[Bug 2208737] Review Request: mediastreamer2 - Audio/Video real-time streaming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208737



--- Comment #12 from Phil Wyett  ---
Additional:

Fixed and added patch to rectify doxygen creating .html files with bad links.
INSTALL file remove as no longer exists.

Will be reported upstream in due course.


-- 
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=2208737
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208737] Review Request: mediastreamer2 - Audio/Video real-time streaming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208737



--- Comment #11 from Phil Wyett  ---
Spec URL:
https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/mediastreamer2/mediastreamer2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/mediastreamer2/mediastreamer2-5.2.45-1.fc39.src.rpm

(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #6)
> Warnings from fedora-review
> 
> [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
>  is arched.
>  Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 29736960 bytes in /usr/share
>  mediastreamer2-devel-5.2.45-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm:29245440
>  See:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines
> 
> Maybe some of these files should be in a noarch data subpackage?

Split tester application off into own sub-package and created a noarch
tester-data sub-package.

> 
> 
> - 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.
>   Note: License file mediastreamer2_license.html is not marked as %license
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>   guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
> 
> 
> Other license found in the source:
> No copyright* SGI Free Software License B v2.0
> ---
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/include/OpenGL/GLES2/gl2platform.h
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/include/OpenGL/GLES3/gl3platform.h
> 
> Apache License 2.0
> --
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/src/android/AudioTrack.h
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/src/android/media/NdkMediaCodec.h
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/src/android/media/NdkMediaCrypto.h
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/src/android/media/NdkMediaDrm.h
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/src/android/media/NdkMediaError.h
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/src/android/media/NdkMediaExtractor.h
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/src/android/media/NdkMediaFormat.h
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/src/android/media/NdkMediaMuxer.h
> 
> Apple MIT License
> -
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/src/utils/opengl_debug.h
> 
> BSD 3-Clause License
> 
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/include/OpenGL/LICENSE
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/src/utils/_kiss_fft_guts.h
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/src/utils/kiss_fft.c
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/src/utils/kiss_fftr.c
> 
> BSD 3-Clause License GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 or later
> 
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/include/mediastreamer2/dsptools.h
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/src/audiofilters/macsnd.c
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/src/utils/dsptools.c
> 
> BSD 3-Clause License GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
> -
> mediastreamer2-5.2.45/src/audiofilters/aqsnd.m
> 
> 
> Please add a license breakdown in the spec file.

Done. Added to license field. Will do a deep dive here later and report to
upstream.

>
> Kiss FFT is available in Fedora. If the one packaged in Fedora cannot be
> used, should indicate that it uses a bundled Kiss FFT.

Done, indicated as bundled.

This is a partial of 'kiss-fft'. Will report upstream and see if we can make
system 'kiss-fft' usable.

Regards

Phil


-- 
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=2208737
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2169357] Review Request: stats-collect - A tool for collecting and visualising system statistics and telemetry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169357

Ali Erdinc Koroglu  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(benson_muite@emai
   ||lplus.org)



--- Comment #6 from Ali Erdinc Koroglu  ---
@benson_mu...@emailplus.org ?


-- 
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=2169357
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208350] Review Request: belr - Language recognition library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208350

Phil Wyett  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
 Status|NEW |CLOSED
Last Closed||2023-05-23 06:47:18




-- 
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=2208350
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208258] Review Request: whichfont - Querying Fontconfig

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208258



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 
 ---
The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/whichfont


-- 
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=2208258
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208350] Review Request: belr - Language recognition library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208350



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 
 ---
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/belr


-- 
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=2208350
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208350] Review Request: belr - Language recognition library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208350



--- Comment #13 from Phil Wyett  ---
(In reply to Felix Wang from comment #12)
> Though the patch should add a link or comment to above patch files, the
> names of patch files have already explained the reasons of applying the
> patch file. btw, It is beneficial to open PR on the upstream repository, so
> there may not need to apply the patch files in the future.
> ref:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_patch_guidelines/
> 
> note: There is newer release of this library, update to the latest release
> when further pushing the packaging.
> 
> Packages is approved.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
> also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
> - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
>   a list, create one.
> - Add your own remarks to the template checks.
> - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
>   listed by fedora-review.
> - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
>   case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
> - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
>   in what you paste.
> - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
>   ones are mandatory, though)
> - Remove this text
> 
> 
> 
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> 
> = MUST items =
> 
> C/C++:
> [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [ ]: Package contains no static executables.
> [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
>  BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
> [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
> [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
> [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
> [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> 
> Generic:
> [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
>  one supported primary architecture.
>  Note: Using prebuilt packages
> [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
>  other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>  Guidelines.
> [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>  found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
>  later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright*
>  GNU General Public License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed
>  output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
>  rpmbuild/results/belr/licensecheck.txt
> [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
>  must be documented in the spec.
> [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [ ]: 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
> [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
>  names).
> [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> [ ]: 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.
> [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
> [ ]: 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.
> [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> [x]: Package installs properly.
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
>  Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
>  license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
>  license(s) for the package is included in %license.
> [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot}

[Bug 2209111] Review Request: rust-nu-std - Standard library of Nushell

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209111

Davide Cavalca  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dav...@cavalca.name
 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||dav...@cavalca.name



--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca  ---
Scratch build on top of f39-build-side-67708:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101479632

Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review.

- package builds and installs without errors on rawhide
- test suite is run and all unit tests pass
- latest version of the crate is packaged
- license matches upstream specification and is acceptable for Fedora
- license file is included with %license in %files
- package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines

Package 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209111
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209193] Review Request: python-ratinabox - A package for simulating motion and ephys data in continuous environments

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209193

Ben Beasley  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Comment|0   |updated



--- Comment #0 has been edited ---

Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-ratinabox.spec
SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-ratinabox-1.6.3-1.fc38.src.rpm

Description:

RatInABox is a toolkit for generating locomotion trajectories and complementary
neural data for spatially and/or velocity selective cell types in complex
continuous environments.

Fedora Account System Username: music

Koji scratch builds:

F39 (all architectures):
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101478925
F39: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101478821

(The version of python-shapely is too old in Fedora 37–38, resulting in test
failures.)

-- 
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=2209193
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209193] Review Request: python-ratinabox - A package for simulating motion and ephys data in continuous environments

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209193

Ben Beasley  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard||Trivial
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
 Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro)





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 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=2209193
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209193] Review Request: python-ratinabox - A package for simulating motion and ephys data in continuous environments

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209193

Ben Beasley  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Comment|0   |updated



--- Comment #0 has been edited ---

Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-ratinabox.spec
SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-ratinabox-1.6.3-1.fc38.src.rpm

Description:

RatInABox is a toolkit for generating locomotion trajectories and complementary
neural data for spatially and/or velocity selective cell types in complex
continuous environments.

Fedora Account System Username: music

Koji scratch builds:

F39 (all architectures):
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101478925
F39: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101478821
F38: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101478874

(The version of python-shapely is too old in Fedora 37, resulting in test
failures.)

-- 
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=2209193
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209193] New: Review Request: python-ratinabox - A package for simulating motion and ephys data in continuous environments

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209193

Bug ID: 2209193
   Summary: Review Request: python-ratinabox - A package for
simulating motion and ephys data in continuous
environments
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: c...@musicinmybrain.net
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/
SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/

Description:

RatInABox is a toolkit for generating locomotion trajectories and complementary
neural data for spatially and/or velocity selective cell types in complex
continuous environments.

Fedora Account System Username: music

Koji scratch builds:

F39 (all architectures):
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101478925
F39: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101478821
F38: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101478874

(The version of python-shapely is too old in Fedora 37, resulting in test
failures.)


-- 
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=2209193
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209131] Review Request: rust-nu-cmd-lang - Nushell's core language commands

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209131



--- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim  ---
Ah yes, sorry!

f39-build-side-67708

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?inherited=0&tagID=67708&order=-build_id&latest=1


-- 
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=2209131
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2180418] Review Request: input-remapper - An easy to use tool to change the mapping of your input device buttons

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180418



--- Comment #15 from Alexander Ploumistos  ---

I've messed up with the source tarball, here are the correct ones:

Spec URL:
https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/input-remapper/input-remapper.spec
SRPM URL:
https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/input-remapper/input-remapper-2.0.0-2.fc39.src.rpm


-- 
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=2180418
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208258] Review Request: whichfont - Querying Fontconfig

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208258

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Thanks for the update.
New package looks good.
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208258
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208350] Review Request: belr - Language recognition library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208350

Felix Wang  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208350
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208350] Review Request: belr - Language recognition library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208350



--- Comment #12 from Felix Wang  ---
Though the patch should add a link or comment to above patch files, the names
of patch files have already explained the reasons of applying the patch file.
btw, It is beneficial to open PR on the upstream repository, so there may not
need to apply the patch files in the future.
ref:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_patch_guidelines/

note: There is newer release of this library, update to the latest release when
further pushing the packaging.

Packages is approved.



This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
 Note: Using prebuilt packages
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
 later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright*
 GNU General Public License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
 rpmbuild/results/belr/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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 du

[Bug 2196601] Review Request: zycore-c - Zyan Core Library for C

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196601



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service  
---
Created attachment 1966328
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1966328&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5901549 to 5945204


-- 
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=2196601
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2196601] Review Request: zycore-c - Zyan Core Library for C

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196601



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service  
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5945204
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2196601-zycore-c/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05945204-zycore-c/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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=2196601
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2196601] Review Request: zycore-c - Zyan Core Library for C

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196601



--- Comment #4 from Felix Wang  ---
updated.
SPEC URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/zycore-c.spec
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/zycore-c-1.4.1-1.fc39.src.rpm


-- 
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=2196601
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2196601] Review Request: zycore-c - Zyan Core Library for C

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196601



--- Comment #3 from Felix Wang  ---
> a) Please add %dir directives
> %dir %{_libdir}/cmake/zycore
> %dir %{_includedir}/Zycore/

Added.

> %dir %{_datadir}/doc/Zycore/

There are various types of filename extensions in this doc directory. Do I
really need to add all of them?

> b) Doxygen can generate man pages without javascript:
> https://www.doxygen.nl/manual/starting.html
> Perhaps these can be made available in the main package?

Do you mean this? ref:
https://www.doxygen.nl/manual/config.html#cfg_generate_man

c) The spec file indicates that devel package should require
the main package using %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
unclear why getting an error for this.
d) Maybe powerpc should also be excluded as an architecture
in addition to s390x?
https://github.com/zyantific/zycore-c/issues/59

Dis this.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196601
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2180418] Review Request: input-remapper - An easy to use tool to change the mapping of your input device buttons

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180418



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5945066
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2180418-input-remapper/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05945066-input-remapper/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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=2180418
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2180418] Review Request: input-remapper - An easy to use tool to change the mapping of your input device buttons

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180418



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Created attachment 1966317
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1966317&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5945010 to 5945066


-- 
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=2180418
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2180418] Review Request: input-remapper - An easy to use tool to change the mapping of your input device buttons

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180418



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5945010
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2180418-input-remapper/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05945010-input-remapper/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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=2180418
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2180418] Review Request: input-remapper - An easy to use tool to change the mapping of your input device buttons

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180418



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Created attachment 1966313
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1966313&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5940677 to 5945010


-- 
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=2180418
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2180418] Review Request: input-remapper - An easy to use tool to change the mapping of your input device buttons

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180418



--- Comment #12 from Alexander Ploumistos  ---
I wasn't going to, but I think I got everything, with the caveat that my brain
is already in bed without me. I'll post on devel about the issues with
%find_lang, I hope someone has an answer.

Spec URL:
https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/input-remapper/input-remapper.spec
SRPM URL:
https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/input-remapper/input-remapper-2.0.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101469697


(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #9)
> (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #7)
> > > %autorelease and %autochangelog are now the recommended defaults
> > > (https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1255 was merged).
> > 
> > I co-maintain bubblemail, which uses a separate changelog file, that I edit
> > whenever it's needed. I created a separate changelog file for
> > input-remapper, I placed it in ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/ but it's not part of the
> > source rpm (created with `rpmbuild -bs`) and the release does not get
> > incremented. Is there a way to do that when the package is not (yet) in a
> > repo?
> Use 'fedpkg srpm' instead of 'rpmbuild -bs'. Note that 'changelog' file needs
> to be committed to the repo, it's not enough to just create it.

I did a 'git init' to make a repo of my local directory, I added all the files,
including the changelog and commited the changes. I did the dance as described
in
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutorial_GNU_Hello/
and I ended up with input-remapper-2.0.0-1.fc39.src.rpm, though 'rpm -qp
--changelog input-remapper-2.0.0-1.fc39.src.rpm' starts at 2.0.0-3. Of course,
I got the same errors from rpmlint as we saw with pyinstrument, e.g. "W:
incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.0.0-3 ['2.0.0-1.fc39', '2.0.0-1']". Where is
the changelog hidden?


Why do we prefer this for local builds to "rpmbuild -bs foo.spec && mock
foo.src.rpm && rpmlint *.rpm"?



> > I had read this part and I got the impression that since the program does
> > require manual configuration, it should be disabled, hence the preset:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DefaultServices/
> > #_must_not_require_manual_configuration_to_function
> Oh, I didn't look at the file contents. It has 'disable
> input-remapper.service',
> so this has no effect; 'disable' is the default. Please just drop this file.

Dropped.


(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #11)
> > if [ $1 -eq 1 ] && [ -x systemctl ]; then
> >systemctl start %{name}.service > /dev/null 2>&1 || :
> > fi
> This must to be removed.

Removed.


> > URL:https://github.com/sezanzeb
> https://github.com/sezanzeb/input-remapper would be better.

Fixed.


> /usr/share/doc/input-remapper/README.md is not useful for Fedora users.
> It describes how to install the package from the web and knows nothing about
> the ready-to-install rpm. My suggestion would be to add a README.Fedora
> file that mentions 'dnf install input-remapper', and 'systemctl enable --now
> input-remapper'
> and gives some instructions how to start configuring the service under
> gnome-shell and
> other systems.

Great idea, I've added a README.Fedora file, I can only hope someone finds it
useful.


> (*) I did a very simple test that remapping 'x' to 'KEY_BACKSLASH' works as
> expected
> for a user logged in with gnome. 
> 
> I also wanted to remap to KEY_A, but the dialog says KEY_A is not valid. It
> seems something
> is buggy about the listing of the keys, and more complicated keys like
> KEY_BACKSLASH are
> accepted, but simple ones like KEY_A are not. But it's also possible I
> misunderstood the
> interface, I wasn't trying very hard.

Actually, I just wanted to write to you about this, but I ended up reworking
the package. In
https://github.com/sezanzeb/input-remapper/blob/main/readme/usage.md#key-names
they mention:

"Key names that start with KEY_ are keyboard layout independent constants that
might not result in the expected output. For example using KEY_Y would result
in "z" if the layout of the environment is set to german. Using y on the other
hand would correctly result in "y" to be written."

I could be wrong, but I think they meant to write "keyboard layout-dependent".
I had actually tried this when I first started playing with the program and
indeed, KEY_* is not all that reliable, except for keys like KEY_RIGHTMETA and
such. You'll need to examine things through evtest, if you've got anything
complicated going on.
I always manage to have input devices with extra keys or keys that are supposed
to do something in windows and that's why I've been going through remapping
programs. If you've got a key somewhere that does nothing and it's bugging you,
this is the solution! 


Thank you very much for your time Zbigniew, it's looking much neater now.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You

[Bug 2167178] Review Request: zix - A lightweight C99 portability and data structure library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2167178



--- Comment #17 from Benson Muite  ---
It would be great if can also generate man pages. Probably a few changes are
needed to:
https://gitlab.com/drobilla/zix/-/blob/main/doc/Doxyfile.in
https://gitlab.com/drobilla/zix/-/blob/main/doc/meson.build


-- 
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=2167178
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208258] Review Request: whichfont - Querying Fontconfig

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208258



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service  
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5943353
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2208258-whichfont/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05943353-whichfont/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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=2208258
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208258] Review Request: whichfont - Querying Fontconfig

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208258



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service  
---
Created attachment 1966308
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1966308&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5931564 to 5943353


-- 
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=2208258
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208258] Review Request: whichfont - Querying Fontconfig

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208258



--- Comment #3 from Sudip Shil  ---
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sshil/whichfont/fedora-37-x86_64/05943347-whichfont/whichfont.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sshil/whichfont/fedora-37-x86_64/05943347-whichfont/whichfont-1.0.5-2.fc37.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=2208258
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209131] Review Request: rust-nu-cmd-lang - Nushell's core language commands

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209131

Fabio Valentini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|decatho...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||decatho...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini  ---
This currently fails to build because it needs nu-* v0.80.0. Do you have a koji
side tag I can run a test scratch build against?


-- 
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=2209131
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2072968] Review Request: perl-Alien-libmaxminddb - Find libmaxminddb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072968



--- Comment #11 from Michal Josef Spacek  ---
(In reply to Andreas Vögele from comment #9)
> (In reply to Michal Josef Spacek from comment #4)
> > I think that you can remove BuildRequires for coreutils, gcc, and perl-devel
> > The library delivers libmaxminddb, detect it and sets files. 
> > There is no compiling.
> 
> There's a test that compiles C code, which is at the end of t/xs.t. I've
> moved perl-devel and gcc to the spec file's "Tests" requirements.

You are right, thank you.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072968
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2072968] Review Request: perl-Alien-libmaxminddb - Find libmaxminddb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072968

Michal Josef Spacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from Michal Josef Spacek  ---
Review:
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-Alien-libmaxminddb-1.012-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort | 
> uniq -c | grep -v rpmlib
  1 perl(Alien::Base)
  1 perl(Alien::libmaxminddb)
  1 perl-libs
  1 perl(parent)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(utf8)
  1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.16.0
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 pkgconfig(libmaxminddb)

> rpm -qp --provides perl-Alien-libmaxminddb-1.012-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort | 
> uniq -c
  1 perl(Alien::libmaxminddb::Install::Files)
  1 perl-Alien-libmaxminddb(x86-64) = 1.012-1.fc39
  1 perl(Alien::libmaxminddb) = 1.012
  1 perl-Alien-libmaxminddb = 1.012-1.fc39

Rpmlint is ok

Package looks good now.

Resolution:
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072968
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208964] Review Request: python-flit-core - PEP 517 build backend for packages using Flit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208964



--- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok  ---
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11433


-- 
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=2208964
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209131] New: Review Request: rust-nu-cmd-lang - Nushell's core language commands

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209131

Bug ID: 2209131
   Summary: Review Request: rust-nu-cmd-lang - Nushell's core
language commands
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mic...@michel-slm.name
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-nu-cmd-lang.spec
SRPM URL:
https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-nu-cmd-lang-0.80.0-1.fc38.src.rpm

Description:
Nushell's core language commands.

Fedora Account System Username: salimma


-- 
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=2209131
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208964] Review Request: python-flit-core - PEP 517 build backend for packages using Flit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208964

Maxwell G  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Maxwell G  ---
- [x] The License tag reflects the package contents and uses the correct
identifiers.

Specfile adjusted to account for flit_core/versionno.py

- [x] The license text is included and marked with %license.
- [x] The package builds successfully in mock.
- [x] The package is installable (checked by fedora-review).

- [x] There are no relevant rpmlint errors.

> python3-flit-core.noarch: W: no-documentation

is justified with a specfile comment.

- [x] The package runs tests in %check.

- [x] The latest version is packaged or packaging an earlier version is
justified.

See
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flit/pull-request/28#comment-143079.


- [x] The packager considers avoiding confusing `%foo_name` macros. (Not a
blocker)
- [x] Libraries: The package name has a `python3-` prefix and uses the
canonical project name
- [-] Applications: A `python3-` prefix is not used
- [x] The pyproject macros are used.
- [x] There are no bundled libraries.
- [x] The package complies with the Python and general Packaging Guidelines.


Package approved! Thanks for working on this! Tell releng that they can keep me
as the main admin when you file the unretirement ticket. I added churchyard and
@python-packagers-sig as admins.


-- 
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=2208964
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209099] Review Request: rust-termion1 - Bindless library for manipulating terminals

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209099



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-cdb9b78545 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cdb9b78545


-- 
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=2209099
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209099] Review Request: rust-termion1 - Bindless library for manipulating terminals

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209099



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-4f1feb9106 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4f1feb9106


-- 
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=2209099
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209099] Review Request: rust-termion1 - Bindless library for manipulating terminals

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209099

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-a82c8962a1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-a82c8962a1


-- 
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=2209099
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2072968] Review Request: perl-Alien-libmaxminddb - Find libmaxminddb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072968



--- Comment #9 from Andreas Vögele  ---
(In reply to Michal Josef Spacek from comment #4)
> Hi Andreas,
> 
> I think that you can remove BuildRequires for coreutils, gcc, and perl-devel
> The library delivers libmaxminddb, detect it and sets files. 
> There is no compiling.

There's a test that compiles C code, which is at the end of t/xs.t. I've moved
perl-devel and gcc to the spec file's "Tests" requirements.

Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/voegelas/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05942861-perl-Alien-libmaxminddb/perl-Alien-libmaxminddb.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/voegelas/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05942861-perl-Alien-libmaxminddb/perl-Alien-libmaxminddb-1.012-1.fc39.src.rpm


-- 
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=2072968
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208964] Review Request: python-flit-core - PEP 517 build backend for packages using Flit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208964



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service  
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5942806
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2208964-python-flit-core/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05942806-python-flit-core/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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=2208964
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208964] Review Request: python-flit-core - PEP 517 build backend for packages using Flit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208964



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service  
---
Created attachment 1966265
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1966265&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5941031 to 5942806


-- 
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=2208964
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208964] Review Request: python-flit-core - PEP 517 build backend for packages using Flit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208964



--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Spec URL:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/churchyard/rpms/python-flit/raw/cebafd9140ad47aa0b8f58a2fe64b25523be134c/f/python-flit-core.spec
SRPM URL:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4736/101454736/python-flit-core-3.8.0-3.fc39.src.rpm

- Adjust the License tag to include flit_core/versionno.py's regex
(BSD-2-Clause)


-- 
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=2208964
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209111] New: Review Request: rust-nu-std - Standard library of Nushell

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209111

Bug ID: 2209111
   Summary: Review Request: rust-nu-std - Standard library of
Nushell
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mic...@michel-slm.name
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-nu-std.spec
SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-nu-std-0.80.0-1.fc38.src.rpm

Description:
The standard library of Nushell.

Fedora Account System Username: salimma


-- 
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=2209111
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209099] Review Request: rust-termion1 - Bindless library for manipulating terminals

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209099



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 
 ---
The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-termion1


-- 
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=2209099
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2097813] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Extended - Extend Moose with safe defaults and useful features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097813



--- Comment #6 from Michal Josef Spacek  ---
Sorry coreutils is needed for %{_fixperms}


-- 
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=2097813
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209099] Review Request: rust-termion1 - Bindless library for manipulating terminals

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209099

Davide Cavalca  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
 CC||dav...@cavalca.name
 Status|NEW |POST
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dav...@cavalca.name



--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca  ---
Compat package, 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209099
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2167178] Review Request: zix - A lightweight C99 portability and data structure library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2167178



--- Comment #16 from Guido Aulisi  ---
Any news on this?


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2167178
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2072968] Review Request: perl-Alien-libmaxminddb - Find libmaxminddb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072968



--- Comment #8 from Michal Josef Spacek  ---
(In reply to Paul Howarth from comment #7)
> (In reply to Michal Josef Spacek from comment #4)
> > I think that you can remove BuildRequires for coreutils ...
> 
> The %{_fixperms} macro is implemented using chmod, hence it makes sense to
> retain coreutils as a build requirement, though it's hard to imagine the
> build system not having that by default.

Heh, thanks. I thought it was a residue of COMPAT.


-- 
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=2072968
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2097813] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Extended - Extend Moose with safe defaults and useful features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097813



--- Comment #5 from Michal Josef Spacek  ---
There are issues:
* Remove COMPAT line (with coreutils dependency, which is used for echo in
COMPAT line)

Optional:
* I am for adding comments like "Runtime:" and "Tests:" to BuildRequire list as
in other Perl modules


-- 
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=2097813
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209099] Review Request: rust-termion1 - Bindless library for manipulating terminals

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209099

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||2136868





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136868
[Bug 2136868] rust-termion-2.0.1 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209099
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209099] New: Review Request: rust-termion1 - Bindless library for manipulating terminals

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209099

Bug ID: 2209099
   Summary: Review Request: rust-termion1 - Bindless library for
manipulating terminals
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mic...@michel-slm.name
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-termion1.spec
SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/rust-termion1-1.5.6-1.fc38.src.rpm

Description:
A bindless library for manipulating terminals.

Fedora Account System Username: salimma


-- 
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=2209099
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208909] Review Request: rust-ratatui - Library to build rich terminal user interfaces or dashboards

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208909

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||2136868





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136868
[Bug 2136868] rust-termion-2.0.1 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208909
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2072968] Review Request: perl-Alien-libmaxminddb - Find libmaxminddb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072968

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||p...@city-fan.org



--- Comment #7 from Paul Howarth  ---
(In reply to Michal Josef Spacek from comment #4)
> I think that you can remove BuildRequires for coreutils ...

The %{_fixperms} macro is implemented using chmod, hence it makes sense to
retain coreutils as a build requirement, though it's hard to imagine the build
system not having that by default.


-- 
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=2072968
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2097813] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Extended - Extend Moose with safe defaults and useful features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097813

Michal Josef Spacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mspa...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mspa...@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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097813
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2203862] Review Request: hdmf-common-schema - Specifications for pre-defined data structures provided by HDMF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203862

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2023-05-22 15:19:23



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-2f9517ce39 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 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=2203862
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2203862] Review Request: hdmf-common-schema - Specifications for pre-defined data structures provided by HDMF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203862

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-2f9517ce39 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2f9517ce39


-- 
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=2203862
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2203862] Review Request: hdmf-common-schema - Specifications for pre-defined data structures provided by HDMF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203862

Ben Beasley  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|c...@musicinmybrain.net |sanjay.an...@gmail.com




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203862
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2203862] Review Request: hdmf-common-schema - Specifications for pre-defined data structures provided by HDMF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203862



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 
 ---
The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hdmf-common-schema


-- 
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=2203862
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2203862] Review Request: hdmf-common-schema - Specifications for pre-defined data structures provided by HDMF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203862

Ben Beasley  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c...@musicinmybrain.net



--- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley  ---
Fixed the status and set the assignee. The bug needs to stay ASSIGNED, and
needs to be assigned to the reviewer, in order for the repository request to
succeed.


-- 
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=2203862
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2203862] Review Request: hdmf-common-schema - Specifications for pre-defined data structures provided by HDMF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203862

Ben Beasley  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203862
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2203862] Review Request: hdmf-common-schema - Specifications for pre-defined data structures provided by HDMF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203862



--- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley  ---
Thanks for the review!


-- 
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=2203862
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208964] Review Request: python-flit-core - PEP 517 build backend for packages using Flit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208964

Maxwell G  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||maxw...@gtmx.me
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #3 from Maxwell G  ---
I suppose I'll continue the review in
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flit/pull-request/28.


-- 
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=2208964
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2166379] Review Request: wasi-libc - C library for WebAssembly System Interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2166379



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Created attachment 1966205
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1966205&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5925142 to 5942243


-- 
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=2166379
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2166379] Review Request: wasi-libc - C library for WebAssembly System Interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2166379



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5942243
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2166379-wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05942243-wasi-libc/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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=2166379
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2196601] Review Request: zycore-c - Zyan Core Library for C

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196601

Benson Muite  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||benson_mu...@emailplus.org
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review?
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|benson_mu...@emailplus.org
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
 License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in
 /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/zycore-c/2196601-zycore-c/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake/zycore
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake/zycore
[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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: 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

[Bug 2166379] Review Request: wasi-libc - C library for WebAssembly System Interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2166379



--- Comment #20 from Jan Staněk  ---
Adressed some typos.

Spec:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05941903-wasi-libc/wasi-libc.spec
SRPM:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05941903-wasi-libc/wasi-libc-19-1.fc39.src.rpm


-- 
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=2166379
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2203862] Review Request: hdmf-common-schema - Specifications for pre-defined data structures provided by HDMF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203862

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
LGTM XXX APPROVED XXX

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "Lawrence Berkeley National Labs BSD
 variant license BSD 3-Clause License". 31 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-
 reviews/2203862-hdmf-common-schema/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
 publishes signatures.
 Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $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]: Spec use %global in

[Bug 2097826] Review Request: perl-Types-ReadOnly - Type constraints and coercions for read-only data structures and locked hashes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097826



--- Comment #2 from Michal Josef Spacek  ---
There are some issues:
* I think that block with '%if !%{defined perl_bootstrap}' is bad. There are
runtime dependencies (Type::Tiny, Type::Coercion, Types::Standard, and
Type::Library) that are in Type::Tiny dist. We need to remove if/else
(bootstrap) and we need to add this kind of bootstrap block to BuildRequire in
perl-Type-Tiny (for perl-Types-ReadOnly, is used in tests only).
* Rewrite license to SPDX
* Remove MODULE_COMPAT line

Optional:
* I am for adding comments like "Runtime:" and "Tests:" to BuildRequire list as
in other Perl modules


-- 
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=2097826
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2097826] Review Request: perl-Types-ReadOnly - Type constraints and coercions for read-only data structures and locked hashes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097826

Michal Josef Spacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||mspa...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mspa...@redhat.com




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2097826
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024



--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[!]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General
 Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* MIT License GNU General
 Public License v2.0 or later", "Unknown or generated", "MIT License",
 "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* MIT
 License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD
 3-Clause License", "Open Software License 1.1". 1367 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/smatch/2209024-smatch/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgveri

[Bug 2203862] Review Request: hdmf-common-schema - Specifications for pre-defined data structures provided by HDMF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203862

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
On this one now.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203862
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209067] Review Request: perl-File-Inplace - Perl module for in-place editing of files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209067

Michal Josef Spacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Michal Josef Spacek  ---
Perl module was orphaned (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-File-Inplace)


-- 
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=2209067
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209067] New: Review Request: perl-File-Inplace - Perl module for in-place editing of files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209067

Bug ID: 2209067
   Summary: Review Request: perl-File-Inplace - Perl module for
in-place editing of files
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mspa...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://skim.cz/tmp/perl-File-Inplace.spec
SRPM URL: https://skim.cz/tmp/perl-File-Inplace-0.20-32.fc39.src.rpm
Description:
File::Inplace is a perl module intended to ease the common task of editing
a file in-place. Inspired by variations of perl's -i option, this module is
intended for somewhat more structured and reusable editing than command
line perl typically allows. File::Inplace endeavors to guarantee file
integrity; that is, either all of the changes made will be saved to the
file, or none will. It also offers functionality such as backup creation,
automatic field splitting per-line, automatic chomping/unchomping, and
aborting edits partially through without affecting the original file.
Fedora Account System Username: mspacek


-- 
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=2209067
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208531] Review Request: glsl-language-server - Language server implementation for GLSL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208531



--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* The Unlicense GNU
 General Public License, Version 3", "MIT License". 16 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/glsl-language-
 server/2208531-glsl-language-server/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean

[Bug 2207871] Review Request: libcanlock - Create and verify RFC 8315 Netnews Cancel-Locks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871

Benson Muite  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|benson_mu...@emailplus.org
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||benson_mu...@emailplus.org
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT License BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated",
 "FSF All Permissive License", "ICU License", "ICU License [generated
 file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General
 Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License
 [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
 [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later",
 "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant [generated
 file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "MIT License",
 "BSD 3-Clause License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License
 Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited
 License (with License Retention)". 44 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in

/home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libcanclock/2207871-libcanlock/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[ ]: 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 40960 bytes in 12 files.
[ ]: 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).
[!]: 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

[Bug 2150036] Review Request: perl-Alien-Font-Uni - Access to Unifont truetype file

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150036

Michal Josef Spacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #1 from Michal Josef Spacek  ---
There are some issues:
* Alien::Font::Uni wants *ttf files, but unifont-fonts delivers *otf fonts
(which is installed by 'font(unifont)'. There is unifont-ttf-fonts package.
* Remove "File::ShareDir::Install" => "0.06" from configure options in
Makefile.PL by existing patch
* Remove BuildRequires with COMPAT


-- 
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=2150036
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2150036] Review Request: perl-Alien-Font-Uni - Access to Unifont truetype file

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150036

Michal Josef Spacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mspa...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mspa...@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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150036
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209040] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Syllable - count the number of syllables in English words

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209040

Michal Josef Spacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209040
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209040] Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Syllable - count the number of syllables in English words

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209040



--- Comment #1 from Michal Josef Spacek  ---
Perl module was orphaned
(https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Lingua-EN-Syllable)


-- 
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=2209040
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209040] New: Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Syllable - count the number of syllables in English words

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209040

Bug ID: 2209040
   Summary: Review Request: perl-Lingua-EN-Syllable - count the
number of syllables in English words
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mspa...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://skim.cz/tmp/perl-Lingua-EN-Syllable.spec
SRPM URL: https://skim.cz/tmp/perl-Lingua-EN-Syllable-0.31-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: count the number of syllables in English words
Fedora Account System Username: mspacek


-- 
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=2209040
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2195959] Review Request: pgn-extract - Portable Game Notation (PGN) Manipulator for Chess Games

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2195959

Benson Muite  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|benson_mu...@emailplus.org
 CC||benson_mu...@emailplus.org
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
 later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General
 Public License v1.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass
 Ave)]". 197 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/pgn-extract/2195959-
 -pgn-extract/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/pgn-extract
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/pgn-extract
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 153600 bytes in 4 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 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]: Fina

[Bug 2072968] Review Request: perl-Alien-libmaxminddb - Find libmaxminddb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072968



--- Comment #6 from Michal Josef Spacek  ---
Sorry I set review as done, but not done.


-- 
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=2072968
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2072968] Review Request: perl-Alien-libmaxminddb - Find libmaxminddb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072968

Michal Josef Spacek  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=2072968
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2072968] Review Request: perl-Alien-libmaxminddb - Find libmaxminddb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072968



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service  
---
Hello @voegelas,
since this is your first Fedora package, you need to get sponsored by a package
sponsor before it can be accepted.

A sponsor is an experienced package maintainer who will guide you through
the processes that you will follow and the tools that you will use as a future
maintainer. A sponsor will also be there to answer your questions related to
packaging.

You can find all active sponsors here:
https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/

I created a sponsorship request for you:
https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/570
Please take a look and make sure the information is correct.

Thank you, and best of luck on your packaging journey.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072968
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2072968] Review Request: perl-Alien-libmaxminddb - Find libmaxminddb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072968

Michal Josef Spacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Michal Josef Spacek  ---
Hi Andreas,

I think that you can remove BuildRequires for coreutils, gcc, and perl-devel
The library delivers libmaxminddb, detect it and sets files. 
There is no compiling.

Other seems 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072968
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2193400] Review Request: qm - Containerized environment for running Quality Management software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2193400

Pierre-YvesChibon  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(pingou@pingoured. |
   |fr) |



--- Comment #26 from Pierre-YvesChibon  ---
This is correct, technically we need a newer podman (hirte is landing in epel9
as we speak). I've pinged the person who made the 4.5.0 build in stream to know
what was blocking that build (seems to be a failed test), so hopefully this
will be resolved soon.

I think we should bring the Requires back into the spec file (because they are
valid) and indeed, only ask packit to submit a build, not the corresponding
bodhi update until these dependencies are resolved. At least in our docs
explaining how to use qm we can tell people to download the RPM from a trusted
source (that they'll also have to use for podman 4.5.0 anyway).


-- 
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=2193400
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2145272] Review Request: perl-Carmel - CPAN Artifact Repository Manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2145272

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Petr Pisar  ---
I guess you meant
.

$ rpmlint perl-Carmel.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Carmel-0.1.56-1.fc39.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Carmel-0.1.56-1.fc39.noarch.rpm 
 rpmlint session starts
===
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 3

= 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness;
has taken 0.5 s 
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Carmel-0.1.56-1.fc39.noarch.rpm |
sort | uniq -c
  1 perl(Capture::Tiny)
  1 perl(Carmel)
  1 perl(Carmel::App)
  1 perl(Carmel::Artifact)
  1 perl(Carmel::Builder)
  1 perl(Carmel::CPANfile)
  1 perl(Carmel::ProgressBar)
  1 perl(Carmel::Repository)
  1 perl(Carmel::Resolver)
  1 perl(Carmel::Runner)
  1 perl(Carp)
  1 perl(Carton::Dist)
  1 perl(Carton::Index)
  1 perl(Carton::Package)
  1 perl(Carton::Snapshot)
  1 perl(Class::Tiny) >= 1.001
  1 perl(Config)
  1 perl(constant)
  1 perl(CPAN::DistnameInfo)
  1 perl(CPAN::Meta)
  1 perl(CPAN::Meta::Requirements)
  1 perl(Data::Dumper)
  1 perl(DirHandle)
  1 perl(Exporter)
  1 perl(ExtUtils::Install) >= 1.47
  1 perl(ExtUtils::InstallPaths)
  1 perl(File::Copy::Recursive)
  1 perl(File::pushd) >= 1.009
  1 perl(Getopt::Long)
  1 perl(IO::Compress::Gzip)
  1 perl(JSON)
  1 perl(lib)
  1 perl-libs
  1 perl(Menlo::CLI::Compat) >= 1.9018
  1 perl(Module::CoreList)
  1 perl(Module::CPANfile) >= 1.1000
  1 perl(Module::Metadata) >= 1.03
  1 perl(Module::Runtime) >= 0.014
  1 perl(parent)
  1 perl(Path::Tiny) >= 0.068
  1 perl(Pod::Usage)
  1 perl(POSIX)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(Try::Tiny) >= 0.20
  1 perl(version)
  1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.12.0
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
  1 /usr/bin/perl
Binary dependencies are Ok.

$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Carmel-0.1.56-1.fc39.noarch.rpm 
Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok.

Thanks for your hard work on this package.
This package is 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2145272
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
Bug 177841 depends on bug 2176131, which changed state.

Bug 2176131 Summary: Review Request: fim - Lightweight universal image viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176131

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2176131] Review Request: fim - Lightweight universal image viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176131

Lukas Javorsky  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2023-05-22 10:41:36




-- 
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=2176131
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208531] Review Request: glsl-language-server - Language server implementation for GLSL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208531

Benson Muite  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||benson_mu...@emailplus.org
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|benson_mu...@emailplus.org
  Flags||fedora-review?
 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208531
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024

Benson Muite  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?
 CC||benson_mu...@emailplus.org
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|benson_mu...@emailplus.org




-- 
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=2209024
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024

Fedora Review Service  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

URL||https://%{name}.sourceforge
   ||.net



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service  
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5941466
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2209024-smatch/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05941466-smatch/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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=2209024
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2209024] New: Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024

Bug ID: 2209024
   Summary: Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: lzao...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/test_builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05941435-smatch/smatch.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/test_builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05941435-smatch/smatch-1.73-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: Smatch is a static analysis tool for C.
Fedora Account System Username: lzaoral


-- 
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=2209024
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2180418] Review Request: input-remapper - An easy to use tool to change the mapping of your input device buttons

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180418

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST



--- Comment #11 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
> if [ $1 -eq 1 ] && [ -x systemctl ]; then
>systemctl start %{name}.service > /dev/null 2>&1 || :
> fi
This must to be removed.

>> After six hours of hairpulling I decided to declare defeat. I tried
>> different combinations of the (limited) options offered by %find_lang,
>> even"--all-name", but it plainly refuses to find the files:
>I don't know too much about this either. Let's leave it for now,
>maybe somebody else will have some idea.
/usr/lib/rpm/find-lang.sh checks only some pecific locations for
the language files. This package uses different locations, so it is hard
to reconcile the two. But it also has just a bunch of those files, so
I think it's OK to just ignore the issue (%lang attribute is not applied).

> URL:https://github.com/sezanzeb
https://github.com/sezanzeb/input-remapper would be better.

/usr/share/doc/input-remapper/README.md is not useful for Fedora users.
It describes how to install the package from the web and knows nothing about
the ready-to-install rpm. My suggestion would be to add a README.Fedora
file that mentions 'dnf install input-remapper', and 'systemctl enable --now
input-remapper'
and gives some instructions how to start configuring the service under
gnome-shell and
other systems.

With the above changes:
+ package name is correct
+ license is acceptable for Fedora (GPL-3.0-or-later)
+ license is specified correctly
+ P/R/BR look OK
+ builds and installs OK
+ the program seems to work (*).

(*) I did a very simple test that remapping 'x' to 'KEY_BACKSLASH' works as
expected
for a user logged in with gnome. 

I also wanted to remap to KEY_A, but the dialog says KEY_A is not valid. It
seems something
is buggy about the listing of the keys, and more complicated keys like
KEY_BACKSLASH are
accepted, but simple ones like KEY_A are not. But it's also possible I
misunderstood the
interface, I wasn't trying very hard.

Anyway, the packaging is OK. Whether the package has bugs is not in scope of
the review,
so I only did some very superficial check.


-- 
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=2180418
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2180418] Review Request: input-remapper - An easy to use tool to change the mapping of your input device buttons

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180418

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|ASSIGNED




-- 
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=2180418
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208964] Review Request: python-flit-core - PEP 517 build backend for packages using Flit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208964



--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok  ---
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flit-core
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names


Note that this is for unretirement. Technically, this now exists as EPEL-only
package and I want to introduce it in Fedora.



> python3-flit-core.noarch: W: no-documentation

See the comment in the spec.


-- 
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=2208964
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208964] Review Request: python-flit-core - PEP 517 build backend for packages using Flit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208964

Fedora Review Service  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

URL||https://flit.pypa.io/



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service  
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5941031
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2208964-python-flit-core/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05941031-python-flit-core/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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=2208964
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208964] New: Review Request: python-flit-core - PEP 517 build backend for packages using Flit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208964

Bug ID: 2208964
   Summary: Review Request: python-flit-core - PEP 517 build
backend for packages using Flit
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mhron...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/churchyard/rpms/python-flit/raw/0620186a502085e2f7b833921297a9a4ddf1fb7b/f/python-flit-core.spec
SRPM URL:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8668/101438668/python-flit-core-3.8.0-3.fc39.src.rpm

See also https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flit/pull-request/28

Description:
This provides a PEP 517 build backend for packages using Flit.
The only public interface is the API specified by PEP 517,
at flit_core.buildapi.

Fedora Account System Username: churchyard


-- 
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=2208964
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2180418] Review Request: input-remapper - An easy to use tool to change the mapping of your input device buttons

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180418



--- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
To clarify this part:
> Oh, I didn't look at the file contents. It has 'disable 
> input-remapper.service',
> so this has no effect; 'disable' is the default. Please just drop this file.
Earlier I wrote:
> You can open a ticket or pull request to add the service to presets in 
> fedora-release.

I assumed without looking that you want the service to be enabled upon
installation.
But you want it to be disabled, so please disregard this: there is no need to
do anything
special about presets, and the the default scriptlet you already have does the
right thing.


-- 
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=2180418
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue