar.appdata.xml
> [...]
You should use %{_kf5_metainfodir}[1] instead of `%{_metainfodir}` or
`%{_kf5_datadir}/metainfo`.
> License:GPLv3+
I don't think this is required, but I recommend adding a comment above the
`License` field in your specfile linking to or paraphrasing my previous comment
about licensing[2] to avoid any confusion down the line.
Thanks,
Maxwell
[1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kf5/blob/rawhide/f/macros.kf5#_9
[2]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020883#c1
--
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020883
___
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 2026389] Review Request: python-neurotune - A package for optimizing electical models of excitable cells
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2026389 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2026389 ___ 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 2026389] New: Review Request: python-neurotune - A package for optimizing electical models of excitable cells
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2026389 Bug ID: 2026389 Summary: Review Request: python-neurotune - A package for optimizing electical models of excitable cells Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sanjay.an...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-neurotune/python-neurotune.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-neurotune/python-neurotune-0.2.3-0.4.2029gita17f0fd.fc36.src.rpm Description: This package provides Neurotune, a package for optimizing electical models of excitable cells. This package was originally developed by Mike Vella. This has been updated by Padraig Gleeson and others (and moved to NeuralEnsemble) to continue development of pyelectro and Neurotune for use in OpenWorm, Open Source Brain and other projects. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2026389 ___ 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 2025908] Review Request: pyp2spec - Generate valid Fedora spec files for Python projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025908 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mhron...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok --- Before including this in Fedora, I highly recommend changing the version to be a pre-release (ideally alpha) to better communicate the (lack of) stability of the behavior and API. Adding this to Fedora as is and updating it later might be in violation of Fedora Updates policy. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025908 ___ 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 1980191] Review Request: golang-github-tscholl2-siec - Super-Isolated Elliptic Curve Implementation in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1980191
Hirotaka Wakabayashi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi ---
Hello Davide, package approved!
Regards,
Hirotaka
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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: 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 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 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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 rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instea
